Category: Moral Dilemma

The Major Moral Dilemma in the Film

Boomerang (1947) has been seen as a significant work by a talented director Elia Kazan. Though the film has rarely been regarded as a masterpiece in terms of cinematography, it can be seen as a very significant artwork addressing really important moral dilemmas.

It goes without saying that the major dilemma of the film is the one States Attorney Henry Harvey, the protagonist of the film, has to face. Harvey has to decide whether he should put a man behind the bars to satisfy peoples aspirations, or whether he should seek for truth even if this can contradict desires of many. In fact, this dilemma has been considered by many philosophers.

Kant and Hume suggested their own perspectives on the issue. The two perspectives differ significantly and it is rather hard to say which one best addresses the issue. Interestingly, the case revealed in the film shows limitations to the two perspectives which seem to be rather narrow to fit real life settings.

Humean Perspective

David Hume had a specific view on ethical issues. The philosopher claimed that peoples actions were motivated by emotions and reason. At that, according to Hume emotions play the exclusive role in peoples decision making. Hume argued that reason often had to step aside, as emotions tended to overweighed (Saurette 45). It is possible to consider Humes major perspectives on ethical issues in terms of the film.

Harvey, as well as all officials of the town, finds himself under a great pressure as one of the most deserving people of the town is murdered. When police find a suspect, the entire town feel relief. Citizens of the town do not care much about facts as they are overwhelmed by emotions (rage, dissatisfaction, sorrow, etc.) Politicians and even police officials also seem to pursue their personal agendas.

Besides, they are also guided by emotions rather than reason. As far as Harvey is concerned, the man starts his work on the affair and he yields to the atmosphere which reigns in the town. It is very important to remember about the tense atmosphere while considering Harveys choices and decisions.

However, soon the attorney has to address the moral dilemma, basing on his own ethical views rather than following certain trends. Thus, Harvey understands that the suspect is innocent and the attorney has to make a particular decision. The man decides to prove the innocence of the man. It can be rather difficult to understand what does make the man make the decision. According to Humean perspective, Harvey is guided by his emotions. In fact, this assumption is rather plausible.

The man feels his responsibility and he cannot allow that an innocent man could be found guilty. It is doubtful that Harvey uses his rationality only. The mans emotions play a very important role in his decision making. First, he cannot remain neutral as the entire town is overwhelmed by emotions. Secondly, when Harvey finds facts that prove the suspects innocence, the attorney decides to fulfill his duty.

However, it is impossible to claim that his decision is based on common sense and reasoning only. His desire to fulfill his duty can also be explained by the fact that he wishes to do the right thing which will make him feel satisfied. Basically, Harveys decision can be explained by his desire to clear his conscience. Admittedly, such notion as conscience cannot be regarded as a product of pure reason. This notion rather pertains to the sphere of emotions.

Kantian Perspective

However, there is another view point on ethical issues. Thus, according to Kant people should recognize practical reason in the form of the moral law (Saurette 44). Kantian perspective on morality is confined to the assumption that people should act in accordance with universal laws. Kants universal laws are based on the principle of the universal good. In other words, Kant argues that there are two ways to conduct.

People can pursue their own needs or they can do the right thing to establish the proper order in the world. Kant argued that it is inappropriate to assume that peoples decisions have anything to do with emotions as people only rely on rationality to make any decisions. More so, Kant stresses that people should use the universal laws while making decisions.

Kant criticizes Humes assumptions concerning ethical conduct. Kant argues that Hume understands morality as conditionally grounded and thus subject to frequent revisions if those conditions change (Saurette 44). However, Kant stresses imperative nature of morality. He claims that moral laws cannot be influenced by any circumstances.

As far as Harvey is concerned, it is possible to claim that the man follows the universal laws as he makes what is right. Basically, Harvey follows Kantian principles. The attorney does not try to pursue his own interests but he knows that people cannot be charged with the crime they have not committed.

According to Kant Harvey comes to his decision while reasoning. He considers all possible outcomes of his decision and decides to conduct rightfully. Seemingly, Harveys decision is not affected by any external or internal factors (like emotions, conventions, etc.).

Conclusion

On balance, the case highlighted in the film Boomerang can be analyzed in terms of two perspectives. Thus, when analyzing the case in terms of Humean perspective, it is possible to assume that Harvey solves his dilemma relying on emotions rather than on reason.

Thus, Harvey is guided by his emotions when making his decision. However, if to take into account Kantian perspective it is possible to find another explanation. Harveys decision can be seen as an example of the rightful conduct. Thus, Harvey relies on facts and his moral principles. Basically, Kantian imperative approach can be regarded as plausible as well.

However, it is also possible to claim that Harveys case shows that the two perspectives are rather narrow and cannot be fully applicable. It is possible to assume that the two perspectives are two extremes which remain purely theoretical. At the same time, the two perspectives can be applicable to real life settings when combined.

Admittedly, Harvey makes the right decision and follows universal rules. However, it is impossible to ignore emotions and conventions that played a significant role in the process of his decision making. Thus, the attorney does the right thing because he knows it is right and because he feels he cannot do the wrong thing as it will make him miserable. Therefore, the moral dilemma revealed in the film suggests that the two perspectives combined can help to understand peoples actions.

Works Cited

Saurette, Paul. The Kantian Imperative: Humiliation, Common Sense, Politics, Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2005. Print.

Introduction

The issue of moral dilemmas is one of the most fundamental philosophical discussions that provide curious insights into a wide array of ethical questions. In general, moral dilemmas emerge when an individual faces highly complicated situations concerning ethics. One such notable example would be the trolley case when a certain person judges whether five people would die, or the individual might switch the lever sacrificing the life of only one person. Concerning this dilemma, various philosophical perspectives assume different courses of action. For instance, the utilitarian approach states that the individual must switch the lever due to the Greatest Happiness Principle (DeNicola 241). However, some people would not be satisfied with the specified details of the assignment and demand more information regarding the situation. This approach is titled particularism, and, in the current essay, I attempt to justify this principle in the context of moral dilemmas and demonstrate how this perspective expands the ethical understanding of the subject.

Background of Particularism

As mentioned briefly before, particularism generally refers to the moral principle that rejects abstraction and demands specific details before drawing the conclusion regarding the situation. Therefore, to coherently explain the principle, it is necessary to refer to explicit situations. Elaborating on the trolley case, a moral dilemma that decides whether five people or one person should survive the event with the uncontrolled vehicle, followers of particularism would require specific details. In its original form, the trolley case concerns the five workers located on the track that would be inevitably killed unless the individual in control switches the lever. In that case, the runaway trolley would be forced to move along another path that would end in the impending demise of only one person. These two conditions are the only details provided in the moral dilemma, and some of the prominent philosophical perspectives can decide the course of action based only on this information. Nevertheless, for the followers of particularism, it deems impossible to judge whether they should switch the lever or not without further elaboration.

In such a situation, it is necessary to know the background of the people in danger, their aspirations, objectives, and how they might possibly contribute to the development of society or benefit the individual. This information is required to expand the moral understanding of the situation and determines the eventual choice of the person. Therefore, in its nature, particularism is not a perspective that guides the moral judgment of the individual in certain directions but rather provides him or her necessary information for the decision. While this ethical principle received the title of particularism relatively not long ago, the fundamentals of the perspective come from ancient times. Aristotle has stated, it is not easy to give a rule for how far and in what way a man may stray before deserves blame, for the decision depends on the particular circumstances (DeNicola 242). Therefore, particularism is a prominent theory that has been supported by various scholars throughout the history of philosophy.

Different Perspectives and Discussion

In the philosophical discussion, one should protect his or her perspective by providing arguments for the supporting moral principles and objections to the opposing theories. In its nature, particularism conflicts with a wide array of ethical frameworks that might generally be referred to as generalism or generalist philosophy (DeNicola 242). This perspective operates transcendent moral principles and does not regard the specifics of the situation. In other words, in most cases, a generalist does not care about the particular circumstances and decides the course of action based on internal motives. Naturally, there are various moral principles united under the title of generalism and some of them might indirectly support the idea of particularism. Nevertheless, other ideas directly contradict the concept of particularism, and it is essential to elaborate on them to further expand the comprehension of the analyzed perspective.

Opposed to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the prominent philosophical theories that undeviatingly conflict with particularism. This perspective utilizes moral principles as a force for improvement and proposes that an individual must seek the greatest good in all possible situations (DeNicola 106). At the present time, this approach is considered the primary principle of utilitarianism, and if one is able to produce the best consequences for the maximum number, the act is called optimific (DeNicola 106). Therefore, in the trolley case, the person who firmly believes in utilitarian principles must switch the lever to achieve a better outcome, which is the death of one worker instead of five. In this case, the decision of the individual is optimific and is the only sensible course of action; any other judgments would be fundamentally morally wrong. Furthermore, according to the initial form of utilitarianism, all good action ultimately seeks happiness (DeNicola 115). Therefore, the happiness of five people is more significant than the happiness of one person. From these considerations, the utilitarian framework stands in contrast to particularism that cannot assess the best moral outcome without additional information on the background of the workers.

Since the objective of this paper is to justify the concept of particularism in the highly complex context of philosophy with no established rights or wrongs, I believe it is essential to present personal opinion. In my perspective, the utilitarian framework and generalism approach are utopian models that might successfully act as a moral compass but do not endure the realities of the world. While they might be utilized to resolve moral dilemmas such as the trolley case, it is much more complicated to implement them in objective reality. Moreover, the situations in the real world are further complicated by the concept of moral sensitivity, that is the acknowledgment of morally relevant things (DeNicola 241). It implies that, in objective reality, one is not presented with specific and clarified details as it is often the case for moral dilemmas. Therefore, it is not possible to apply moral principles to the situation since most details might be unknown to the individual. I believe it is a more realistic perspective on ethics, and particularism works especially well to expand the moral understanding in such cases.

Similarities with Relativism

As mentioned briefly before, particularism conflicts with a wide array of philosophical theories in its understanding of morality. Nevertheless, one might find particularism comparable to other adjacent philosophical theories, such as relativism. Relativism has different forms but generally implies that it is impossible to utilize certain moral principles in every situation due to the vast diversity in human perception (DeNicola 42). The theory acknowledges the element of uncertainty and is comparable to particularism in that aspect. Therefore, both models recognize that there should not be one particular moral code that might act as the answer to all problems. Nevertheless, there are a few key differences between the two theories. In my understanding, particularism does not necessarily reject the universality of moral principles but rather states that one always needs more details concerning the situation. After additional information is provided, it becomes possible to make an ethical decision. In that aspect, particularism slightly differs from relativism that does not accept a single moral code regardless of circumstances.

Personally, I find the concepts of particularism and relativism reasonable and applicable in most situations that might be encountered in objective reality. Contrary to the ideas of generalists, I perceive these two frameworks as logical and adaptable to the realities of the world. Such flexibility allows an individual to consider all the pros and cons before making a decision and not be restricted by a certain moral code. I believe that the nature of the world is chaotic; therefore, it is essential to act according to the situation and not the universal ethical principles.

Conclusion

Summing up, the current essay discusses the primary principles and background of particularism and compares the framework to opposing theories on the example of the trolley case. Personally, I favor this philosophical model and consider that it is essential to take specific circumstances of the situation into account in most cases. The generalist ideas concerning the imperative aspect of moral principles seem utopian to me while not reflecting the sensibilities of the world. Furthermore, while the primary objective of such frameworks, for instance, the utilitarian Greatest Happiness principle, is admirable, it deems unachievable if we are to consider the vast diversity of human personalities and aspirations. Therefore, the model of particularism, that one should first assess the situation and act accordingly, resonates especially well with me. While I do not state that this principle should become the norm in the philosophical tradition of morality and ethics, I find it reasonable and justifiable.

Work Cited

DeNicola, Daniel. Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Broadview Press, 2018.

Escape from Spiderhead is a short story by one of the recognized masters of short fiction, George Saunders. It is also noteworthy that the short story was published in The New Yorker in 2010 (Saunders para. 1). The author created the plot for Escape from the Spiders Head where he describes a managed pharmacological space where researchers have developed the ability to control the desires and feelings of other persons. Accordingly, Sanderss short story encourages readers to reflect on the themes of freedom of choice and determinism. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a literary analysis of the short story in order to establish the moral dilemma of Escape from Spiderhead.

George Saunders explores many topics in Escape from Spiderhead, but the most interesting and counterintuitive is the theme of human nature. In a short story, the author tries to respond to the question of what it means to be human. For example, Jeff is witnessing Heather fight a dose of Darkenfloxx. Then, there is a dialogue about how all people are worthy of love, and Verlaine replies, I believe feelings are common among all people (Saunders 7). Therefore, the author introduces the concept that in spite of all human vices, people deserve love; accordingly, they are good by nature. Thus, the theme of the story traces the definition of the nature of people and love and suggests that all humans, independent of their circumstances, have a choice in a moral dilemma.

Similarly, this theme is raised again at the end of the short story when Jeff strives to save Rachel by sacrificing himself. With this, the author tries to demonstrate that even a murderer has feelings of love and compassion and can save another person, who is also not perfect, at the cost of that persons own life (Saunders 110). This once again confirms the idea that peoples shortcomings are insignificant and do not affect their nature and ability to make independent choices. Moreover, characters like Abnesti and Verline are considered good people, but they inject drugs that kill others (Saunders 54). This contrast between the personages further emphasizes the unspecified blurred concept of good and evil.

It is important to note that the story is narrated in the first person, which proves the authors attempt to express the opinions and desires of the protagonist. The writing style of Escape from Spiderhead is distinguished by a large number of images in order to demonstrate the true natural essence of the characters, not just their approved characterization. For example, after Jeff has been injected with a drug, it is possible to understand his true nature; the hero observes the images and comments on them as follows: Birds were singing. Birds were, it occurred to me to say, enacting a frantic celebration of the days end (Saunders 187). The authors style of writing aims to demonstrate the true thoughts of the characters and illustrate their essence, which does not always correspond to the established image, which causes a moral dilemma.

Nevertheless, the mood of the story is oppressive because the setting reflects only the control and, therefore, the suppression of their true nature through the drugs they inject. However, it is precisely this insistence and tone of Escape from Spiderhead that enables the protagonists to conduct an internal struggle and resolve a moral dilemma. Therefore, the author creates an oppressive atmosphere of lack of choice and control over their own lives in order to help the characters find their essence and change their lives (Saunders 87). This is also expressed in the environment and atmosphere, which has dark tones and conveys the characteristics of the person in real life as opposed to their imagination after drug use. This can be observed when Jeff sees calm scenes about birds after using preparations, while in real life, he is described as a killer. Consequently, it once again emphasizes the variability of the characters natures and their choices in the moral dilemma of freedom of will and the essence of people.

The author of Escape from Spiders Head deploys two primary methods in the writing of the story. The first is language and wordplay; for example, the author reflects Jeffs joy when the hero is on the Verbulace wave (Saunders 65). This also applies to specific words that immediately attract attention and interest the audience, such as drug names. The second technique Saunders uses is asking the readers to make the same choice Jeff is forced to make. The author does this by means of a long narrative about the positive and negative sides of the characters, including Jeff (Saunders 133). Thus, the methods chosen by the author demonstrate the non-standard world in which the characters live, manifesting itself in wordplay. Furthermore, the authors analysis of the different sides of the personages permits the audience to understand their moral dilemmas and their fears of freedom and control.

Hence, the author successfully invented the theme, style, and literary devices in Escape from Spiderhead to make readers interested in understanding the essence and moods of the characters. Consequently, they fully understand the choices made by the characters and their thoughts on moral dilemmas. Therefore, Escape from Spiderhead demonstrates that people always have the right to choose and are essentially good in their nature, regardless of the characteristics they receive from society.

Work Cited

Saunders, George. Escape from Spiderhead. The New Yorker, Web.

Introduction

The ethical dilemmas to be analyzed can best be resolved by striking a balance between what is the right thing to do and what is good. In these two cases, the right solutions will depend on the ability to merge a number of factors that affect the overall outcomes.

Case studies

In the first case of the copywriter who finds out that disclaimer information has been removed from the advertisement, the action I would take would be to continue with the advertisement but have proof of the fact that the missing disclaimer information was removed by the marketing director. On the other hand, what I should do is to refuse to instate those changes and to take the matter to the chemical company through the marketing manager’s boss.

These actions are quite different from one another because the first alternative takes into consideration the consequences of the action rather than the means needed to achieve them (Shockley-Zalabak & Pamela, 2009). In this regard, choosing to counteract the actions of the marketing director could cause a loss of the account. It is likely that my firm may be more interesting in retaining business rather than meeting some ethical obligations.

Therefore, in order to avoid losing my job, I would let the copy proceed and then find a way of protecting myself if the issue created negative consequences to the public. This would cause the least harm to the said parties. On the other hand, the other alternative of refusing to pass the copies and confronting the marketing director’s boss should be the right thing to do.

In this ethical dilemma the copywriter is confronted with the challenge of choosing between doing the right thing and doing the good one. Most teleologists and human beings tend to focus on the results i.e. on the good rather than the right. However, the highest standard of morality will usually result when a person has decided to engage in a rightful act that produces good consequences.

When this is not possible, then one must forgo the good consequences in order to do the right thing. If the disclaimer information causes the public substantial problems in their health then the consequences would be dire. Even if the public health issue may not crop up in this case, it would in the future and hence lead to diminished business by the chemical company as well as poor health; the consequences of doing nothing about the issues are clearly more than they are for doing something about them.

Conversely, going silent on the issue is likely to lead to loss of business and maybe even the job of the copywriter. The immediacy and surety of these consequences is what truly necessitated the first option. However, morally right actions sometimes need to sacrifice short term interests of long term ones hence the second option (Shockley-Zalabak & Pamela, 2009).

If I was the consultant who was a specialist in the training programs I would not comply with the president’s requirements. I would inform him of my concerns about the secrecy of his request and the unethical nature of this demand. This course of action is also what one should do. The risks and damages that lie in accepting that conditionality are too high compared to the benefits of not doing so.

The president has stated that the matter should be confidential and that if personnel knew then they would object. This admission by the president is a sign that the President is not immune from accountability and that his actions should also be agreeable to other parties. The consultant will therefore have the support of other parties and his chances of keeping the job are quite high even after choosing to oppose the President’s directives.

Furthermore, the training business would suffer less if the consultant concentrated on actual training rather than giving reports on the most talented people in the programs to the president. The realistic nature of these consequences therefore makes rejection of the President’s request a plausible option.

On the other hand, the ethical reasons involved in this scenario also favor the same course of action. First, if other companies come to realize that the consultant business participates in shortcuts during recruitment then this would tarnish the image of the business. The consultant has a duty to his company which means that he must engage in actions that would heighten the well being of his organization rather than tarnish its image.

He needs to look at the greater good and let go of momentary satisfaction which would be to maintain business with the building products manufacturer. The long term benefits of this business easily outweigh the complications the short term business that is being brought by this building products manufacturer.

As stated earlier, the best moral actions are those ones that follow the right means and lead to the best consequences (Shockley-Zalabak & Pamela, 2009.). In this case, the manner in which the contract clause is to be executed signifies some of the problems that can emanate from it. The president wanted the clause to be secret and the reports to be submitted secretly. It shows that he was aware of the wrongs of these actions hence his reason for avoiding personnel in his company.

He was trying to use a shortcut to recruitment instead of performing his role in the right manner as is the case with other people in his industry or in his situation. Even the manner in which he introduced the issue is testimony to how wrong that contract was. He only talked about the secret report and did not write it in the contract. He also mentioned it after talking about the mutually beneficial relationship so the latter seemed like a bribe.

Conclusion

Sometimes the end does not justify the means when these would clash with another then the duty of the agent is to do what is right rather than to focus on the consequences as was the case of the consultant and the copywriter.

Reference

Shockley-Zalabak, Pamela S. (2009.). Fundamentals of organizational communication knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. ISBN: 0536694621

Introduction

The issue of moral dilemmas is one of the most fundamental philosophical discussions that provide curious insights into a wide array of ethical questions. In general, moral dilemmas emerge when an individual faces highly complicated situations concerning ethics. One such notable example would be the “trolley case” when a certain person judges whether five people would die, or the individual might switch the lever sacrificing the life of only one person. Concerning this dilemma, various philosophical perspectives assume different courses of action. For instance, the utilitarian approach states that the individual must switch the lever due to the Greatest Happiness Principle (DeNicola 241). However, some people would not be satisfied with the specified details of the assignment and demand more information regarding the situation. This approach is titled particularism, and, in the current essay, I attempt to justify this principle in the context of moral dilemmas and demonstrate how this perspective expands the ethical understanding of the subject.

Background of Particularism

As mentioned briefly before, particularism generally refers to the moral principle that rejects abstraction and demands specific details before drawing the conclusion regarding the situation. Therefore, to coherently explain the principle, it is necessary to refer to explicit situations. Elaborating on the trolley case, a moral dilemma that decides whether five people or one person should survive the event with the uncontrolled vehicle, followers of particularism would require specific details. In its original form, the trolley case concerns the five workers located on the track that would be inevitably killed unless the individual in control switches the lever. In that case, the runaway trolley would be forced to move along another path that would end in the impending demise of only one person. These two conditions are the only details provided in the moral dilemma, and some of the prominent philosophical perspectives can decide the course of action based only on this information. Nevertheless, for the followers of particularism, it deems impossible to judge whether they should switch the lever or not without further elaboration.

In such a situation, it is necessary to know the background of the people in danger, their aspirations, objectives, and how they might possibly contribute to the development of society or benefit the individual. This information is required to expand the moral understanding of the situation and determines the eventual choice of the person. Therefore, in its nature, particularism is not a perspective that guides the moral judgment of the individual in certain directions but rather provides him or her necessary information for the decision. While this ethical principle received the title of particularism relatively not long ago, the fundamentals of the perspective come from ancient times. Aristotle has stated, “it is not easy to give a rule for how far and in what way a man may stray before deserves blame, for the decision depends on the particular circumstances” (DeNicola 242). Therefore, particularism is a prominent theory that has been supported by various scholars throughout the history of philosophy.

Different Perspectives and Discussion

In the philosophical discussion, one should protect his or her perspective by providing arguments for the supporting moral principles and objections to the opposing theories. In its nature, particularism conflicts with a wide array of ethical frameworks that might generally be referred to as generalism or generalist philosophy (DeNicola 242). This perspective operates transcendent moral principles and does not regard the specifics of the situation. In other words, in most cases, a generalist does not care about the particular circumstances and decides the course of action based on internal motives. Naturally, there are various moral principles united under the title of generalism and some of them might indirectly support the idea of particularism. Nevertheless, other ideas directly contradict the concept of particularism, and it is essential to elaborate on them to further expand the comprehension of the analyzed perspective.

Opposed to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the prominent philosophical theories that undeviatingly conflict with particularism. This perspective utilizes moral principles as a force for improvement and proposes that an individual must seek the greatest good in all possible situations (DeNicola 106). At the present time, this approach is considered the primary principle of utilitarianism, and if one is able to produce the best consequences for the maximum number, the act is called optimific (DeNicola 106). Therefore, in the trolley case, the person who firmly believes in utilitarian principles must switch the lever to achieve a better outcome, which is the death of one worker instead of five. In this case, the decision of the individual is optimific and is the only sensible course of action; any other judgments would be fundamentally morally wrong. Furthermore, according to the initial form of utilitarianism, all good action ultimately seeks happiness (DeNicola 115). Therefore, the happiness of five people is more significant than the happiness of one person. From these considerations, the utilitarian framework stands in contrast to particularism that cannot assess the best moral outcome without additional information on the background of the workers.

Since the objective of this paper is to justify the concept of particularism in the highly complex context of philosophy with no established rights or wrongs, I believe it is essential to present personal opinion. In my perspective, the utilitarian framework and generalism approach are utopian models that might successfully act as a moral compass but do not endure the realities of the world. While they might be utilized to resolve moral dilemmas such as the trolley case, it is much more complicated to implement them in objective reality. Moreover, the situations in the real world are further complicated by the concept of moral sensitivity, that is the acknowledgment of morally relevant things (DeNicola 241). It implies that, in objective reality, one is not presented with specific and clarified details as it is often the case for moral dilemmas. Therefore, it is not possible to apply moral principles to the situation since most details might be unknown to the individual. I believe it is a more realistic perspective on ethics, and particularism works especially well to expand the moral understanding in such cases.

Similarities with Relativism

As mentioned briefly before, particularism conflicts with a wide array of philosophical theories in its understanding of morality. Nevertheless, one might find particularism comparable to other adjacent philosophical theories, such as relativism. Relativism has different forms but generally implies that it is impossible to utilize certain moral principles in every situation due to the vast diversity in human perception (DeNicola 42). The theory acknowledges the element of uncertainty and is comparable to particularism in that aspect. Therefore, both models recognize that there should not be one particular moral code that might act as the answer to all problems. Nevertheless, there are a few key differences between the two theories. In my understanding, particularism does not necessarily reject the universality of moral principles but rather states that one always needs more details concerning the situation. After additional information is provided, it becomes possible to make an ethical decision. In that aspect, particularism slightly differs from relativism that does not accept a single moral code regardless of circumstances.

Personally, I find the concepts of particularism and relativism reasonable and applicable in most situations that might be encountered in objective reality. Contrary to the ideas of generalists, I perceive these two frameworks as logical and adaptable to the realities of the world. Such flexibility allows an individual to consider all the pros and cons before making a decision and not be restricted by a certain moral code. I believe that the nature of the world is chaotic; therefore, it is essential to act according to the situation and not the universal ethical principles.

Conclusion

Summing up, the current essay discusses the primary principles and background of particularism and compares the framework to opposing theories on the example of the trolley case. Personally, I favor this philosophical model and consider that it is essential to take specific circumstances of the situation into account in most cases. The generalist ideas concerning the imperative aspect of moral principles seem utopian to me while not reflecting the sensibilities of the world. Furthermore, while the primary objective of such frameworks, for instance, the utilitarian Greatest Happiness principle, is admirable, it deems unachievable if we are to consider the vast diversity of human personalities and aspirations. Therefore, the model of particularism, that one should first assess the situation and act accordingly, resonates especially well with me. While I do not state that this principle should become the norm in the philosophical tradition of morality and ethics, I find it reasonable and justifiable.

Work Cited

DeNicola, Daniel. Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Broadview Press, 2018.

In Breakdown 1968, the author shows the moral breakdown of Mark. He is travelling with his pregnant wife and son, Hans to Los Angeles where he is planning to look for work. The car breaks down at a remote gas station and he has to get a new alternator. He hitches a ride from a man and two women who are part of a film crew in a hearse. They encourage him to leave his wife and kid and join them to live a better life.

They manage to convince him. He takes up the suggestion and actually abandons his wife and child. He is completely selfish at this time, thinking of himself and accomplishing his dreams. He looks at his family feeling that they are trapping him. He is unable to reach for his dreams.

He wants to join the entertainment industry and make it big. He is not thinking of his family and how they will get out of the remote gas station and go home. While in the car however, he starts feeling guilty and tells them he has to get out and go back to his family. He gets to a parts store when he realizes he does not have enough money. He is forced to call home and ask for help from his parents something he hates.

Mark is unstable and not happy with the life he is living. The film crew offered him what he perceives as a way of escape and he was tempted to take it. He was on the journey of selfishness and abandoning his family but he redeemed himself at the end and came to his senses. The story shows us the moral failure of a man and his self-redemptive actions.

Priest Leo experiences moral failure as Mark in the story of the Missing person. Priest Leo is convinced he is supposed to be a priest and he patiently works in the parish. However after the death of the old priest, he is moved to a parish where things are falling apart. The nuns have lost patience in following the rules of the church. Leo feels lost, moving from parish to parish till he meets Jerry, a man employed by the parish to assist in fundraising.

Jerry causes Leo to change and condone actions that he should not. Jerry raises money through unethical means. He lies that the parish is supporting the disabled, orphans, lepers and even earthquake victims so that they can get financial support. On these meetings with the rich people, Leo refuses to look at them in the eyes as he knows what he is doing is wrong.

Jerry and Leo go to a trip in Vegas where Leo meets a woman called Sandra who he sleeps with going totally against the priest teachings. Before he joined the priesthood, Leo had marveled at the helplessness of love. He had loved someone till he almost did not join the priesthood. This shows that Leo had this inherent weakness for women which he had just suppressed.

At the end of the story, Leo has found himself and is no longer lost or missing. When Sandra is sleeping on the bed and she cries out, Leo tells her it is ok since he is there. He is now at peace with who he is and he is not going anywhere.

The difference between Mark and the Priest is that at the end, Mark refuses to abandon his family. However the Priest does not go back to the parish and the priesthood. Leo has found happiness elsewhere.

“Escape from Spiderhead” is a short story by one of the recognized masters of short fiction, George Saunders. It is also noteworthy that the short story was published in The New Yorker in 2010 (Saunders para. 1). The author created the plot for “Escape from the Spider’s Head” where he describes a managed pharmacological space where researchers have developed the ability to control the desires and feelings of other persons. Accordingly, Sanders’s short story encourages readers to reflect on the themes of freedom of choice and determinism. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a literary analysis of the short story in order to establish the moral dilemma of “Escape from Spiderhead”.

George Saunders explores many topics in “Escape from Spiderhead,” but the most interesting and counterintuitive is the theme of human nature. In a short story, the author tries to respond to the question of what it means to be human. For example, Jeff is witnessing Heather fight a dose of Darkenfloxx. Then, there is a dialogue about how all people are worthy of love, and Verlaine replies, “I believe feelings are common among all people” (Saunders 7). Therefore, the author introduces the concept that in spite of all human vices, people deserve love; accordingly, they are good by nature. Thus, the theme of the story traces the definition of the nature of people and love and suggests that all humans, independent of their circumstances, have a choice in a moral dilemma.

Similarly, this theme is raised again at the end of the short story when Jeff strives to save Rachel by sacrificing himself. With this, the author tries to demonstrate that even a murderer has feelings of love and compassion and can save another person, who is also not perfect, at the cost of that person’s own life (Saunders 110). This once again confirms the idea that people’s shortcomings are insignificant and do not affect their nature and ability to make independent choices. Moreover, characters like Abnesti and Verline are considered good people, but they inject drugs that kill others (Saunders 54). This contrast between the personages further emphasizes the unspecified blurred concept of good and evil.

It is important to note that the story is narrated in the first person, which proves the author’s attempt to express the opinions and desires of the protagonist. The writing style of “Escape from Spiderhead” is distinguished by a large number of images in order to demonstrate the true natural essence of the characters, not just their approved characterization. For example, after Jeff has been injected with a drug, it is possible to understand his true nature; the hero observes the images and comments on them as follows: “Birds were singing. Birds were, it occurred to me to say, enacting a frantic celebration of the day’s end” (Saunders 187). The author’s style of writing aims to demonstrate the true thoughts of the characters and illustrate their essence, which does not always correspond to the established image, which causes a moral dilemma.

Nevertheless, the mood of the story is oppressive because the setting reflects only the control and, therefore, the suppression of their true nature through the drugs they inject. However, it is precisely this insistence and tone of “Escape from Spiderhead” that enables the protagonists to conduct an internal struggle and resolve a moral dilemma. Therefore, the author creates an oppressive atmosphere of lack of choice and control over their own lives in order to help the characters find their essence and change their lives (Saunders 87). This is also expressed in the environment and atmosphere, which has dark tones and conveys the characteristics of the person in real life as opposed to their imagination after drug use. This can be observed when Jeff sees calm scenes about birds after using preparations, while in real life, he is described as a killer. Consequently, it once again emphasizes the variability of the character’s natures and their choices in the moral dilemma of freedom of will and the essence of people.

The author of “Escape from Spider’s Head” deploys two primary methods in the writing of the story. The first is language and wordplay; for example, the author reflects Jeff’s joy when the hero is on the Verbulace wave (Saunders 65). This also applies to specific words that immediately attract attention and interest the audience, such as drug names. The second technique Saunders uses is asking the readers to make the same choice Jeff is forced to make. The author does this by means of a long narrative about the positive and negative sides of the characters, including Jeff (Saunders 133). Thus, the methods chosen by the author demonstrate the non-standard world in which the characters live, manifesting itself in wordplay. Furthermore, the author’s analysis of the different sides of the personages permits the audience to understand their moral dilemmas and their fears of freedom and control.

Hence, the author successfully invented the theme, style, and literary devices in “Escape from Spiderhead” to make readers interested in understanding the essence and moods of the characters. Consequently, they fully understand the choices made by the characters and their thoughts on moral dilemmas. Therefore, “Escape from Spiderhead” demonstrates that people always have the right to choose and are essentially good in their nature, regardless of the characteristics they receive from society.

Work Cited

Saunders, George. “Escape from Spiderhead.” The New Yorker, Web.

The practice of medicine is founded on sound ethical and moral principles. It is the duty of a medical profession to act in the best interest of a patient and their representatives in an effort to preserve life. Medics need to exhibit proper judgment in order to deal with the different forms of a moral dilemmas they experience in the course of duty. It is, therefore, appropriate to engage in medical processes aimed at saving the life of the premature baby.

The interests of the parents are founded on the cultural and societal practices in their area of origin which will eventually make it difficult for the baby to grow and develop in an appropriate manner; in addition, the parents are worried about the likelihood of the society acting in a discriminatory manner as a result of the baby’s condition. There is a need for a physician to incorporate the tenets of justice in his decisions especially in regard to whether it is entirely up to him to make decisions regarding the baby’s life (Gillon, Lloyd 184). Is there a possibility that the authority responsible for making such a decision is the hospital or better still the government?

In this particular case, the interests of the baby are grounded on the law. The type of legislation related to this issue is the right to life and existence, it is worth mentioning that this law assumes universal suffrage thus casting doubt on the desires of the parents to end the life of the premature baby. It is therefore upon relevant institutions and persons to ensure that such legislation is put into practice. A look at the society in which the child will grow up indicates the difficulty likely to be experienced especially in the form of discrimination that will eventually lead to isolation. This calls upon medical personnel and other relevant entities to act in reference to the principles of ethical practice especially justice that makes it mandatory for a physician to act in the interest of the various competing factors in a specific medical setting. There is a need to appreciate the aspect of legality and how it guides the operations of the medical professionals, a violation of such provisions not only places the job of a medical professional at risk but taints the practice of medicine (Veatch, Robert 64).

The foreign government and in this case the United States is partly responsible for any procedure carried out within its boundaries even though it does not affect its citizenry. In analyzing such a condition, it is necessary to look into the laws present in the country in regard to the protection of life; these laws are pro-life. In the event that medical personnel engages in practices that violate the moral values of the society then the effects will assume a definite degree of proportionality to the actions of similar cultures. People from such regions will find it easier to travel to the United States hopeful that their problems will be solved (Gillon, Lloyd 184). One of the principles of ethics in the medical profession requires physicians to always engage in practices that contribute to the development of public health standards in the country. Agreeing to terminate the life of the baby will be a violation of this statute.

The actions of the physician are grounded on the need to act in the best interest of the baby, parents, hospital and the country. It is however difficult to achieve this feat thus making it appropriate to act in reference to the laws stipulated in the constitution and the ethical principles that govern the practice of medicine. The only way in which a physician can contribute to solving future problems is by participating in a legislative process that will alter the current state of affairs. The interests of the county hospital are related to those of the physician, it is appropriate for the medical procedures performed in their facilities to be in line with the stipulated laws and code of ethics for medical personnel (Gillon, Lloyd 185).

In conclusion, the parents need to understand that ending the life of a human being is grounded on law and to a greater extent the choice of an individual however this is only applicable in certain states where assisted suicide is grounded on the law. This makes it the responsibility of a physician to act in accordance with the stipulated laws and principles of ethics thus performing necessary medical procedures to save the life of the baby.

Works cited

Gillon, Lloyd. ‘‘Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. ’’BMJ, 1994 Vol 309:184-185

Veatch, Robert. The patient-physician relation: the patient as partner. Indiana: Indiana University press 1997(1) 63-67. Print.

Is it ethical to kill one villain to save numerous lives of innocent citizens? This is precisely the question that was placed in the movie The Dark Knight by Christopher Nolan. As Batman fights the criminals and injustice in Gotham City, he gets a perfect chance to finally stop the violence by killing Joker in their final battling scene. However, Batman decides not to do it according to his ethical principles. The ethical righteousness of Batman’s principles gets questioned in the movie and reflects the morality of the current societal order. The analysis of the dilemma Batman faces in his decision to fight injustice morally proves his deontological views.

Plot Overview

The movie The Dark Knight is based on the Batman comic book and tells the story of Bruce Wayne, who continues to fight injustice in Gotham City. The film starts with the appearance of Joker and his gang and the bank robbery. Meanwhile, Batman and Harvey Dent work with Lieutenant Gordon on stopping the crimes in the city. Joker intends to kill Batman and causes massive terrorist attacks to undermine him. Starting with the attacks on innocent people’s lives, he then gets to Batman’s close friends. Joker wants to break Batman’s spirits and creates morally tricky situations to make him betray his principles. However, Batman does not fall for Joker’s tricks and has to lose his love Rachel and his friend Harvey. Batman manages to stop Joker with the high cost of his loved ones’ lives, but he does not make vengeance and leaves him alive. In the end, Batman has a final battle with the Two-Face, takes blame for the killings he caused, and disappears to stay on guard of the city as the Dark Knight.

The movie focuses on the faults of the societal order in an exaggerated way. It even references such a real social tragedy of great importance as 9/11. In its essence, Gotham is the embodiment of collapsed social norms at the hands of organized criminal gangs and terrorists. It presents the failure of civil society, the ultimate chaos, and corruption at every level of its structure that Batman aims to rebuild. In the Dark Knight, Batman prevents the destruction of the city by Joker and fights the injustice to revive the moral system.

Ethical Dilemmas

The movie The Dark Knight highlights a wide variety of complex moral and ethical problems. The Joker was the driving force making people question their morals in the terrorist attacks when people on two ferry boats had to decide whether to blow up the other boat. Even Batman himself had to choose to save either his crime-fighting partner Harvey Dent or his love Rachel. These morally challenging situations raise the question of the morals of the main characters and the society itself (Filip et al., 2016). It comes down to the issues of civil rights, vigilantism, the nature of people, and the question of whether or not the end justifies the means (Filip et al., 2016). The last question remains central in the story and creates one of the most significant ethical dilemmas for Batman and viewers in the movie.

The question of whether killing Joker is morally justifiable to save millions of lives, particularly stands in the movie. Joker is a homicidal menace who brings destruction to the whole town in its core. He took thousands of innocent lives, and the collateral damage he brought is immense. From the consequentialist’s point of view, Batman’s decision to keep Joker alive is wrong as numerous lives could be saved, and the social order would be in peace in the long-term perspective (Yogerst, 2017). Batman sacrifices the greater good for his own moral principles and ethics of virtue. He insists that his morality is tied directly to his own actions rather than the consequences. Such thinking is closely aligned with deontology as Batman focuses on the rightness of the actions themselves instead of their consequences (Yogerst, 2017). Batman justifies his actions by the slippery slope argument that once he crosses the border of good and bad and kills somebody, he becomes evil. It is the ground for his ethical position that he follows no matter the situation.

On the other hand, Joker is a clear egoist as he is ready to commit whatever crime to entertain himself. He is a psychopath with evil intentions to kill Batman and do anything to achieve his goal. Joker’s actions and social experiments are designed to create chaos and prove that social morals, values, and beliefs are baseless. These are the signs of extreme egoism that goes into conflict with Batman’s virtue ethics. Such a disagreement leads to a moral conflict between him and Batman, as Batman does not cross the line or get corrupted no matter what Joker causes. The endless cycle of Joker causing mischief, Batman catching him, and Joker breaking out continues because of their moral beliefs. These decisions are questionable but create the characters’ unique system of beliefs that make them exciting to follow.

The moral views of the main characters of the movie present the extremes of what ethical theories suggest. They show us the consequences of different actions according to various ethical views and what it leads the society to. Batman and Joker belong to the different ethical groups of consequentialism and deontology, which causes long-term resistance to prove each other wrong. Overall, such a conflict of views allows the audience to take a critical look at their own values and reflect on the ideas of the society they live in.

References

Filip, I., Saheba, N., Wick, B., & Radfar, Amir, MD. (2016). Morality and ethical theories in the context of human behavior. Ethics & Medicine, 32(2), 83-87. Web.

Yogerst, C. (2017). Superhero films: A fascist national complex or exemplars of moral virtue? Journal of Religion & Film, 21(1), 37. Web.

Introduction

The study of ethics is primarily focused on determining the best course of action in various situations. There is a wide range of ethical theories that can be used to resolve ethical dilemmas. In the present case, the moral dilemma involves two cost accounting managers, John and Patty. John is told by a divisional controller that Patty is about to be promoted, but he already knows that she had accepted a controller position in a different company. To deal with this ethical dilemma, I would analyze the case from the perspective of various ethical theories, which would allow suggesting the best solution for John.

Possible Solutions

There are two key choices that John could make in this situation, and each one has advantages and disadvantages for John. First, he could keep the information about Patty’s promotion and her intention to leave the company to himself. In this case, he would most likely receive the promotion instead of Patty when she leaves. However, if Patty finds out about the situation, it is likely that she will become upset. As a result, this choice would affect the relationship between John and Patty. The second option is for John to tell the controller about Patty’s plans, which would result in either Patty staying in a new position or John receiving the promotion instead. Additionally, John could speak to Patty and let her know that she is about to win a promotion. This choice would have a positive effect on their relationship, and it will also allow Patty to make a decision that feels best. If she sees more benefits in working for another company, John would still receive the promotion. However, if Patty decides to stay, John will have to remain in his current job, which is a disadvantage of this option.

Ethical Theory Analysis

In order to analyze these solutions and suggest the best one from an ethical viewpoint, it is necessary to review and apply the ethical theory. The two ethical theories that would be most applicable to the case are utilitarianism and deontological ethics. This is because these theories can be fitted to specific situations that involve two or more persons. Other ethical theories, including humanism and Confucianism, are more suitable for analyzing major ethical issues and human behavior in general and thus are not specific enough for the chosen case.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is considered to be a branch of consequentialism because it focuses mostly on the outcomes of a decision. It was first suggested in the writings of Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill, who sought to develop an ethical theory that could be applied in the fields of law and policymaking (MacKinnon and Fiala 56). Until the development of utilitarianism, many people viewed morality as the opposite of human freedom and pleasure. Mill sought to dispel these myths by suggesting that pleasurable actions may still be considered moral as long as they do not infringe harm on other people (MacKinnon and Fiala 56). Bringing the most happiness to the most significant number of people is the goal of moral actions, in accordance with utilitarianism. This means that each decision should be analyzed based on its consequences for all involved parties. A decision that benefits one person but harms many others would be considered immoral, whereas sacrificing personal benefits for the good of others would be the opposite. However, the best decision possible would be the one that is positive for all those involved.

Based on these principles, each option available to John can be considered moral. If John decides to withhold information from both the current controller and Patty, he will benefit from getting a promotion, while Patty would benefit from having a controller position in a company that is located where her family lives. The current controller would receive a promotion either way, which is why this option would be positive for all those involved. The second choice, however, could be potentially harmful to John because he would not receive a promotion if Patty decides to stay in the company and accept the promotion.

Moreover, if Patty is upset due to living away from her family, remaining in the current job would be harmful to her, too. The only way that telling the controller or Patty about the situation would be beneficial for all parties is if Patty decides to leave the firm anyway. In this case, the utility of John’s decision would be more significant because the parties would receive an additional benefit of an improved interpersonal relationship. However, in accordance with utilitarianism, it is also essential to weigh the probability of each outcome (MacKinnon and Fiala 59). The likelihood of Patty choosing to leave the company after getting news about her promotion is unclear. Therefore, the best option from the viewpoint of utilitarianism is for John to withhold information from Patty and the controller. In this case, the beneficial outcome for all those involved is almost certain.

Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics is based mainly on the work of Immanuel Kant and is usually compared with utilitarianism because of their essential differences. According to MacKinnon and Fiala, Kant “objected to basing morality on the consequences of our actions” (70). This is primarily because he viewed a moral act as a person’s duty rather than as something that can be measured in terms of pleasure or happiness resulting from it. The idea of duty is at the core of deontological ethics, which considers people’s moral obligations to one another (MacKinnon and Fiala 75). Kant also believed morality to be a universal concept, thus rejecting the theory of moral relativism in favor of absolutism (BBC, para. 4). This suggests that there can only be one correct decision to the ethical dilemma presented in the case.

From the viewpoint of deontological ethics, it is always wrong to lie or withhold relevant information, regardless of the reason and the consequences of telling the truth. In deontological ethics, people also know the difference between right and wrong actions and should be able to choose the morally right option at all times (BBC, para. 1). In this case, John learned valuable information that could have an impact on other people depending on whether it stays hidden or is told. Hence, based on the principles of deontology, moral reasoning would be in favor of telling both Patty and the current controller the truth about the promotion and Patty’s intentions to leave. While this choice would only benefit John if Patty decides to quit the company, it would be a morally right action.

IMA Code of Ethics

Since the situation occurred in professional settings, another critical point that has to be examined here is which choice would comply with the code of ethics of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), which is the key document governing ethical practice in John’s workplace. Information sharing is an integral part of the IMA code of ethics, and there are four separate principles that apply to communication here: competence, confidentiality, integrity, and credibility (2). The principle of confidentiality would encourage John to withhold information from Patty and the current controller. However, the principles of integrity, competence, and credibility prompt the opposite decision.

For example, the IMA states that accountants should “provide decision-support information and recommendations that are accurate, clear, concise, and timely” (2). In the present case, information about Patty’s intention to leave could affect the current controller’s decision regarding the promotion. Similarly, the principle of integrity argues that accountants should mitigate conflicts of interest where possible, and the best way to do so, in this case, would be to share relevant information with all parties (IMA 2). Lastly, the principle of credibility urges accountants to “communicate professional limitations or other constraints that would preclude responsible judgment” (IMA 2). The conflict of interest, as well as the lack of information, could hinder responsible judgment of all involved persons, which is why John should communicate information to the current controller and Patty.

Conclusion

Overall, although the principles of utilitarianism would dictate that John should withhold information, deontological ethics and the IMA code of ethics make it clear that the best solution would be to share information about Patty’s intentions to leave and promote with the current controller and Patty, respectively. This decision would support John’s ethical professional practice as an accountant while also improving his reputation and relationship with Patty. Hence, it could also be ethically correct from the utilitarian viewpoint, especially if it results in Patty leaving and John receiving a promotion. The decision to communicate information to both parties is thus the most balanced option available to John in the proposed scenario.

Works Cited

BBC. “Duty-Based Ethics.”BBC UK, 2014, Web.

Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice. 2017, Web.

MacKinnon, Barbara, and Andrew Fiala. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues – Concise Edition. 8th ed., Cengage Learning, 2015.