Ethical Dilemma #2 - Which One Should You Rescue?

A dilemma is a situation that places an individual in a state of uncertainty or perplexity in which a choice must be made between equally unfavorable options. An example might be that in which a person condemned to capital punishment is given the choice to die by hanging or being shot.

An ethical dilemma differs from a common dilemma in that the individual in a state of uncertainty or perplexity is faced with making a choice between what most people in a community might consider the right choice, and another option which by another group of people is also considered to be the correct choice. In other words, a person must choose between two alternatives, each of which by some individuals is considered a correct choice . Choosing one option transgresses the other.

We are confronted almost daily by ethical and moral dilemmas in which we have to make ethical decisions. A three-step process has been developed for solving such problems:

Step One: Analyze the consequences

Who will be helped by what you do?
Who will be harmed?
What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? (Some are more valuable or more harmful than others: good health, someone's trust and a clean environment are very valuable benefits, more so than a faster remote control device.)
How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run?

Use these principles to analyze an ethical dilemma:

The interests of one party over the other (victim, family, employer, profession, community)
Sharing equally
Obligation to one another (duty, custom, legal)
Physical safety

Best interest of person vs. rights of others
Quality of life - Protection of life
Self-determination
Right to autonomy
Right to privacy

Rightness or wrongness of an action
Reputation
Virtues (love, forgiveness, respect, trust)
Conflict avoidance
Greatest good of group

Truth telling
Acceptance of a biblical command
Accountability

Step Two: Analyze the actions.
Consider all of the options from a different perspective, without thinking about the consequences.
How do the actions measure up against moral principles like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, and people's rights?
(Consider the common good)
Do any of the actions "cross the line?"
If there is a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people involved, is there a way to see one principle as more important than the others?
Which option offers actions that are least problematic?

Step Three: Make a decision
Considering both the consequences and principles involved, make a decision regarding the following ethical dilemma:

Ethical Dilemma #2. - Which One Should You Rescue?

You can rescue only one of each of the following. Which do you save, and why do you choose that one?

a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Hitler or lassie
d) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
e) A dog or a weasel
f) Your entire family or the entire canine species
g) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother
h) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother who just gave you one of his kidneys

Ethical Dilemmas - Valuing a Donated Van

Valuing a Donated Van

A dilemma is a situation that places an individual in a state of uncertainty or perplexity in which a choice must be made between equally unfavorable options. An example might be that in which a person condemned to capital punishment is given the choice to die by hanging or being shot.

An ethical dilemma differs from a common dilemma in that the individual in a state of uncertainty or perplexity is faced with making a choice between what most people in a community might consider the right choice, and another option which by another group of people is also considered to be the correct choice. In other words, a person must choose between two alternatives, each of which by some individuals is considered a correct choice . Choosing one option transgresses the other.

We are confronted almost daily by ethical and moral dilemmas in which we have to make ethical decisions. A three-step process has been developed for solving such problems:

Step One: Analyze the consequences

Who will be helped by what you do?
Who will be harmed?
What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? (Some are more valuable or more harmful than others: good health, someone's trust and a clean environment are very valuable benefits, more so than a faster remote control device.)
How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run?

Use these principles to analyze an ethical dilemma:

The interests of one party over the other (victim, family, employer, profession, community)
Sharing equally
Obligation to one another (duty, custom, legal)
Physical safety

Best interest of person vs. rights of others
Quality of life - Protection of life
Self-determination
Right to autonomy
Right to privacy

Rightness or wrongness of an action
Reputation
Virtues (love, forgiveness, respect, trust)
Conflict avoidance
Greatest good of group

Truth telling
Acceptance of a biblical command
Accountability

Step Two: Analyze the actions.
Consider all of the options from a different perspective, without thinking about the consequences.
How do the actions measure up against moral principles like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, and people's rights?
(Consider the common good)
Do any of the actions "cross the line?"
If there is a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people involved, is there a way to see one principle as more important than the others?
Which option offers actions that are least problematic?

Step Three: Make a decision
Considering both the consequences and principles involved, make a decision regarding the following ethical dilemma:

Ethical Dilemma 1.

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth $15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van worth $30,000. You really need the van, and it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy by taking them on fieldtrips. Do you agree to take the van on the dealership‘s terms? State your decision and explain how you arrived at it.

Look What the Wind Blew In

Last night (Saturday), my wife and I viewed, for about the fourth or fifth time, the four-hour production of the 1939 film “Gone with the Wind.” The first time I viewed the movie, I was quite young and saw it as a love story with a historical setting. Last night, however, in viewing the movie with the eyes of one with more maturity and life experience, I was thinking of the great number of blog posts that could be written about various aspects of the film.

The most successful novel in American history, “Gone with the Wind” was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1920’s, when she was recovering from a series of physical mishaps. She based the story on extensive research of the American Civil War and narratives and anecdotes that she had heard from Southern people who had actually lived at that time.

First published 70 years ago, this novel has been labeled the American equivalent of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” The novel relates the tragic story of a husband who believes too early that his wife does not love him, and of a wife who realizes too late that she does indeed love him.

In 1939, the film first appeared in theaters and was an immediate hit, capturing ten Academy Awards and a Pulitzer Prize. The story, as almost everyone knows, is centered around Atlanta, Georgia and its environs from 1861-1873. Covering the period of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, the story centers around Scarlett O’Hara, an exceptionally beautiful and stubborn woman who proves to be irresistable to men. She uses her beauty and wits to manipulate men to her advantage in every way she can. She loves Ashley Wilkes with an obsessiveness that proves to be her undoing.

At this point, I will leave the plot and concentrate on one scene which I viewed through 21th century, not 19th century, eyes. The scene I am referring to involves the husband, Rhett Butler, who seizes his wife Scarlett, carries her up a long staircase, and disappears into the darkness. We can only presume that he “raped” his wife. She did not go with him willingly, therefore we must believe that he forced himself upon her. Rape is a not a sexual act; it is an act of violence in which a male forces himself upon a female without her consent. Yet, in the movie, the next scene shows Scarlett awakening with a smile on her face and a cherry outlook on the beginning of a new day.

My wife and I had a discussion about this incident. My wife, who loves Clark Gable in the role of Rhett Butler, thinks that after transporting Scarlett up the stairs to the bedroom, he overcame her resistance with his wooing; and because she gave her consent, no rape occurred. I maintain that at that point in the story, Scarlett does not know that she loves Rhett and therefore would not have consented to his sexual advances. We know that in Civil War days, a wife was considered to be the property of her husband and most juries at that time would not have convicted a husband of raping his wife. A husband, therefore, including Rhett, would not consider forcing himself upon his wife to be act of rape - he was merely exercising the marital right of a husband.

What is your view?

The war that shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

Begun by a President who shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

With killing and maiming that shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

With war profiteering that shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

For cronies who shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

For a conclusion that shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

For a half trillion dollars spent that shouldn’t have been

For reasons that shouldn't have been.

And for our nation’s honor, liberties, and security

The war that shouldn’t have been.

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER

How Do You Dress Your Wiener?

As the Fourth of July nears, more people are starting to think of hotdogs. On that one day alone, over 150 million of them will be consumed. This fact and a lot of other information about wiener world was in an article in our local newspaper. One interesting detail I discovered is that I have been putting my wiener in the wrong place. Over all these years, I have been dressing the bun first, placing all the dressings in the bun before inserting my wiener. That is a definite no-no. The article points out clearly that one should “always dress the dog, not the bun.” The bun should be dressed after the wiener is inserted. I have always put my wiener in last.

According to the article, after the wiener is inserted in the bun, then one should apply the “wet condiments like mustard and chili...first, followed by chunky condiments like relish, onions and sauerkraut, followed by shredded cheese, followed by spices such as celery salt or pepper.” And all these years, I have put the mustard, relish, and onions in the bun before inserting my wiener.

Well, when it comes to food, I must admit that I am a little weird. When I eat watermelon, I always put salt AND pepper on it. I have had some onlookers say, with a quizzical expression on their faces, “You put pepper on your watermelon?” I always answer, “Yes, you should try it. It’s really good!” Now where did I pick up the practice of putting pepper on my watermelon? From my older brother, when I was about five years old. It was brother see, brother do time. I doubt that he even puts pepper on his watermelon today. He probably did that just to see what my reaction would be. But to this day, I still put pepper on my watermelon.

Back to wieners. Again, according to the newspaper article, the kinds of hotdogs we eat and the ways we prepare them are “territorial”: in the West we prefer chicken dogs, in the Midwest, it is pork and beef dogs, and in the East, they prefer all-beef dogs. I still like my hotdogs with mustard, relish, and onions and, with a red face, I must confess that I have been known to include a dab of ketchup. I know - putting ketchup on your wiener is the equivalent of putting an ice cube in your glass of fine wine.

In Kansas City, they like sauerkraut aand melted Swiss cheese. People in New York dress their wieners with steamed onions and mustard, although some prefer the Coney Island chili dog. In the South, you can fry your wiener in cornmeal (a corndog), or top it with “crunchy, creamy coleslaw.” But when it comes to the best-dressed dog, Chicago has to be the winner. There the dog is served in a poppy-seed bun, topped by layers of mustard, raw onions, relish, tomato slices, a spear of dill pickle, peppers, and just a dash of celery salt.

Yes, after you finish your hotdog, it is considered to be proper etiquette to lick away the condiments remaining on your fingers, followed by the use of a paper, not a cloth, napkin. Enjoy your hotdogs this holiday.

Poll Time: Please indicate the state or region of the nation you are from, and then tell us how you dress your wiener.