Category: Ethical Dilemma

There are many type of viruses that enter one’s system through internet surfing. Mostly worms and Trojan horses are considered the key viruses which are quite popular. We will start out by first defining the key terms and then talk about the moral issues associated with them.

Defining the Key Terms

Worms and Trojan horses are malicious computer programs whose aim is to damage one’s computer or network. They also seek to steal an individual’s personal information. Ferbrache (2012) defines a worm as a standalone program that usually replicates itself in order to spread to other computers sharing a network. A worm does not need a host file; rather, it gains access into a computer by exploiting available vulnerabilities or tricking a user to execute it. Once a worm is executed, it uses the information transport system to spread to other computers in the network. Worms cause damage to one’s computer and interfere with its normal operation. It can also make numerous copies of itself and email itself to addresses on one’s contact list. On the other hand, a Trojan horse is a program that conceals its real purpose. Trojans disguise themselves as useful programs. Unlike worms, Trojan horses are non-replicating and spread due to user action. Malicious virus creators use Trojan horses to deceive people into installing viruses. They are usually sent as email attachments; they can also be downloaded from the internet.

In the next section, Help in Homework tries to explain whether release of worm/Trojan horse even for good condition is not justifiable. We will go over this section one by one for both moral thought of schools.

Is One’s release of a worm morally justifiable according to Kantian ethics

Here, we take Kantian ethical approach and try to discuss whether it will be justifiable to release a worm if its meant for good intentions. According to Kantian ethics One’s release of the worm is morally wrong. According to Kantian ethics, the morality of an action is determined by the motive behind it and not the consequences. In this respect, even if one intended good with his action, the mere fact the release of a worm is wrong makes the whole action morally wrong according to Kantian ethics. The worth of a motive is realized by analyzing whether the motive of the action can be applied in a universal maxim. This is based on the assumption that the reason remains the same at all times across different people. This means that morality should be universal. Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, an action is considered moral only when it embodies a maxim that can be turned into a universal law. One’s action cannot be accepted universally, which makes his actions morally unjustifiable despite of how positive the end-result would have been. Kantian ethics are duty-based and pose that people should always strive to do what is right, as it is the right thing to do. In addition, people should avoid doing wrong things because they are wrong. Thus, under this kind of ethics, one cannot justify his/her actions by claiming that they produced good consequences (some actions are right or wrong in themselves irrespective of their end-result). In this regard, Kantian ethics is termed as non-consequentialist. As such, one’s action was wrong because someone who follows Kantian ethics should always do the right thing even when it leads to more harm.

Is one’s release of a worm would be morally justifiable according to Utilitarian ethics

Unlike Kantian ethics, Utilitarian ethics is consequentialistic. This means that utilitarianism does not give emphasis on the motives behind an action but it looks at the result of an action. Therefore, according to a report by Assignment Help, an action is morally right if it leads to more good results than bad. In the case of release of worm, to determine whether his actions were justifiable, one needs to analyze whether his actions to release the worm did more good than bad. In this analysis, his motive to see how many computers would be infected is irrelevant. Due to the damages the worm caused, it can be said that his actions were unethical. However, it can also be argued that his actions were ethical. One can argue that his actions made many people realize that internet could be used to cause harm. This made them pay more attention on developing better internet security systems which is a good thing.

To analyze whether his actions were wrong, one has to weigh the damages caused against benefits realized by alerting people of the dangers of the internet. In my opinion, I think his actions were morally justifiable as they helped create more awareness on the need to improve internet security. His actions could have prevented a more damaging virus release by another person.

Throughout this course, we’ve learned extensively about the issues that have historically plagued this country, and how these issues disproportionately affect communities of color. In addition, we’ve discussed many issues pertaining to the mistreatment of people of color, including the war on drugs, police brutality, and the prison industrial complex. America is a country that unfortunately isn’t too far removed from its roots. With a history of slavery, genocide, and institutionalized racism, it’s easy to think that we’ve progressed a great deal since this nation’s origin. America disguises it’s wrongdoings behind the guise of patriotism, protecting our borders, and removing criminals from the streets. The corruptness within this country is embedded within the politicians, judges, and government officials, whose power often goes unchecked.

These ideas of injustice are explored in ‘The Dilemma of Racial Profiling’ by Micol Seigel. Through Seigel, she discusses the relevant history of violent policing and racial profiling within the United States’ legal system. Seigel also highlights how concepts of British Colonialism and post-slavery policing have shown to be incorporated into our nation’s contemporary model of policing. Overall, Seigel’s realizes there is a huge misconception surrounding racial profiling; that since it highlights the overt racism in the police force and crook justice device, it ought to serve as a win for activists all around. However, Seigel’s argument explains the relationship between divisive issues inside the United States—that the notion of racial profiling is a Trojan horse; by recognizing the root of these problems, we can potentially make strides closer to solving the bigger problem at hand. This paper is meant to analyze racial profiling in all its seriousness—since it has proven to result in disproportionate arrests, unfair treatment at the hands of law enforcement officials, and in a few extreme instances—death.

Racial disparities in our criminal justice system are stemmed from a history of racial prejudice and injustices. Slavery in America was justified by the notion of a racial hierarchy, that black people were inferior to white people, and in turn, benefited from slave ownership that dominated most of the southern states. The villainization that has been assigned to people of color since America’s historical lynchings and prior has presently affected minority communities in terms of law enforcement—more specifically, police brutality. Assessing the criminalization of black and brown individuals and how they’re more likely to carry the presumption of guilt has been the main philosophy behind the Black Lives Matter movement, along with many others. The idea of “shoot first, ask questions later”, has been demonstrated by law enforcement for decades, and studies show that police officers are more likely to carry out stop and frisk searches or detain men of color based solely on their intuition, and judgment, or lack thereof for that matter.

Seigel begins her analysis of this topic by discussing cases in New Jersey that exemplify instances of racial profiling at the hands of the police. In 1995m New Jersey state troopers were proven to be fulfilling racist practices throughout state police checkpoints. These officers were found to have been unfairly stopping Black and Hispanic drivers, at a higher rate than their white counterparts. Eventually, a judge ruled that the police officers were stopping drivers solely based on the assumption of guilt; as a result, all incriminating proof accumulated in the course of those habitual stops had to be dismissed. After this event, eradicating racial profiling became sponsored by way of presidential parties, and the general public opinion started out to shift. Seigel writes, “press insurance marked the passage of the term into the public sphere, where it becomes printed without rationalization as though obvious and familiar to all. The public question shifted from whether racial profiling befell or no longer to whether it was justified and how to end it” (475).

Another instance occurred when police shot an unarmed Guanian immigrant over 40 times on his building doorstep. Siegel writes “one month later and unconnected, or as a substitute best indirectly connected to Diallo’s murder, New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman conceded that her troopers singled out Black and Hispanic drivers” (775). With both of these incidents in mind, it begins to demonstrate a clear pattern of police abusing their power. Not only did this bring about loss of life for someone like Amadou Diallo, but the lack of repercussions and consequences for these police officers sets a precedent that overlooks their actions, and enables them to keep killing unprovoked.

To add on, Siegel’s biggest critique of racial profiling is the term itself suggests that there’s room for improvement and that racism may be all-around eliminated from policing itself, by way diversity and inclusion training; many believe that racism within these practices may be eliminated with a variety of training or education—whilst that is surely not the case. Seigel opposes this and rather suggests racial profiling is something so ingrained into everyday policing, that rather than us assuming a variety of training will repair it; we must understand the systems within our government that uphold these practices of unequal treatment and injustice under the law.

Furthermore, the fourteenth amendment is the amendment that promises equal protection under the law, and states that all individuals are “innocent until proven guilty”. However, for most communities of color, they are not awarded the presumption of innocence that white Americans are. Equal Justice Initiative points out the correlation between law enforcement and the justice system, “Implicit biases have been shown to affect policing—marking young men of color for frequent stops, searches, and violence…leading to higher rates of childhood suspension, expulsion, and arrest at school; a greater likelihood of being denied bail and diversion; an increased risk of wrongful convictions and unfair sentences”(1). People of color should be offered and promised the same amount of protection and certainty underneath the law. The same law that promises the opportunity to thrive and achieve the “American Dream” as everyone else is. Racial profiling isn’t about playing the victim, it’s about society being unable to view people of color as victims of the systems themselves.

In conclusion, with our system built upon principles of racism, and discrimination, as Siegel suggests, it’s essential that we unveil the historical precedents that enable these practices today. Mass incarceration, unfair treatment by police, and a system that awards officers, rather than punishes them, are all results of an unjust system, characterizing the American experience for people of color. Racial disparities have plagued this country since its founding, and the legal system specifically has a history of disproportionately viewing communities of color as an afterthought, or unequal. Minorities should be promised the same opportunities as everyone else, but that cannot occur until we look deeply at our history and how to change the past that continues to haunt us.

Works Cited

1. Seigel, Micol. “The Dilemma of ‘Racial Profiling’: an Abolitionist Police History.” Taylor & Francis, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10282580.2017.1383773.
2. “Presumption of Guilt.” Equal Justice Initiative, 13 May 2019, eji.org/.

Shades of grey do not exist in all situations despite the laws dictating what is considered wrong or right. That results in the emergence of ethical dilemmas that are resolved through ethics, morals, and regulations that become the background for guiding a person’s actions. Notably, an individual’s actions are guided by personal judgment. Among the issues result in an ethical dilemma is the potential use of the government-run automated facial recognition systems on citizens. The ethical dilemma is due to the argument against and for the use of the system. Thus, this essay assesses how the ethical dilemma can be resolved after considering the normative ethics of consequentialism, deontology, and virtuism, along with the IET code of conduct and their values and BCS code of professional ethics.

According to Devlin (2019), the potential use of the government-run automated facial recognition systems on citizens has resulted in an ethical dilemma, with some people advocating for their use while others oppose them. Those advocating for the use of the technology claim that is essential in curbing the increasing crime rate. Others opposing its use claim that there lack laws guiding its use intrudes individual’s privacy, and not be a comprehensive technology as perceived. There are legal questions since facial data is collected without the consent of an individual. Although the technology has been adopted in economies like China, critics claim that its use results in the emergence of a police state.

In the UK, it has been rebuked by the biometrics commissioner who claims that the camera used in facial recognition is being used to police over the citizens who are mainly involved in the BREXIT political and economic debate. A false positive on persons of interest is also a concern that makes facial recognition a waste of public resources by the government. Nonetheless, facial recognition applications has aided in the identification of terrorists in airports and the recognition of missing children in India. Another concern is who benefits from the information stored through facial recognition application, and who polices over them?

The normative ethics tries to respond to the question, what should one do faced with an ethical dilemma? Hence, consequentialism is normative ethics that pay attention to the outcome of an action to the people and the world at large. Thus, an effort is considered wrong or right, depending on the result. A good action is one that benefits the majority as postulated by Juan Stuart Mill that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as the tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Ramsay, 2005, p. 102).

In the case consequentialists, the outcome of the use of facial recognition will benefit the large population through aiding in the identification of people of interest like the case of identification of the murderer in Rio carnival who had disguised himself as a woman (Delvin, 2019). The application has also played a critical role in the identification of missing children in India and eventual reuniting them with their parents. Hence, despite the errors attributed to the application, it has an overall positive impact on the general population in regards to security. Since security is a primary concern in all countries, the results of identification of the persons of interest made it an ideal application that will benefit masses through enhanced security.

The deontological ethics were developed by Immanuel Kant and are the opposite of the consequentialists. Deontologists focus on the action being undertaken rather than the outcome, like the case of consequentialists (Kant, 2018). Hence, deontologists focus on installing of the facial recognition devices is right or wrong. Thus from a deontologist’s point of view, it is wrong to install the applications since they collect data without the consent of a person, which infringes privacy. People ought to be informed to have consent when their personal information is being collected. Hence, deontologists oppose the use of the facial recognition systems on citizens by the government.

Aristotle developed the virtue ethics that focuses on happiness. Hence, one’s action should concentrate on personal happiness without considering the effect on others. Virtue refers to a trait within an individual that enables the person to function well. Hence virtuism requires one to act in such a way that the person will be happy irrespective of the effect on others. In this case, the use of the facial recognition system becomes relevant if one is faced with a security issue. The security issue may force an individual to recommend the installation of the system since that will make the person happy by having a perception of improved security. However, in case there are no security threats, the person may not require the installation of the system.

The British Computer Society (BCS) and the Code of Conduct require the members to adhere to the standards that have been established in the information and technology industry. The BCS establishes the ethics, standards, and social issues governing IT professionals. According to The Chartered Institute for IT (n.d.), in the 21st century, security and privacy issues are critical issues in the IT industry. Information needs to be protect after being collected with the consent of the individual. In this case, the facial recognition systems in the city, shopping malls, and other public places are against the standards established by the BCS code of conduct. Therefore, the BCS point of view, the systems should not be installed to monitor the public.

In the case of the IET code of conduct and values, the members of the professional body do not allow its members to engage in activities beyond the scope of their professionalism. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome of the facial recognition system, the engineer’s code of conduct does not empower them to engage in professional tasks that they are not reasonably competent; therefore, the code denies the use of the systems.

Ethical dilemmas affect decisions made by individuals when faced by issues. The moral, ethics and legal frameworks will determine the actions that a person will undertake. Hence, a person’s action may differ from that of the other because the normative ethics differ from one place to another. However, the professional code of ethics does not vary irrespective of the geographical difference.

An ethical dilemma is when the best course of action is unclear, and when there are adequate and compelling moral reasons supporting each position (Keatings, 2020). There have been ethical dilemmas in various areas of topics, the field, biomedical ethics is associated with healthcare ethics and dilemmas. The topic of abortion has and is currently known as an ethical dilemma. The medical definition for abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception; the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta from the uterus (Shiel, 2018). In other words, it’s the termination of pregnancy. Controversies on abortion are either pro-choice or pro-life, I am on the side of pro-choice with supporting women’s rights. I believe women should have the right to have access to abortion services globally without any penalty, they should be entitled to make a decision that would affect their life without societies judgement. The Canadian Justice System supports the rights of abortion to a certain extent. However, I still believe with almost every topic some boundaries cannot be crossed and therefore in some situations, I am against abortions, such as; gender induced abortion, and depending on gestational age.

Abortion has been always been a debate, and many were against it during the civil war and earlier. In Canada, it wasn’t until five decades ago, 1969 that abortion became legal. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau amended the Criminal Code, allowing doctors to perform abortions only in the situation where the pregnancy threatened the health of the mother (Long, 2006) otherwise it was illegal. In 1988, abortions became legal and available for women who met the criteria of gestational age. It was R.V. Morgentaler’s case when he was arguing his case to the Supreme Court. He was the individual who was prosecuted twice for performing abortions unauthorized when abortions were illegal back in the 1970s and 80s. When defending himself the argument was based on the Charter Rights and Freedom, from that the Supreme Court noted that the Criminal Code has been violated, ‘life, liberty, and security of person” Section 7 (Long, 2006). ‘Forcing a woman, by the threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.’ – Chief Justice Brian Dickenson (Long, 2006).

The ethical theory, utilitarianism is a theory that doesn’t have an “absolute principle, moral codes, duties or rules” (Keatings, 2020). It is a theory that believes that the action will have more benefits over consequences. Utilitarian’s belief regarding abortion is, pro-choice. Factors such as financial stability for the mother, health of the mother, health of the fetus, etc. are all considered. In Canada, abortion is legal but places such as the United States of America, certain states it has been banned, amongst other areas in the world. In Canada, a mother has access to funded health care access to take care of her fetus; coverage for an ultrasound, bloodwork, resources, and help. Whereas in other areas, women must pay out of pocket for routine ultrasound and bloodwork. Many women don’t have that financial stability to cover themselves financially, it makes them question how will they be able to support a child? On that note, in many countries, it’s not required to give ‘maternity leave’ so they are forced to work and care for their child if they cannot afford to take time off to care for their child. Furthermore, in third world countries, there are a lot of labour jobs, in which the environment is not suitable for a newborn and can cause many health problems for the child. Looking back to Chief Justice Brian Dickenson’s quote saying that women forced into having a child is a violation of her security of the person, supports what can happen to the mother’s health. A utilitarian believes a mother’s mental and physical health is very important to consider. A woman who is forced to have a child can overtime become resentful towards the child and it becomes a negative pregnancy experience. Disorders such as PTSD can play a role if the mother was sexually abused, having her predator’s child can be alarming and that can be a contributing factor to her mental health. Other health factors like, the mother’s life is at risk due to the pregnancy and if not terminated mother’s life is at risk is also highly supported by a utilitarian. Furthermore, not all pregnancies result in a healthy baby. There are situations where the fetus is at risk such as Trisomy 18, usually babies that are born, they don’t survive after 15 days, and therefore, women choose to terminate the pregnancy because of the chance of the fetus to pass the neonate stage is highly unlikely. A utilitarian considers these points because the benefits outweigh the consequences.

The ethical theory Deontology believes that right and wrong are based on an individual’s obligation and duty (Keatings, 2020). “Philosopher Immanuel Kant is best known for the rule-based deontology theory” (Keatings, 2020). He believes that humanity should always know what is right. Many deontologists would consider themselves religious because religion has a structure and anything that goes against it is considered wrong or morally incorrect. Christianity believes that ‘every human and implicitly each product of human conception have the right to life unconditionally’ (Stefan, 2013). Meaning that no human has the right to take another life, and deontologists believe a pregnancy equals life, taking one’s life is, therefore, a sin. A deontologist doesn’t look at the gray areas, they only see a situation black and white.

Ethical principles are in a position to structure the rules that guide moral conduct and aid in decision making. The autonomy principle means an individual is free to make decisions about their health if they are competent and capable. Having abortion not accessible to women goes against this principle. If a woman can barely provide for herself, or if she has gotten pregnant by means that weren’t in her control; sexual abuse, her right to having an abortion has interfered. Another principle that is being challenged is nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence is a principle that follows ‘do no harm’. In situations harm can’t be avoided, choose the option that has the least harm, similarly to the idea of the utilitarian theory. Pro-life individuals would say abortion would be ‘doing harm’ because the fetus is alive. Pro-choice would say, going through with abortion would be beneficial because the woman has rights to her life, liberty, and security. Both principles are being challenged on the topic of abortion.

The act of abortion isn’t always deemed as ethically correct. There are situations where abortion should not take place, such as in certain cultures having a girl is not acceptable and families would choose a boy over a girl. In that situation, they would abort the baby because of gender. Unfortunately, these abortions are common in India and China. In their culture, having a boy means they can take over family businesses, provide for the family because a women’s role in the family is still viewed as looking over the household in many areas in those countries. Another act would be having an abortion after the fetus is well developed and can feel pain. The period from 23-25 weeks is when a fetus’ nerve endings have fully matured and the fetus feels pain (Derbyshire, 2006). In Canada, doctors cannot perform abortion services on the fetus if the gestational age is 20 weeks. Of course, there are situations such as the baby having disorders such as Trisomy 18, where if found after the 25 weeks may be necessary to resort to abortion because the life of the fetus wouldn’t likely pass the neonate stage of life.

In conclusion, I support being pro-choice in the defence that women are entitled to make decisions that they deem is the best course of action for their life. If abortion is taken place because the mother isn’t mentally or physically capable or if the fetus is in any harm after birth (Trisomy 18) it should be legal and ethically correct otherwise. The Canadian Justice System protects women in Canada who need an abortion and other countries in the world should also understand that, taking the right from an individual who is in a unintended situation does not mean they should be forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, especially if they were sexually abused and that is how they are in situation, to begin with.

References

1. Derbyshire, S. W. G. (2006, April 15). Can fetuses feel pain? Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/.
2. Jr, W. C. S. (2018, December 4). Definition of Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091.
3. Long, Linda. (2006, February 6). Abortion in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion.
4. Keatings, M., & Adams, P. (2020). Ethical & legal issues in Canadian nursing (4th ed.). Toronto, ON: Elsevier.
5. panelIonuţŞtefanab, A. links open overlay, IonuţŞtefanab, a, b, & AbstractThe most important general and theoretical horizons regarding bioethics. (2014, October 5). Arguments for and Against Abortion in Terms of Teleological and Deontological Theories. Retrieved from https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1877042814050149?token=574F45C72A4C29230E5 B4D5A1F3A904EFE707728DA3683BEB21F592AD8D3303D8ACB4B07C0D1B06196458C34DCDB0 BEB.

Ethical dilemmas are in our everyday lives and affect society whether someone has a christian worldview or not. Some dilemmas that are in effect in today’s society are the following: Pornography, Abortion, Performance Enhancing Drugs, Religious Tolerance, etc. A case study with a man named Tj comes to the picture, his ethical dilemma being addiction to pornography. He believes he is in no way of harming anyone while in the act of masturbating and secretly enjoying pornography behind closed doors. He then finds out the dark truth behind the porn industry and how most women are forced on this act. Tj now questions his actions: should he continue this life style? or should he change his behavior? He will now analyze with his his values, and core beliefs.

Ethical Dilemma

The act of viewing pornography in today’s world is now being somewhat “normalized”. However, it shall not be. This scenario is quite difficult to make an ethical decision because it may seem as if you are not harming anyone when committing this act, however you are viewing porn actors and some are going against their will and in human trafficking. It may also be challenging for TJ because he has developed an addiction of masturbating and to watching porn. In order for Tj to break this cycle of addiction, he should reflect on his actions and seek God for guidance. A therapist or an addiction councilor may also help and change his behavior.

Core Beliefs

In a Christian worldview it is unlawful to view a woman and to have sexual desires for her if it is not your spouse. For example Matthew 5:28 says… “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (ESV). The bible answers this ethical dilemma by saying that viewing a woman with sexual thoughts can lead to wrongful actions and taking advantage of that woman. In God’s eyes we are perfect and shall use our bodies in a clean way, however taking in this action, Tj is using his body for his own desires and temptations. In the bible God also says that anyone who is sexually immoral will not reside in God’s Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11). Therefore, if Tj quits his disruptive behavior he shall find goodness in his heart (JW.org).

Resolution

This act can be resolved in the Christian worldview by looking at the bible and having a deep understanding of God and how He can fix this ethical dilemma. First, TJ must admit to his sin and ask for forgiveness in his actions. He should be completely transparent to God and admit what he has is wrong. In a christian worldview and in the bible it is said to confess your sins… “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (James 5:16). A Christian blogger by the name of Jack Wellman says, “that confessing to other believers and then praying for now another can heal us.” Although addiction may cause isolation, there is still hope. You can have everlasting freedom by finding God and asking for help. It will bring peace into your everyday life. (Butcher,2015).

Evaluation

The unintended consequences for resolving this ethical dilemma is having to fight the urge to act on sexual desires. Jesus said when discussing about sin, “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members that that your whole body go into hell” (Matthew 5:30). Jesus did not mean this literally but to take away an temptation to sin in order to live everlasting life. A benefit when overcoming this ethical dilemma is finding peace within yourself and having a more better perspective on self love. If TJ were to overcome his addiction he will successful be able to control his urges and sexual desires. Overcoming addiction will bring purity and integrity.

Comparison

Many Christians struggle with addiction in pornography, luckily they have a God they can look up to and find a solution. A question may arise, How can an atheist find a solution to this ethical dilemma? The Christian worldview has its morals and 10 commandments to follow when in their walk of life. The atheism worldview does not, it is more on the individual’s morals and understandings. An atheist can overcome addiction by finding some sort of support system and maybe even a recovery program. There are many support groups that can fit in an atheist’ worldview that does not focus on spiritual solution. SMART Recovery provides a 4-step plan to fighting a pornography addiction that is not religious based. 1.Building and Maintaining motivation 2. Coping with urges 3. Managing thoughts, feelings and behaviors 4. Living a balanced life. (Haden, 2019). These 4 steps can help fight a pornography addiction in an atheism worldview.

Conclusion

Struggling with an ethical dilemma such as an addiction to pornography and masturbation can affect an individual’s life, but understanding that you have a problem is the first step to recovery. TJ’s ethical dilemma may seem as if there is no way out, however if he looks up to God and confesses his sin, he will find peace and an everlasting life. Other worldview such as atheism, have a recovery plan that can help an individual with the same ethical dilemma. Everyone struggles with some sort of sin and everyone has a different journey to recovery. “Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress” (Psalm 107:6) TJ should seek help from the Lord and ask for freedom from his trouble.

Defining Ethical Communication

Ethical Communication can be defined as the action that results from making daily decisions as they coincide with not only the policies and procedures set forth by the industry, but also the decisions made in the workplace that conflict with personal morals and values. Some of these decisions are quite easy to make, however some decisions prove to be difficult when they test the boundaries of integrity. Although the federal crop insurance industry deals with their fair share of ethical communication, ethical communication extends to a much broader scope where most corporations stress the importance of high ethical standards (Crane, 2019).

Identifying Ethical Dilemmas

The federal crop insurance industry poses continuous ethical dilemmas that cover a wide scope of issues. The top three key areas of concern relate to the sharing of personally identifiable information, questionable customer requests, and dishonesty that leads to fraud, waste or abuse. Essentially, an ethical dilemma is making the determination if something is right or wrong. The weight of this falls on the employee, who is hired to meet the expectations of their industry, and to follow all required policies to ensure ethical practices are followed (Markel & Selber, 2018).

The crop insurance industry is primarily a self-certification program where the farmer provides the necessary information to establish an insurance policy or contract. An example of a frequent dilemma is potential fraud. An employee of a crop insurance agency may suspect that a farmer is participating in some type of illegal activity such as falsifying documents, or inflating production numbers (Ackerman, 2014). The ethical quandary that comes forth is whether to ask the farmer if he or she is being honest and if there is supporting documentation to back up the reported information. On one side, this is a self-certification program and the farmer is not required to turn in any documentation unless it is requested by the managing general agent. On the other side, the employee suspects wrongdoing and could ask for the documentation if they desire. What is the right thing to do? One option is to accept the reported information and not ask any additional questions, and the other option is to question the reported information and ask for verification before it can be submitted.

Engaging in Ethical Communication

There may not be any clear direction as to how to respond to an ethical dilemma. Sometimes it might seem that no one way is better than the other. It is important to understand all the risks associated with the situation in order to have complete understanding of the impacts (Cring, 2018). A practical way to engage in ethical communication is to explain both sides of the issue. Another way to engage in ethical communication is to look for help from a more experienced employee, such as a manager. A safe option to start the process of ethical decision making is to work through the issues and choose the path that seems logical and feels right. This will provide a sense of direction to move forward with the resulting actions.

In this article on the ethics of self-driving cars, the author explains the moral issues and effects of self-driving cars. When creating a self-driving car, the programmer has control over the car to make moral decisions when the car faces a collision. The passenger of the self-driving car has no control over how the car responds to accidents; they must depend on the car and its programmers. The programmer’s control whose lives are prioritized when they decide who should live and die in a self-driving car collision. Of course, in many cases, the programmer has the unique ability to predict the accident beforehand and drive the car in a way that prevents the accident from happening. However, in certain cases, it might not be possible.

In such disastrous situations, the only option is to implement a priority rank level. The programmers can program specifically differentiate who to save or not save in a collision by making targeting mechanisms. That leads to programming the self-driving car to hit or avoid whomever they want and prioritize lives in scenarios when a collision can’t be avoided. After the car is programmed, no one has any control over what the car does even though the driver would be held responsible. Another option is based on consideration of the party who has done the wrongdoing, which ultimately led to the accident. That particular party/car could be penalized with more damaged caused while the innocent party/car could be saved. In the end, regulations are meant to be implemented with regard to these consequences.

The programmers try to decide who not to kill to satisfy the ethics of utilitarianism and provide the most good for the most people. They make ethical decisions on how cars respond to different scenarios and choose to save those who are most important for a society based on things like gender, social status, and age. For example, there is an ethical question if, say, a car is programmed to decide between protecting the driver (an 80-year-old with a terminal disease) and a passenger (a 16-year-old healthy adolescent). Choosing whom to protect between these two people is difficult enough, but especially when we add in the fact that a robot is deciding. Self-driving cars also incur ethical issues when drunk drivers who otherwise would be prosecuted for their wrongdoings on the road may be protected due to self-driving cars. Further examples are texting and driving self-driving cars eliminates the ones that are put on drivers to be fully alert. Self-driving cars interfere with the fate of unethical activities on the road. The technology promotes dangerous multi-tasking because driver’s fate is no longer just up to them. In this article, we can see the moral effects and consequences of self-driving cars on our society.

The virtue approach to ethics states that virtues such as responsibility help us to live up to our highest potential. In relation to the virtue of responsibility, is the technology behind self-driving cars consistent with responsibility? If self-driving cars discourage responsibility, then they dissolve that virtue. When self-driving cars are created, the programmers should be held responsible for their work and the decisions self-driving cars make. They must be honest about what they are working on. Based on the virtue approach, the programmers must ask themselves what kind of people they will become if they create these targeting strategies for self-driving cars?

From the common good approach, everything in the community should work towards the welfare of everyone. From this viewpoint, self-driving cars have an advantage because it has already been programmed, it’s easy to manipulate, and most tasks are done by the car. On the other hand, if a self-driving car is not well-programmed or isn’t being controlled, it could go out of the passenger’s control if something happens suddenly. The passenger is not equipped with the knowledge to take control of the vehicle if something unexpected happens. Additionally, our actions must also consider other drivers. If self-driving car technology is further propagated, then that will lead others to act inappropriately and without responsibility as well. People will become careless if self-driving cars become common because they won’t pay attention to what they’re doing because everything is controlled by the car. Thus, self-driving cars are not good for the community according to the common good approach because other people would become less responsible drivers.

Considering the benefits is essential when it comes to the discussion of moral dilemmas of self-driving cars. It has been known since the early stages. Autonomous vehicles can also streamline businesses. Meals on wheels? Try everything on wheels. Self-driving technology could lead to cheaper ride sharing. As we know, driving is big money. That means a radically reshaped economy, especially for people whose livelihood depends on driving, find themselves without work. It is shown that the cost of ride-sharing could drop so much that it becomes more cost-effective to join a sharing service than own a car outright.

In conclusion, Autonomous vehicles open up driving to more people. While some see driving as a liberating activity, it is not the same for everyone. The laws require drivers to have a valid driver license and self-driving technology could merge into other vehicles as well.

When evaluating the different ethical approaches to evaluate a particular action or decision it is important to note the different approaches to ethical considerations. From the utilitarian approach, which is a phrase is ‘the ends justify the means’, the action to allow surveillance is purely judged by the outcome of the action of surveillance. For example, if we are taking a situation in which an individual’s house is robbed and the criminal was brought to justice using video surveillance then from the utilitarian approach, we can conclude that the surveillance is ethical.

When evaluating the issue of video surveillance from the perspective of the rights approach, which states that what is most ethical is what provides humans with the basic ‘rights’ or dignities that they deserve. Take the previous example of the criminal breaking into the house and evaluate it through the rights approach. When we were referring to the utilitarian approach it seemed to be obvious that the ‘ends justified the means’ but when we look at it through the rights approach this isn’t necessarily the case. We must consider what impacts the surveillance has regardless of the outcome. Is it ethical if it can see our neighbors house? Is it ethical to keep the cameras always running? Even if it is for safety from the rights approach, we cannot consider this to be ethical if we take away the rights of other people in the process. For example, in this case, potential rights of privacy and private property.

However, ethical surveillance could be very well performed using modern scientific methods, which has the ability to find appropriate subjects. Artificial Intelligence incorporated on home security can make a huge difference. It makes possible to be selective in the monitoring process. In addition, the methods can detect abnormal incidence and abnormal behaviors of the subjects in order to reveal a comprehensive output. However, implanting this selective surveillance would answer the ethical dilemmas of the utilization of home security cameras.

When evaluating this issue from the fairness or justice approach our focus of the argument is ‘are all people in this situation being treated equally?’ In the running example of the home invasion that we have been working with how does the fairness or justice approach influence our decision on ethics? Well on one hand, if we bring the criminal to justice and he is held responsible for his actions then we are bringing justice into society using tools at our disposal to protect our private property. On the other hand, if other people who are not breaking the law, for example, a neighbor who is in sight of the camera and by proximity is always being surveyed, it may not be justified since they may not be aware of the camera and therefore have their personal privacy infringed upon.

As it can clearly be seen through these three perspectives on ethics evaluating one situation there are many considerations to be taken into mind. Privacy and ethics are a debate that goes back far into history and with advances in technology like doorbell cameras it affects our lives more and more with each new technology. There are many pros and cons to privacy and today, we must consider both before arriving at an ethical conclusion.

From a positive aspect, the inclusion of home cameras allows individuals to protect their private property and to have access to knowledge on what occurs in their home regardless of their presence. This is a clear example of a promotion of the human rights of life, liberty, and property. By allowing these cameras it enables an individual to have power over their personal property and the choices they take to protect it. There are also positive aspects regarding the upholding of the law, by allowing these cameras to be present it allows individuals to get compensation for damages to their personal property.

From a negative perspective, home security cameras can pose a lot of issues. These issues can be summarized as an invasion of privacy, potential to be hacked, and a collection of massive data by corporations. First, if these cameras are used in such a way as to reduce others right to privacy and property, for example, if a camera faces a neighbor’s house and they have no say, then that is a huge infringement on their privacy. Also, home cameras have the potential to be hacked by parties that would use this information for wrong doing. In such a situation who is held responsible? Is the company in the wrong to produce a product that is hacked and used against the wellbeing of the consumer? Finally, where does this information all go? Are companies such as Facebook and Google held accountable for the content of the security footage? What happens with this data after it leaves the homes of consumers? If people are unaware of the consequences, such as large organizations collecting data on them through these cameras for profit, is this a breach of security and privacy. These are all things to consider when evaluating the ethics of home security cameras.

The simple manifestation of an outdoor camera can prevent offenders. However, it is tremendously hazardous malfunctioning cameras since experienced criminals can easily identify them. Thieves will definitely analyze a home before they act on a mission. In this stage, if they spot cameras installed by the surveillance system, they will most likely abort the mission. In addition, if you are the victim of a burglary, the cameras will record the incident and help lead to the capture of the criminal and hopeful return of your stolen goods. Security cameras are not limited to the protection of a home.

In conclusion, the advancement of home protection in accordance with advances in technology is at an all-time high. The ability to protect personal property and have a sense of security is a hallmark of these advancements. Yet as humans who live in a society with other individuals, we have an ethical responsibility to consider the pros and the cons of these advancements. While there is a great opportunity, there is also great cause for caution. To use a cliché that sums up the social responsibility we have in consideration with home cameras, ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’

Imagine, if you were able to go on a botanical expedition to South America, something that has been a lifelong dream. Now, imagine ending up in the square in this very small town while on this expedition, and realizing you have just been confronted by your worst nightmare. In front of you stands twenty natives, bound and tied to a wall, all terrified, pleading for their lives. After speaking to a captain and explaining that you were not a part of this group of natives that have supposedly defied their government by protesting, you are given the choice of whether or not to carry out an act that you never thought imaginable to show others in the town what can happen if they choose to protest. You are given two options: kill one native and the others will go free or kill none of them. However, if you choose not to kill one of them, Pedro, the captains right hand man, will kill all twenty of the natives. Williams tells us in his story, “The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept” (104). This is the ethical dilemma that Jim has stumbled upon. In this paper, I will present Jim’s ethical dilemma from the theories posed in Utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotle Virtue ethical standpoints and discuss which ethical theory would be the best decision for Jim.

We will first begin by looking at Jim’s case through the Utilitarian theory. The Utilitarian theory, proposed by John Stuart Mill tells us that the outcome of our actions determines whether something is right or wrong. Mills states, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (86). In other words, if something you do gives you happiness, the action is right, and if something you do gives you pain, then the action is wrong. Let’s take a look at this from Jim’s point of view, and the decision he faces. Jim has been given only two options, either kill one native and the others go free, or do not kill any and Pedro will kill them all. Suppose that Jim were to choose to kill one native and the others will go free, this option would lead to the best consequences, as it would bring him happiness that the other natives were able to go free, but it would bring him pain because he would know that he would be taking the life of another human being. Mill tells us that, “According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments…” (88). Now suppose that, by Jim not killing anyone, and Pedro killing all of the natives, this would bring Jim pain that all of the natives were killed, but would also bring him happiness because Jim would not be the one that killed anyone else. Since the option of killing only one native which would set the others free leads to the best outcome, from the Utilitarian standpoint this would be the best option because the freedom of the other 19 natives is happiness above losing the one, which would cause pain.

Another viewpoint we can look at is that of the Kantian theory. The Kantian theory tells us that whether an action is right or wrong does not depend on the consequences, but whether they fulfill our obligation to duty. This theory is also known as Deontological ethics, which is a duty to act. Kant tells us of two imperatives that an action can fall under. These are known as hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Kant describes, “If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical” (80). From these two descriptions we can deduce that both of Jim’s options fall into these categories. If Jim chooses to take the life of one native for the sake of the other natives being set free, this would be considered a hypothetical imperative. If, however, Jim was to choose the second option of not taking the life of the one native and Pedro killing all of them, this would be considered a categorical imperative. Kant states, “For when one has conceived man only as subject to a law (no matter what), then this law required some interest, either by way of attraction or constraint, since it did not originate as a law from his own will, but this will was according to a law obliged by something else to act in a certain manner” (83). Since Jim is not obligated by law or duty to commit the killing of the native for the sake of the others, under the Kantian theory, he would most likely choose not to kill the native, and by choosing this option, all the natives would be killed by Pedro.

The last theory I will examine for the choice Jim has to make is Aristotle’s Virtue theory. According to Stovall, Aristotle defined human virtue as, “the possession of those character traits whose expression foster a life of rational activity, embodying the function peculiar to being human” (46). For the sake of acting rationally, according to the story, Jim takes into consideration, and thinks out a plan, whether taking the captain, Pedro, and the rest of the captain’s men, is a feasible option. He realized that this option will not work, and could possibly cause death for himself and everyone around him, and is still faced with only the two options given to him by the captain. Aristotle tells us, “The function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principal, and the function of a good man is the good and noble performance of these in accordance with the appropriate virtue or excellence…” (65). Using this theory, Jim will more than likely not commit the act of violence toward the one native, or anyone, leaving the only option for Pedro to kill all of the natives, which will undoubtedly cause Jim pain.

In Jim’s case it is very hard to tell what the right decision would be. I believe that Jim would follow a more Utilitarian approach in making his decision, because this would cause the most happiness for him in the end. By only killing the one native, the others are allowed to be free from harm to live out their lives in their community with their families. If he were to chose the other theories to follow, such as Kantian or Aristotle’s Virtue theories, and allow Pedro to take the lives of all of the natives, I believe this would weigh very heavy on his conscience because of all of the lives that were taken away from the families of the natives. Decisions like these are not to be taken lightly and require much thought to the actions and consequences that may arise from the actions you take. It is easy to think about and assume what one might do in a situation like this, but until you are faced with that situation, you never know.

References

1. Aristotle. (2017). On the Good Life. In C. Martin, W. Vaught, & R. Solomon, Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 64-68). Oxford University Press.
2. Kant, I. (2017). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. In C. Martin, W. Vaught, & R. Solomon, Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 76-83). Oxford University Press.
3. Mill, J. S. (2017). Utilitarianism. In C. Martin, V. W., & R. Solomon, Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 84-89). Oxford University Press.
4. Stovall, P. (2017). Professional Virtue, Professional Self-Awareness, and Engineering Ethics. In C. Martin, W. Vaught, & R. Solomon, Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 45-54). Oxford University Press.
5. Williams, B. (2017). George, Jim, and Utilitarianism. In C. Martin, W. Vaught, & R. Solomon, Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 103-104). Oxford University Press.

Philosophy vs. Ethical Dilemmas

Introduction

The Dictionary defines ethics as “a moral philosophy or a code of morals practiced by a person or a group of people, but how can ethics be described within Philosophy? Well, philosophical ethics is the analysis of morals using a logical method that focuses on human welfare. Within philosophy, there are three sections of ethics: normative ethics, meta-ethics, and applied ethics. Normative ethics is the study of moral expectation that has us distinguish our behaviors as right from wrong or good from bad. Meta-ethics is based upon the meaning of our ethical perceptions, those of which are responsible for the honesty and rationality of said actions. Metaethics can be used to establish whether a judgment can be applied to any circumstance ranging from any current to past time. Metaethics can be used within situations by asking questions such as what necessarily is the meaning of ethical terms, what are our motives for wanting to act moral, and what is the essence of ethical reasoning. Finally, the third section to ethics is applied ethics, that of which the use of moral philosophy can be applied to real-world circumstances, already explored by normative ethics and judged through the knowledge of metaethics. Within this report, I will be examining two different ethical dilemmas and how three philosophers, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and Peter Singer, would react to each, as well as how I would base upon what I have learned throughout my Ethics unit.

Ethical Dilemma One

The first ethical dilemma that these philosophers and I were faced with was on the subject of mass murder. The dilemma goes: To end world hunger, the idea of putting all those that live on land not able to support agricultural growth to death was purposed as a solution to ending world hunger. Bringing up a world without starvation would be considered realistic after those who were suffering would be put down humanely, all while ending their life of misery.

Immanuel Kant’s Stance

Kant released three books that recorded his views on moral philosophy: “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals” (1785), “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), and “Metaphysics of Morals’ (1797). Within these works, it is shown that Kant believed morals and ethics were chosen by moral law which we all need to follow. Moral law states that humanity must be respected before we respect ourselves and there is no consideration or exceptions when thinking of how to act upon a situation ethically sound. Kant believed that morals should be objective, as we follow the rules along with everyone else and there is no justification for not obeying them. This made it our duty to follow moral law which is why he is considered a Deontologist. Kant wanted us to follow rules that were based upon being unconditionally good, not only good. We have beneficial resources that can be considered good but can also be used for evil such as power or wealth, even saying happiness is not unconditionally good unless it is deserved. Since Kant believed in Deontology, although the action has the intention of benefiting the world, the characteristics of the action itself is immoral. Ultimately, he would want a new solution proposed. Since this solution involves a genocide of people, it has the possibility of actually being ethically worse than leaving them to starve. Ultimately, murder is wrong so this would not oblige to his stance on moral theory.

Jeremy Bentham’s Stance

Bentham wrote about his views on Utilitarianism in his book Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), in which he often called moral philosophy “the greatest happiness principle”. This principle that was being referenced did not mean how helpful something or someone’s actions could be but instead how much they were able to assist in creating pleasure. To further explain, we are ethically obligated to make judgments that create happiness for the masses, not for a specific person, even if we do not agree. He states that happiness can be shown through the absence of pain which is how we need to make judgments, it has to be based on the outcome of pleasure to the largest group of people. Bentham recognized that if pleasure equals good then good depends on who the perspective is coming from. The solution to this was making sure that the interest of each party was known, this allowed people to view things subjectively, and decisions are not to be made for others but with others. He writes that ethical philosophy is ‘the art of directing men’s action to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness, on the part of those whose interest is in view.’ With this, I concluded that he would be split on because this proposition since he did not believe that the characteristics of action should outweigh the outcome, as long as it provides the majority affected with a positive view. I would have to say that Bentham would not support this only because I believe this example would be promoted by a member of Egoism, a person who pursues interests with possibly morally corrupt ethics but for the benefit of themselves even if it hurts others, and not Utilitarianism. This example would hurt as many people as it would benefit and the controversy surrounding it would cause a rift between opposing sides which ultimately is not what Utilitarianism is about because there is no sure factor that the majority, in this case, would be pleased more than furious.

Peter Singer’s Stance

Peter Singer is also a known supporter of Utilitarianism and I do not believe he would support this specific situation but for a different reason than Jeremy Bentham. My reasoning behind this is that he believes that right vs. wrong is distinguished by how much it is providing happiness vs. pain, but mainly because he has discussed famine before in the article ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972). In this piece, Singer answered a question about whether those in wealthier countries have a larger responsibility to provide support to famine relief. Singer states “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.” This leads Singer to question if the pain that is being prevented by someone’s contribution would outweigh the pain given through someone’s contribution. This makes me believe he would not agree with this proposal since yes, it is taking away a lot of pain from those suffering and the burden of those who support them, but the heartache given to those who had no say and are negatively impacted would top that. Singer also had an opinion on duty vs. charity, what one has to do versus what one feels they should do. This causes me to believe that Singer would also rather help those who are suffering than get rid of them completely, my reason being that any action becomes a duty if it is going to prevent more pain than it causes or causes more happiness than it is preventing. Ultimately, this makes it our duty to help rather than feeling as if we should help, or in this circumstance, find a way to avoid helping altogether and take an easier way out.

Jannelle Graham’s Stance

If it were myself who had to decide on this ethical dilemma I could not support it. My reasoning behind this being is although I can see the ‘benefits’ of this, I can only see it benefiting those who were privileged enough to be born into the life they were and can see how upsetting this could be as well as the outcomes that could result. Utilitarianism would accept this for the fact that there are positives to this, but I see the positives as an easy way out to a problem that can be solved differently, the morals that are involved do not suit me as a person. For example, those who are opposed to murder but support the death penalty can, but mass murder is hardly justifiable and the backlash it would receive would be extreme. Those who are more privileged could say that this is subjective but I would consider this more as objective as the tragedy from this would be wrong no matter what the reasoning is behind it. Social relativism would highly be influencing people as well instead of having people base their opinions off their own beliefs on the matter. In this circumstance, I believe that morality should be a top priority but that is hard when you are under the influence of other people’s beliefs and not your own.

Ethical Dilemma Two

The second ethical dilemma that is being looked into involves a personal experience that I face regularly while examining this I have carefully chosen how I believe these Kant, Bentham, and Singer would react. The situation is that I am a server, oftentimes I need to upsell food through promotions. Regularly I have not eaten these items but am described what it ‘should’ taste like. If I do not get a certain amount of sales on our food promotions I get in trouble, if I sell above what I need to then there is an incentive which is often 100$. I have on many occasions had to lie and give a positive review to customers so they purchase these meals when they are not good, or state they are amazing when I have not yet had them. I can be honest and gain the respect of a customer while losing my sales, ultimately losing the restaurant brand’s money with the possibility of getting fired. My second option is to lie with the possibility of having a guest be unhappy with what they ordered, all while gaining an incentive and pleasing those above me and staying employed.

Immanuel Kant’s Stance

I believe this quote from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals gives a clear answer on his opinion within this situation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Kant would not support this as there is a possibility of someone being negatively affected by my actions, even if the customer was content with the meal, my actions and reasoning were technically immoral as I was not focused on how they would feel and instead my happiness. Though the outcome could be positive, the grounds on which they came from were not unconditionally good.

Jeremy Bentham’s Stance

I have chosen to take another quote from Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation that says the ‘principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.’ Within this quote, he emphasizes that by not following through with an action that would maximize the happiness of most people is morally unsound. I believe that Jeremy Bentham would support this as my actions are inducing happiness and are not meant to hurt the other party involved on purpose. Though this would positively impact me mostly, it would also provide a positive outcome for the majority involved and by not pursuing this action, I would be ethically wrong as I disappointed more people than I had made happy.

Peter Singer’s Stance

I believe that Peter Singer would support me, not only because he supports Utilitarianism, but because this specific situation is not to the extremes of ethics that he is involved with like that of animal rights, environmentalism, etc. Other than that, he can distinguish it as the right action instead of the wrong action since no matter what the outcome of the situation is, my side would be benefited more than the opposing side would be upset. Utilitarianism is outcome-oriented and it could even be considered a “duty” to support me as I am on the side that will be pleasing more people.

Jannelle Graham’s Stance

To me, this is subjective, as a waitress I support it as it is a part of my job and what I have to do to keep it, but as a customer in this situation, I would be extremely unhappy. After learning of Utilitarianism and Deontology, I am more on the side of Utilitarianism which makes this situation easier to morally defend. Utilitarianism is outcome orientated as I learned, in this situation, I would be letting down one to two people at a time but benefitting myself by getting to keep my job after reaching sales goes my management and my restaurant owners. Though my tips may be affected by this, I could still leave work with the possibility of an incentive at the end of the month for my upselling! In this specific case, I would say that I am a part of egoistic relativism as I am choosing what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I would ultimately have to consider myself as ‘right’ by the end of my shift as technically no morals are being broken because I have already established my actions with ethical theories, not just because of narcissism or lack of justification.

Conclusion

After examining two different ethical dilemmas and the possible reactions of three philosophers, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and Peter Singer, as well as myself, I have been able to provide informative yet relevant reasoning to each scenario. I was able to do this based on what I have learned throughout my Ethics unit.

It is not ethical to deny a person an organ transplant if they are a current smoker. The risks do not outweigh the benefits. Although available organs for transplant are scarce, a person who smokes should not be denied a life-saving procedure. The intent of this paper is to provide ethical reasoning, which is in favor of providing organ transplants for people who smoke. According to Butts and Rich (2020), “An ethical dilemma is a situation in which an individual is compelled to choose between two actions that will affect the welfare of a sentient being and both actions are reasonably justified as being good, or the goodness of the actions is uncertain. One action must be chosen, thereby generating a quandary for the person or group who is burdened with the choice” (p. 46).

Transplant teams are often left having to deny people in need of an organ transplant due to their smoking addiction. Denying care based on addiction is an unethical outcome, which affects a patient’s quality of life. Beauchamp and Childress (2019) share a set of actions, which are the basis for an autonomous decision by the patient. It involves a patient who acts intentionally, with understanding, and without any outside influence. When considering an organ transplant for a smoker, the physician must provide education on smoking cessation and the possible outcome of the transplant for a patient who fails to quit smoking. This provides the patient with the knowledge needed to decide on this procedure. Although a patient may fail to stop smoking, it is still the responsibility of the physician to provide a way for the patient to obtain an organ transplant. The American Medical Association (2003) states a physician must commit to relieving suffering and prolonging life. If the rights and duties of the physician and the patient conflict, a patient’s interests should take precedence. A patient in need of an organ transplant should be the priority of the physician, regardless of the patient’s lifestyle choices. When a patient decides to continue their smoking habit, the physician is obligated to respect their wishes and provide any treatment necessary to enhance their quality of life.

When a physician discriminates against a patient who smokes, they demonstrate a lack of respect for the patient’s autonomy. According to Senderovich (2016) “What many do not realize is that physicians are not legally allowed to pose ultimatums for their patients who do not refrain from smoking, since their patient has the human right to autonomy” (p.5). Denying a patient an organ transplant directly violates a patient’s right to autonomy. Discrimination based on addiction has no place in health care. It penalizes a patient based on a social characteristic, which is against a physician’s code of ethics. According to Springer (2013) “The World Health Organization states: “donated organs should be made available to patients on the basis of need and not on the basis of financial or other considerations” Thus discrimination based on behavior is not considered a factor of allocation” (p. 6). When a health care organization chooses not to hold a smoking addiction against a patient, it allows the patient to receive a high standard of care. If a patient wishes to be an organ recipient, this decision should be respected based on nonmaleficence.

Beauchamp and Childress (2013) state “Nonmaleficence requires intentional avoidance of actions that cause harm” (p. 152). When a physician denies an organ transplant because of smoking history, they are intentionally causing harm to a patient. For example, a person in need of a lung transplant experiences many symptoms which decrease their quality of life. They would experience respiratory or ventilatory failure, which may lead to hypercarbia, hypoventilation, and hypoxemia. High levels of carbon dioxide cause acidemia, and acidemia leads to lethargy, drowsiness, coma, and death. These symptoms of a patient’s disease significantly inhibit a patient from having a decent quality of life. If a physician makes the decision to withhold an organ transplant to a patient in a circumstance such as this, they are failing to display nonmaleficence and harming their patient. Nonmaleficence is critical for a physician to display in their character. In order to display nonmaleficence, a physician must be willing to do no harm to their patient.

The outcome of smoking before a surgical procedure differs between patients. According to a study regarding thoracic surgery by Barrera et al. (2005), there is no difference in pulmonary complications between patients who are currently smoking and those who recently quit smoking cigarettes leading up to a surgical procedure. Due to a lack of differences between current and past smokers, it is unethical to deny a patient an organ transplant based on their smoking history. It is the right of the patient for autonomy regarding their medical decisions; therefore, if it is the patient’s desire to be a transplant recipient, they should receive one.

There are several people in this situation who could be directly affected by the outcome. Patients who continue smoking are most at risk to face a smoking-related complication post-transplant surgery. According to Bottorff, Seaton, and Lamont (2015), there is an increased risk of infection, delayed healing, prolonged intubations, and morbidity. It is the responsibility of the physician to disclose and discuss any possible outcomes following an organ transplant, but it is not their responsibility to decide whether they are worthy of receiving an organ due to their addiction to nicotine. For this reason, the medical institution and its staff are also stakeholders. This includes physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers, and case managers.

According to the Mayo Clinic Staff (2019), one of the factors that affect a person’s ability to be an organ transplant recipient is if they can not stop smoking. This is an issue because if a person can not stop smoking, they may not be able to keep their donated organ healthy. The policies vary, but in general, most patients must abstain from smoking for at least 6 months leading up to an organ transplant.

If a patient is competent and of legal age, it is always their right to receive the type of medical care they desire. It is an ethical dilemma when a physician starts to deny medical treatment based on an addiction to nicotine. Denial of an organ transplant to current and former smokers is discrimination. This type of discrimination has no place in health care. A person in need of an organ transplant is on the list because they will die without one. When a physician decides a person doesn’t deserve to live because of a specific behavioral characteristic, it goes against the belief that a physician should do no harm.