John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2005-12-12 07:28 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2005-12-12 07:28 pm(no subject)
If Ethics is your thing (I'm thinking notably of Daniel and Nifer), I'd be facinated to know what your thoughts on These are.
jackofallgeeks) wrote2005-12-12 07:28 pm
no subject
1. Not guilty.
2. Pull the chair.
3. She did the right thing to choose.
4. They should try their damned hardest to get the fat man unstuck.
5. Try to save the worker. The tunnel wasn't a mistake.
6. Jean Valjean did the right thing.
7. Moral obligation, yes. Legal, no.
8. Unjust.
9. Joe's as guilty as Tom.
10. Torturing the madman could be justified. His innocent wife is not to be touched.
11. There should not be such a law.
12. Jim was right.
13. I should testify.
14. No one is above the law.
no subject
I would have said:
01. Guilty. He explicitly chose people to die. At the same time, his reasoning is sound, and the circumstances are mitigating, so that should be taken into account. But he's still responsible for those deaths.
02. Don't pull the chair. I can not be responsible for the actions of another, but I can be responsible for my own. That he bases his decision to act on my unwillingness to is irrelevant: there's nothing to say he won't kill an innocent even if I do kill my son.
03. I'm undecided on this one. I think she would have felt guilty regardless of which choice she made (save one, the other, or neither). I think she made the right choice because here was an act of saving, not of killing.
04. Agreed. Using the dynamite would put the fat man's blood on their hands. No pun intended. (Well, maybe a little one...)
05. Try to save the worker: how much worth would you put on a human life? Accidents happen, but an avoidable death should not proceed. The tunnel was not a mistake.
06. Valjean did the right thing, but only because not acting would condemn a minor criminal to serve his life-sentence for breaking parole; his past act is what damns him, and why he shouldn't let an 'innocent' take his place.
07. Agreed; one should have a moral obligation, but not a legal one.
08. Unjust. Though it brings up an interesting question: what is the difference in non-action here and non-action below with Tom and Joe? Malicious intent?
09. I would agree that Joe is as guilty as Tom, but I'm not sure why. His non-action was malicious, but how is that different from the man above who let a boy drown? Are these three examples only removed by degree?
10. Torture is not justified. Once again, one can be responsible for one's own actions, and that he is a vile being is not license for us to be so as well.
11. I don't believe you should inform the authorities, or that there should be a law compelling you to do so; still, I think there *should* be some suitable action; inaction doesn't seem appropriate.
12. Jim should not give the job to his friend over a more-qualified applicant; it is his duty to higher the best man for the job, and Paul is not he. If Jim can not be unbiased, he should defer the decision to someone else who can be, but the other applicant should be chosen.
13. Knowing a crime was committed, the promise should not have been made. To be a true friend would dictate that I break my word, and so my honor is sullied. Still, my honor would be sullied if I let a guilty man go free by my inaction, and so it would be better to testify; the more-honorable of two dishonors. Generally, a promise should be broken when the good of keeping it is out-weighed by the harm of keeping it.
14. I don't like the wording of this last one, because the meaning seems a bit obscured. It *is* hypocritical of them to press the agenda if they mean to exempt themselves; it is not *wrong* for them to press the agenda simple because they are such who would break the laws, so long as they're willing to submit to the consequences of their actions -- in this case, the president being punished appropriately for his crimes of perjury and harassment.