My initial impression of deontology was that this theory seems to make a great deal of sense and I was all in favor of Kant’s ideas and opinions. After some careful thought I still prefer deontology to other moral theories, however, some of Kant’s ideas do not seem as complete as I initially had thought.
I like Kant’s ideas in the categorical imperative (if I am interpreting them correctly) because it seems as if the two “formulations” really help to weed out many of the lingering questions behind moral dilemmas. I think Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is saying that by committing an act, we would (should) also approve that act be committed by someone else at any other time. If I understand this correctly, this helps solidify the universality of an act by saying it is right (for the time being) and it will always be right (at any other given time.) An example of this could be something as simple as speeding on the freeway. If I am going to say that it is acceptable for me to disobey the laws and speed on the freeway, I would have to accept the fact that anyone else could break the same laws at any time. If I cannot “will” that act to be acceptable when committed by others, then I should not commit the act myself. The second formulation is concerned with humanity. Kant is basically saying do not “use” people, all humans are created equally (we are all rational beings) and are therefore entitled to the same rights of humanity. Because of this, we all have a duty not to impede on the autonomous nature of other humans. I think slavery and child labor are perhaps the two most obvious examples of infringing on human rights. It seems as if, when writing the categorical imperative, Kant was looking for a set of rules that would almost act as a “catch-all” for evaluating moral acts. I say this because it is hard to imagine any act (that could be considered immoral) that does not get cancelled out by one of these two formulations.
I feel that Kant’s categorical imperative is a strong foundation for analyzing moral issues however, like many other theories it does not seem complete. My first question is in regards to the dismissal of consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant makes it clear that the consequences or outcomes of an act are irrelevant; instead Kant focuses on the will or intent of the act. The reason this concerns me is because it is possible for an act to be committed with the greatest of intentions and still yield disastrous outcomes. I realize that Kant is saying if we have the best intentions and by this theory- “do the right thing“ then we should have nothing to worry about however, there could very much be things at risk (including lives of others etc.) that we may or may not know about. When considering intentions, the opposite is true as well; it is possible for acts premised by bad intentions to turn into a “good” act. If someone was committing a bad deed, then Kant would say it is still bad because of the bad will, however, I don’t think rewarding bad deeds is a good recipe for promoting morality. It seems at this point Kant is gambling with the outcomes and because of that, I feel there should be more consideration for the consequences of the acts we commit. Another direct conflict with Utilitarian theory is that Kant (at least according to my reading of our text) does not state that animal rights should be considered. I am certainly no animal rights activist and I love the taste of meat, but one thing I like about Utilitarian theory is that it at least considers the rights of other beings in addition to humans. While I do not necessarily have issues with using animals as sources of food, I certainly would not approve of punching a kitten. The other area I feel is weak is in regards to conflicting duties. It does not appear that the categorical imperative provides us any guidance in regards to duties that interfere with each other. As Boss states, a great example is that of the euthanasia debate. How can a physician reach a sound moral decision (based on this theory) derived from pure rationale when the duties of preserving life and preventing pain and suffering are obviously conflicting? Because of conflicts like this, I prefer Ross’s addition of the seven prima facie duties (although to my understanding even the prima facie duties do not provide much guidance in regards to the euthanasia debate.) I feel that although Kant’s views may be lacking, not necessarily wrong. Where I feel his theories are weak, other theories such as Utilitarian theory are strong. I think a mix of deontological theory including Kant’s categorical imperative and Ross’ prima facie duties, merged with certain aspects of Utilitarianism would yield a stronger and more universal moral theory.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Air Force Sergeant Discharged Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy
After nine years in the Air Force, Sergeant Jene Newsome was discharged after a local police officer notified Air Force officials that Newsome was a lesbian. Although the manner in which Newsome’s sexual orientation was discovered and subsequently reported is bothersome, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
Utilitarianism
My initial response to Utilitarian theory was that it seemed to make very logical sense in that it considers overall happiness for the individual as well as the happiness of others. After I was able to dig deeper into the theory, I found that it did present a few problematic issues that were not easily identifiable on the surface.
What I like about Utilitarianism (UT) first and foremost, is that there is no mention of God, and therefore “we” are not attempting to live life in accordance with a set of rules in which we do not empirically know the true foundation. This theory completely takes God out of the equation and much to my liking, puts the moral responsibility back in the hands of the people who will actually be held accountable for the decisions that are made. The mere fact that this theory stems from social injustices and aims for overall happiness or “utility” in my opinion, makes it more receptive to skeptics considering moral theories. In other words, this theory was not put into place to please God or even to provide guidelines to humans like many other theories; it seems as if it was created in attempt to correct social injustices and consider everyone equally. What I appreciate most about Bentham’s contribution is the inclusion of Utilitarian calculus. These guidelines make Bentham’s theory practical (in the sense that there is a structure and formula) more useful in that there are actual steps, not just misinterpreted doctrine available to follow aimlessly. However, it is also in UT calculus that I find some of the weaker aspects of this theory.
Even though UT is definitely a step in the right direction, I feel the UT calculus (and some of Bentham’s principles behind it) skips some key components. For starters, it seems as if Bentham’s motives were to provide a tool to help us justify all of the decisions we make on a daily basis. What then if I am deciding between two things that are not really comparable? For example, what if I was forced to choose between humanitarian work and freeway graffiti? I think it’s difficult to compare these two subjects on any level and while they could both provide pleasure to someone, I find it hard to accept the fact that the pleasure is of the same caliber. The other thing I can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is how I would use this to choose between two acts that I have little to no knowledge of. For example, let’s say I had two possible choices in making a decision-becoming a school teacher, and becoming a doctor (to simplify my analogy). To use this theory as it was intended, I would have to measure things like intensity, duration, and extent. Well, if I have no knowledge of being a doctor or a school teacher, how can I reasonably quantify the potential results of either of these actions? My initial response would be to ask someone else but that defeats the purpose of this theory. Now if I were choosing between eating an apple and eating an orange, then I feel I could use the UT calculus to make a decision as I have prior experience and knowledge of both of those events. Lastly, although I like having the UT calculus as a tool, it does not seem practical for everyday decision making. I can however, see a similar tool being useful in the hands of governments being forced to make large-scale decisions.
What I like about Utilitarianism (UT) first and foremost, is that there is no mention of God, and therefore “we” are not attempting to live life in accordance with a set of rules in which we do not empirically know the true foundation. This theory completely takes God out of the equation and much to my liking, puts the moral responsibility back in the hands of the people who will actually be held accountable for the decisions that are made. The mere fact that this theory stems from social injustices and aims for overall happiness or “utility” in my opinion, makes it more receptive to skeptics considering moral theories. In other words, this theory was not put into place to please God or even to provide guidelines to humans like many other theories; it seems as if it was created in attempt to correct social injustices and consider everyone equally. What I appreciate most about Bentham’s contribution is the inclusion of Utilitarian calculus. These guidelines make Bentham’s theory practical (in the sense that there is a structure and formula) more useful in that there are actual steps, not just misinterpreted doctrine available to follow aimlessly. However, it is also in UT calculus that I find some of the weaker aspects of this theory.
Even though UT is definitely a step in the right direction, I feel the UT calculus (and some of Bentham’s principles behind it) skips some key components. For starters, it seems as if Bentham’s motives were to provide a tool to help us justify all of the decisions we make on a daily basis. What then if I am deciding between two things that are not really comparable? For example, what if I was forced to choose between humanitarian work and freeway graffiti? I think it’s difficult to compare these two subjects on any level and while they could both provide pleasure to someone, I find it hard to accept the fact that the pleasure is of the same caliber. The other thing I can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is how I would use this to choose between two acts that I have little to no knowledge of. For example, let’s say I had two possible choices in making a decision-becoming a school teacher, and becoming a doctor (to simplify my analogy). To use this theory as it was intended, I would have to measure things like intensity, duration, and extent. Well, if I have no knowledge of being a doctor or a school teacher, how can I reasonably quantify the potential results of either of these actions? My initial response would be to ask someone else but that defeats the purpose of this theory. Now if I were choosing between eating an apple and eating an orange, then I feel I could use the UT calculus to make a decision as I have prior experience and knowledge of both of those events. Lastly, although I like having the UT calculus as a tool, it does not seem practical for everyday decision making. I can however, see a similar tool being useful in the hands of governments being forced to make large-scale decisions.
Rights-Based Ethics
Immediately I am drawn to the argument of rights-based ethics as it seems to provide me with more substance than many of the theories we’ve discussed thus far. The reading makes multiple references to the term “self-evident” which I feel is not particularly positive terminology for the argument of Natural Rights Ethics. The term itself implies that a meaning is understood without proof. Unfortunately, and similar to many of the other theories we have discussed, I see this as a potential downfall (although not detrimental to the argument.) If moral rights were truly self-evident and God given (as Locke claims), I presume that there would not be much left for discussion in regards to how we acquire our natural rights. At first, Rand seems to provide a more rational theory to consider by agreeing with Locke, with the exception being that God is not the source of our natural rights. What’s comforting about this is the fact that on the surface, Rand not only considers this theory, (minus a God) she whole-heartedly defends it. My initial thought is if an original theory such as the one proposed by Locke can be considered and agreed with (minus the inclusion of God such as Rand suggests) then the fundamental aspects of the theory must be somewhat structurally “sound.” The only major difference between Locke and Rand is their conflicting viewpoints regarding the origination of our rights (God or natural.) The common ground shared between these two perspectives is that natural rights do exist for humans, independently of duties. In his natural rights theory Locke is suggesting (meta-ethically) that humans can live in a state of harmony with each other and the environment, with the right to pursue our own destiny. Due to the fact that this theory can be accepted by believers and non-believers of God, I feel the fundamental aspects (that we all have natural rights) are much more universal than some opposing theories.
One disagreement I have with both Locke and Rand is in regards to their claim that natural rights exist independently of duties. Although I understand the principle that a natural right (by definition) should not impose a particular duty on another, I do not understand how any right does not impose some sort of opposing duty. For example, Boss defines a liberty right as “the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests.” In order for our right to be fulfilled, it would require a duty on others to not interfere with said right. I realize this is not a duty where someone is forced to do (or give) something, instead it is asking that someone not do something (interfere) which in my opinion is a duty nonetheless. I feel that as long as there is the option to interfere with the rights of another, we are obligated by duty to make the correct moral choice of not interfering. I’ll use the (liberty) right to privacy to help clarify my point. If an individual has a right to privacy (which I’m assuming we all agree with) and is pursuing their right, I (as an opposing individual) have a duty to allow that person to pursue their right without interfering.
One disagreement I have with both Locke and Rand is in regards to their claim that natural rights exist independently of duties. Although I understand the principle that a natural right (by definition) should not impose a particular duty on another, I do not understand how any right does not impose some sort of opposing duty. For example, Boss defines a liberty right as “the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests.” In order for our right to be fulfilled, it would require a duty on others to not interfere with said right. I realize this is not a duty where someone is forced to do (or give) something, instead it is asking that someone not do something (interfere) which in my opinion is a duty nonetheless. I feel that as long as there is the option to interfere with the rights of another, we are obligated by duty to make the correct moral choice of not interfering. I’ll use the (liberty) right to privacy to help clarify my point. If an individual has a right to privacy (which I’m assuming we all agree with) and is pursuing their right, I (as an opposing individual) have a duty to allow that person to pursue their right without interfering.
Ethical Egoism
What immediately stands out to me in regards to psychological egoism is the fact that it leaves no real opening for objective analysis. It has already been decided that the motivation for every action is influenced by self-interest. Self-interest is the predetermined explanation for every action moving forward. Because this is a descriptive theory (telling us what “is”) and because the motivation behind any action will always be self-interest, this particular theory allows us little opportunity to try and discover right and wrong. Instead this theory makes a claim similar to “it is what it is” which doesn’t provide us much in the way of critical thinking. One can find a way to argue “self-interest” for every example imaginable, however, the fact of the matter is that simply claiming a fact (such as: an act is motivated by self-interest) does not necessarily make it empirically true. If every reason for every action has already been predetermined, is it possible there is such a thing as free will? One can argue that serving the good of self could be considered free will, however, my understanding of the definition of free will is that we are allowed the opportunity to make decisions as long as we are prepared to be judged by those decisions and accept the consequences of our choices. If all actions have a predetermined underlying reason, can human actions even be morally judged?
Because ethical egoism is normative and not descriptive in nature, it actually provides an opportunity for a more empirical analysis. What I like about this theory is the fact that it does not seem to eliminate free will. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own self interests and ethical egoism seems to promote this fairly well while encouraging personal responsibility. If each person were given the fair chance to pursue his own goals (self-interests,) I think as a social whole, we would be much more successful. This wouldn’t work in an economic structure (we can see examples of this today) where people are segregated based on access to resources. Are children in Rwanda really given the same chance (access to resources) as a child born into wealth? Rand’s “hands-off” approach in rational ethical egoism takes this thought a bit further by actually negating the actions of altruists. Although this idea may make sense in regards to maintaining economic stability if we were in fact members of a laissez-faire system, it does not seem to provide insight on how to reach that particular level of economic and social success. Claiming that acts of altruism toward “lesser” individuals only promotes charity seems almost Darwinian in nature. I would like more insight on Rand’s take in regards to physically and/or mentally ill humans. Should we not perform acts of altruism towards those who cannot act on their own behalf? Although ethical egoism appears to be more objective than psychological egoism, it still leaves questions in regards to actual morality. Ethical egoism (like psychological egoism) does not provide us with any moral guidelines for solving disputes. If a man ethical egoist and a woman ethical egoist were the last two people on the planet and they were not attracted to each other, would they suck it up and procreate or would the human race die out?
Because ethical egoism is normative and not descriptive in nature, it actually provides an opportunity for a more empirical analysis. What I like about this theory is the fact that it does not seem to eliminate free will. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own self interests and ethical egoism seems to promote this fairly well while encouraging personal responsibility. If each person were given the fair chance to pursue his own goals (self-interests,) I think as a social whole, we would be much more successful. This wouldn’t work in an economic structure (we can see examples of this today) where people are segregated based on access to resources. Are children in Rwanda really given the same chance (access to resources) as a child born into wealth? Rand’s “hands-off” approach in rational ethical egoism takes this thought a bit further by actually negating the actions of altruists. Although this idea may make sense in regards to maintaining economic stability if we were in fact members of a laissez-faire system, it does not seem to provide insight on how to reach that particular level of economic and social success. Claiming that acts of altruism toward “lesser” individuals only promotes charity seems almost Darwinian in nature. I would like more insight on Rand’s take in regards to physically and/or mentally ill humans. Should we not perform acts of altruism towards those who cannot act on their own behalf? Although ethical egoism appears to be more objective than psychological egoism, it still leaves questions in regards to actual morality. Ethical egoism (like psychological egoism) does not provide us with any moral guidelines for solving disputes. If a man ethical egoist and a woman ethical egoist were the last two people on the planet and they were not attracted to each other, would they suck it up and procreate or would the human race die out?
The Importance of Moral Development and Ethics Education
Nazi Germany, euthanasia, the destruction of fetuses, all in a single paragraph. There is no doubt that each one of these topics raises significant ethical or moral predicaments. An ethical dilemma basically forces us to choose between breaking an ethical (or perhaps social) norm, and negating an ethical or moral value.
According to Boss, “One purpose of ethics education is to help students make the transition to post conventional moral reasoning…to make effective moral decisions that they will not regret later.” One thing I find interesting about this statement (and post-conventional reasoning in general,) is there is little to no reference on the subject of continuing to grow both ethically and morally. For example, let’s say an individual has reached a stage of post-conventional reasoning and has made a decision as a doctor to euthanize a terminal patient who lives in unbearable pain. I could argue that at the time of his decision the doctor could be at complete ease with his choice, but who is to say that in five, ten, or twenty years that particular physician will not have a different moral outlook? (The same argument could be made for making the opposite decision to not euthanize the patient.) Is post-conventional wisdom (in regards to moral reasoning) the final straw in ethical development? Does advancing to this stage of moral reasoning in any way signify transcendence?
Later in the chapter Boss refers to a study in moral development by James Rest in which she states “People who are at the higher stages of moral development not only sympathize with those who are suffering, but take active steps to help alleviate that suffering.” This surfaces yet another problematic issue that I’m sure not only fuels the controversial euthanasia fire, but a myriad of other medical or psychological dilemmas as well. How do you alleviate suffering in terminal patients? How do you comfort those in chronic pain? Using the same scenario above, I have to ask what is morally just about allowing a human being to live a life of agony? What is morally unjust about ending a life of misery and allowing a fellow human being to die with dignity? I know some would prefer to use this junction to quote the Hippocratic Oath to substantiate the preservation of life however, it is my understanding that Hippocratic Oath it not necessarily a requirement or a governing document to the medical profession. I often make the point that if we continue to make decisions based on doctrine or customs that were put in place thousands of years ago, we as a species will eventually perish. I feel that opinion applies in this situation as well. Was that oath written by someone (I believe the actual author is unknown) who was able to foresee the numerous chronic illnesses and debilitating diseases that human beings are faced with today? If post-conventionalism is what it is, then why in 2010 would we subject ourselves to the moral philosophies and ethical guidelines of a doctrine that was written centuries ago?
According to Boss, “One purpose of ethics education is to help students make the transition to post conventional moral reasoning…to make effective moral decisions that they will not regret later.” One thing I find interesting about this statement (and post-conventional reasoning in general,) is there is little to no reference on the subject of continuing to grow both ethically and morally. For example, let’s say an individual has reached a stage of post-conventional reasoning and has made a decision as a doctor to euthanize a terminal patient who lives in unbearable pain. I could argue that at the time of his decision the doctor could be at complete ease with his choice, but who is to say that in five, ten, or twenty years that particular physician will not have a different moral outlook? (The same argument could be made for making the opposite decision to not euthanize the patient.) Is post-conventional wisdom (in regards to moral reasoning) the final straw in ethical development? Does advancing to this stage of moral reasoning in any way signify transcendence?
Later in the chapter Boss refers to a study in moral development by James Rest in which she states “People who are at the higher stages of moral development not only sympathize with those who are suffering, but take active steps to help alleviate that suffering.” This surfaces yet another problematic issue that I’m sure not only fuels the controversial euthanasia fire, but a myriad of other medical or psychological dilemmas as well. How do you alleviate suffering in terminal patients? How do you comfort those in chronic pain? Using the same scenario above, I have to ask what is morally just about allowing a human being to live a life of agony? What is morally unjust about ending a life of misery and allowing a fellow human being to die with dignity? I know some would prefer to use this junction to quote the Hippocratic Oath to substantiate the preservation of life however, it is my understanding that Hippocratic Oath it not necessarily a requirement or a governing document to the medical profession. I often make the point that if we continue to make decisions based on doctrine or customs that were put in place thousands of years ago, we as a species will eventually perish. I feel that opinion applies in this situation as well. Was that oath written by someone (I believe the actual author is unknown) who was able to foresee the numerous chronic illnesses and debilitating diseases that human beings are faced with today? If post-conventionalism is what it is, then why in 2010 would we subject ourselves to the moral philosophies and ethical guidelines of a doctrine that was written centuries ago?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
LOST: Ethics in Television
Here it is: my term paper from last semester. I haven't even read it since I wrote it. Hope it is enjoyable.
The hit television series “LOST” has become somewhat of a pop-culture phenomenon. The magical island, jungle of mystery, and questionable characters make the show easy to be interested in to say the least. What I find most interesting about Lost, is the underlying philosophical and ethical messages that are a prevalent aspect of the show. Almost all the characters on the show at least resemble, if not directly refer, to a philosopher or philosophical entity. Furthermore, the personality traits of the individual characters and the situations they find themselves in the show, give the audience a good taste of how certain ethical theories pan out, and how certain moral dilemmas can be approached. Throughout his time on the island, Jack Shepard finds himself in and out of situations that most people would find emotionally draining. Overall, Jack is a good person; he lives a dutiful life and inevitably does what could be considered to be the right thing. Since his plane crash led him to this mysterious “rock”, Jack has found himself in the middle of ethically diverse situations that challenge the very essence of his moral beliefs. In fact, much of the show’s progressive plot emphasizes the personal strain that Jack has experienced as a result of his inner desire to “do good” throughout his life. Based on his actions and demeanor throughout the story, Jack is an accurate depiction of a deontological or duty-based ethicist. Deontology theories claim that morality is found in the duty of an act and that consequences of an act do not represent rightness or wrongness. Although this sounds ethically strong, there are some fundamental issues which make it difficult to solely rely on duty-based ethics. Throughout the storyline of Lost we get to witness many ethical theories play-out as they are tested to their roots. For the purposes of this paper we will focus on Jack’s approach to ethical dilemmas using a duty-based ethic.
One of the shows earliest moral dilemmas comes to us in the beginning of the premier season when as a result of the plane crash, a federal marshal has sustained a life-threatening injury (S1, E1.) The marshal, unconscious for the majority of time since the crash, has suffered a pierced abdomen as a result of shrapnel from the wreckage. It is made clear that the marshal is (or will be) in a serious amount of pain, and is in dire need of medical supplies and antibiotics if he is in fact to have any chance of recovery. Being the only physician on the island, it is Jack’s duty to treat the patient to the best of his ability and because of this, Jack has dedicated his time (there are others injured and in need of medical attention) and resources (medical equipment, antibiotics, etc. that were salvaged from the crash) to the critically injured marshal. It is clear at this point that there is no real moral issue with Jack’s decision to take heroic measures to save the dying patient. Moral questionability is not revealed until a later episode when Jack meets Sawyer in the cabin of the crashed airplane while scavenging for much needed medical supplies. (S1, E3) During this confrontation, Sawyer points out the important fact that their rescue is not as inevitable as some may have initially been hoping. Because of this, Sawyer questions Jack’s decision to take such heroic measures to save the marshal and freely using the limited amount of medical supplies. It becomes apparent that what may have been considered a non-issue, has turned into a situation worth taking another look at. It should be known that at this point, there is no certainty that the patient will survive, even if he is privileged to all of the available medicine, surely a factor in Sawyers concern in “wasting” the antibiotics. In the following episode, Jack informs Kate that the condition of the patient has not improved and the prognosis is certainly death. (S1, E3) Both Kate and Sawyer suggest to Jack that he do something to expedite what is thought to be a certain death. Jack’s initial conflict is in dealing with the allocation of limited medical supplies; how much medicine should he use to try and save a suffering patient before his use of that medicine becomes a mere waste? Also, how long should Jack let the terminal patient suffer on the road to his inevitable death? Here we see how the role of a physician sort of naturally fits with a duty-based ethic; as a doctor, Jack assumes responsibility and inherits an ethical obligation to try and preserve the life of the dying marshal, in other words, Jack’s duty. This is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative (second formulation), Ross’s prima facie duties (beneficence, justice), and Rawls’ “Justice Theory” (if we say that from behind the veil of ignorance we would all “want” or choose to be helped in that situation.) The dynamics of Jack’s situation give us different aspects and components to consider when performing a moral examination. Making the life of a dying patient his personal resolve, is clearly a duty-based characteristic on Jack’s behalf. Furthermore, it seems as if once he makes up his mind, he has a strong ability to not let his decisions be influenced. His duty is to save the guy and that’s it; nothing else is relevant to that particular situation. What’s interesting here is that it almost seems irresponsible to not, at the very least, consider the potential need for medicine and supplies for future use. Sawyer (the ethical egoist), Kate (possibly a care-ethicist) and others from the camp all question Jack’s judgment in using the limited supplies. This is a good example of one the questionable side effects of some duty-based theory. It seems almost brash or inhumane to not consider the other alternatives based on perceived outcomes. This is why a strict deontological approach sounds really great, almost virtuous (“I have a duty to…”) however, once in that situation, we find it really difficult to simply dismiss the potential consequences. Jack’s second conflict in this situation comes after he realizes that despite the best efforts made, the life of the dying man will soon end. It’s at this point that Jack is approached by numerous members of the camp, all asking that Jack do something to “speed” things along. Now this scenario is similar, but the duties involved are significantly different. For example, now Jack has to decide between his duty of helping the patient live (beneficence) and his suggested duty to help the patient die (which contradicts his duty of nonmaleficence.) This situation provides an interesting parallel to the physician’s duty in the euthanasia debate. It is clear that Jack in no way wants to take action in the death of a patient; I can only assume that Jack has previously determined that the duty to preserve life is more sacred than the duty to prevent pain and suffering.
Near the end of the first season we find Jack struggling his way through a more personal moral dilemma. In the eleventh episode “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues,” we catch the scene of Jack losing a patient on the operating table. His father, the Chief of Surgery is in the room with him and there is an obvious friction between the two. We later learn that Jack assumed responsibility of the surgery from his father (Christian), who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The end result is the death of a girl whose life may have been salvageable, a result that Jack clearly blames on his father. Due to the patient’s death, a formal medical hearing has been sanctioned; as the surgeon of record, Jack must decide to either falsify the report, absolving his father of any responsibility, or testify the true events to the medical review board, an act that will surely ruin his father’s career. What’s unique about this situation is not only do we have conflicting duties, we have added a more personal element to the possible consequences. Keep in mind, a true deontologist would not allow their decision to be impacted by the addition of consequences. If Jack considers he has a duty to his father (loyalty, gratitude, etc.) then his only real option is to falsify the documents. The conflicting duty here is Jack’s responsibility of reporting his father, and hopefully preventing this event from happening in the future; the duty of nonmaleficence. So Jack is now trying to decide which duty is priority. A good deontologist (having grasped the concept that situations like this may arise,) may have his or her duties already pre-prioritized and may be able to assert that one’s duty to his family is of higher priority than other “non-familial” duties. What happens if Jack leaves his little black book of deontology on his nightstand; how does he work himself through this issue? A deontologist might say the moral agent would then have to decide on-the-spot, which duty that person held to a higher value. Jack finds himself at a decision yielding only two possible outcomes. Each outcome represents both an achievement of a duty, and the denial of a duty. For example, if Jack chose to surrender his father; he would achieve the duty of “preventing future harm” but he may also sacrifice the duty of beneficence or gratitude to his father. His alternative option yields results that achieve another duty, and finally the denial of another; almost an “I can’t win” scenario. I think a better solution may be to consider using a different ethic altogether. For example, if you get stuck with conflicting duties, you could progress to a utility-based theory where you can qualitatively and quantifiably choose the better of your two options. This can be looked at as getting the best out of your loss, or doing the best with what you had; it all depends on your outlook. Regardless of the decision that is made, you can say you did your duty of due diligence on the matter. In the show, Jack chooses the duty to his father is of the highest value in this situation and we are given the impression of a mutual understanding between Jack and Christian, one that entails a certain degree of change in Christian’s behavior moving forward. Jack agrees to sign the papers and testify on behalf of his father at the review hearing. The final question during Christian’s medical review reaches Jack and the television audience at the same time when we simultaneously learn that the dead patient was pregnant. Jack is immediately distraught and uncomfortable with this news, a feeling that eventually causes him to retract his testimony and legitimize the report of his father’s actions. Now this is an interesting conflict; Jack made a decision based primarily on duty, yet when we add a consequence to the equation, Jack actually changes his testimony and in essence, disregards the duty to his father. To me this shows us that Jack simply was unable to come to a decision based on duty alone, and he had to revert to the cost-benefit model of a consequentialist theory. Once a pregnancy and a loss of a child are entered into the equation, his choice of the higher ethic changed as well. We the audience never learn exactly what influenced Jack’s decision; it could have been the additional loss of life, or perhaps it was Christian’s willingness to lie in response to his knowledge of the girls pregnancy, all we know is that something did in fact make him change his mind. Because of this, I can only assume that Jack must have used some sort of consequentialist reasoning to come to his conclusion. If he truly made that decision based on duty and duty alone, then consequences (in this case collateral damage) should be irrelevant.
The season five finale presents Jack in a situation where he’s now challenged to make a decision that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on a large number of people. We learn in the “Follow the Leader” episode (S1, E15) that Jack has an opportunity to potentially reverse everything that has occurred over the last five television seasons. The scientist Daniel Faraday learns that if they can destroy the massive amount of energy that’s beneath the island’s surface, then they can potentially travel back to the exact point in time before they ever crashed on the island. This would mean that nothing that has occurred on the island as we know it will actually occur. Now we have a situation where the moral reigns are given to Jack so that he may decide what’s best for everyone. This a step-up from his other dilemmas because now instead of the implications only impacting one or a few, Jack is making a decision that will either work and be catastrophic for some, or it will fail and be catastrophic for all. You would have to be a fan of the show to really understand the implications involved with each of Jack’s options in this particular scenario. It’s important to know that should Jack succeed, he would reverse the deaths of many innocent people. It is also important to know that should he succeed, there would be a significant amount of collateral damage. For example, Kate (the women Jack has come to love) would inevitably end up in prison, Claire (who we learn is Jack’s sister) would give up her baby (Jack’s nephew) for adoption, and Rose would inevitably die from the cancer that has plagued her up to the point until she crash-lands on the island. So how does a good duty-based ethicist move forward? He could revert to his core beliefs and choose which duty “outranks” the other (much like in his first dilemma) or he can adopt methods from another ethical standpoint to help him through the decision (similar to Jack’s dilemma with his father.) Which of these options is the “right” thing to do? If we leave it to Jack to decide which duty to adhere to, we are in essence saying that we trust his judgment, as any good deontologist in that situation would choose the act which is most dutiful. Regardless of what we say we would do in this situation, I find it hard to believe, if not impossible, that any moral agent in this situation would not instinctively refer to the possible outcomes. It simply does not seem rational that an agent could be “right” by doing a duty that leads to many deaths, while there was another option available that resulted in less catastrophic outcomes. If a deontologist cannot at least “see” this point while in the crux of a moral dilemma, then said agent is in fact being ethically lazy. If Jack were to drop down (or step up) to another theory to help resolve the issue, he’s at the very least showing an understanding that since his chosen ethic has led him to a situation he cannot resolve, perhaps there is room to investigate other options or theories.
We’ve now had the opportunity to follow Jack through a number of dilemmas during his time on the island; each dilemma with its own set of circumstances, risks, and potential outcomes. Some might argue that these examples are not an accurate depiction of real life, but I think the series of events that Jack undergoes portrays very realistic parallels to the real world. Let’s take Jack’s first dilemma, the dying federal marshal. Here Jack is faced between two conflicting duties; the duty of beneficence and the duty of nonmaleficence. The crash, the island, and the whiny survivors are mere “multiples of zero” (they cancel themselves out) in Jack’s moral equation; the true dilemma lies with how to treat the dying patient. Jack is now at a point when he only has two choices and he himself must choose one. Once we rid ourselves of the visuals of crashed planes and jungle polar bears, we find this situation strikingly relevant to the euthanasia debate. When discussing this issue we are quick to compare the morality of patient rights with the duties of the doctor, it’s interesting now to see how the doctor’s morality is challenged. It’s almost as if we normally don’t consider the feelings or input of the doctors themselves, like they would do whatever we deem morally acceptable. Because we get to see how these implications impact Jack on a personal level, we gain more insight to the humanity of the euthanasia debate, simply from a different perspective than we might normally consider. What about Jack’s issue with his father? I think this issue is actually a lot more prevalent in our daily lives than we may consider. Again we have to dismiss much of the “movie magic” that’s included in the story, but at the end of the day, Jack is simply stuck choosing between his family and what is right. Personally speaking, family issues are the hardest to resolve. We sometimes may know that what Aunt Bethel did was unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, are we really willing to prosecute our family members based on a belief or value we may personally hold? This is a good example of how a potentially easy decision can go awry once a family component is introduced. Finally we have Jack’s last attempt to save the island. This is a more complex dilemma because so much is at risk and virtually every available option has serious implications. I find a unique correlation here between Jack’s situation and perhaps the situation of any company owner, politician, or leader. Jack is put into a situation where he is responsible for the lives (or well-being) of many people and regardless of the decision he makes, there will inevitably be loss, suffering, and the potential risk that the wrong decision was made altogether. Whether or not Jack wants the responsibility, he has it. To me it’s obvious that his duty now becomes to do that which would ultimately provide the best possible outcomes for the higher proportion of people. Through these examples of the moral turmoil that Jack experiences, we gain more insight to some of the inner workings of a duty-based ethic. We find how a duty-ethicist may approach certain situations, more importantly we discover a certain number of challenges that may be present when using an ethic of this type to approach day-to-day ethical dilemmas.
The hit television series “LOST” has become somewhat of a pop-culture phenomenon. The magical island, jungle of mystery, and questionable characters make the show easy to be interested in to say the least. What I find most interesting about Lost, is the underlying philosophical and ethical messages that are a prevalent aspect of the show. Almost all the characters on the show at least resemble, if not directly refer, to a philosopher or philosophical entity. Furthermore, the personality traits of the individual characters and the situations they find themselves in the show, give the audience a good taste of how certain ethical theories pan out, and how certain moral dilemmas can be approached. Throughout his time on the island, Jack Shepard finds himself in and out of situations that most people would find emotionally draining. Overall, Jack is a good person; he lives a dutiful life and inevitably does what could be considered to be the right thing. Since his plane crash led him to this mysterious “rock”, Jack has found himself in the middle of ethically diverse situations that challenge the very essence of his moral beliefs. In fact, much of the show’s progressive plot emphasizes the personal strain that Jack has experienced as a result of his inner desire to “do good” throughout his life. Based on his actions and demeanor throughout the story, Jack is an accurate depiction of a deontological or duty-based ethicist. Deontology theories claim that morality is found in the duty of an act and that consequences of an act do not represent rightness or wrongness. Although this sounds ethically strong, there are some fundamental issues which make it difficult to solely rely on duty-based ethics. Throughout the storyline of Lost we get to witness many ethical theories play-out as they are tested to their roots. For the purposes of this paper we will focus on Jack’s approach to ethical dilemmas using a duty-based ethic.
One of the shows earliest moral dilemmas comes to us in the beginning of the premier season when as a result of the plane crash, a federal marshal has sustained a life-threatening injury (S1, E1.) The marshal, unconscious for the majority of time since the crash, has suffered a pierced abdomen as a result of shrapnel from the wreckage. It is made clear that the marshal is (or will be) in a serious amount of pain, and is in dire need of medical supplies and antibiotics if he is in fact to have any chance of recovery. Being the only physician on the island, it is Jack’s duty to treat the patient to the best of his ability and because of this, Jack has dedicated his time (there are others injured and in need of medical attention) and resources (medical equipment, antibiotics, etc. that were salvaged from the crash) to the critically injured marshal. It is clear at this point that there is no real moral issue with Jack’s decision to take heroic measures to save the dying patient. Moral questionability is not revealed until a later episode when Jack meets Sawyer in the cabin of the crashed airplane while scavenging for much needed medical supplies. (S1, E3) During this confrontation, Sawyer points out the important fact that their rescue is not as inevitable as some may have initially been hoping. Because of this, Sawyer questions Jack’s decision to take such heroic measures to save the marshal and freely using the limited amount of medical supplies. It becomes apparent that what may have been considered a non-issue, has turned into a situation worth taking another look at. It should be known that at this point, there is no certainty that the patient will survive, even if he is privileged to all of the available medicine, surely a factor in Sawyers concern in “wasting” the antibiotics. In the following episode, Jack informs Kate that the condition of the patient has not improved and the prognosis is certainly death. (S1, E3) Both Kate and Sawyer suggest to Jack that he do something to expedite what is thought to be a certain death. Jack’s initial conflict is in dealing with the allocation of limited medical supplies; how much medicine should he use to try and save a suffering patient before his use of that medicine becomes a mere waste? Also, how long should Jack let the terminal patient suffer on the road to his inevitable death? Here we see how the role of a physician sort of naturally fits with a duty-based ethic; as a doctor, Jack assumes responsibility and inherits an ethical obligation to try and preserve the life of the dying marshal, in other words, Jack’s duty. This is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative (second formulation), Ross’s prima facie duties (beneficence, justice), and Rawls’ “Justice Theory” (if we say that from behind the veil of ignorance we would all “want” or choose to be helped in that situation.) The dynamics of Jack’s situation give us different aspects and components to consider when performing a moral examination. Making the life of a dying patient his personal resolve, is clearly a duty-based characteristic on Jack’s behalf. Furthermore, it seems as if once he makes up his mind, he has a strong ability to not let his decisions be influenced. His duty is to save the guy and that’s it; nothing else is relevant to that particular situation. What’s interesting here is that it almost seems irresponsible to not, at the very least, consider the potential need for medicine and supplies for future use. Sawyer (the ethical egoist), Kate (possibly a care-ethicist) and others from the camp all question Jack’s judgment in using the limited supplies. This is a good example of one the questionable side effects of some duty-based theory. It seems almost brash or inhumane to not consider the other alternatives based on perceived outcomes. This is why a strict deontological approach sounds really great, almost virtuous (“I have a duty to…”) however, once in that situation, we find it really difficult to simply dismiss the potential consequences. Jack’s second conflict in this situation comes after he realizes that despite the best efforts made, the life of the dying man will soon end. It’s at this point that Jack is approached by numerous members of the camp, all asking that Jack do something to “speed” things along. Now this scenario is similar, but the duties involved are significantly different. For example, now Jack has to decide between his duty of helping the patient live (beneficence) and his suggested duty to help the patient die (which contradicts his duty of nonmaleficence.) This situation provides an interesting parallel to the physician’s duty in the euthanasia debate. It is clear that Jack in no way wants to take action in the death of a patient; I can only assume that Jack has previously determined that the duty to preserve life is more sacred than the duty to prevent pain and suffering.
Near the end of the first season we find Jack struggling his way through a more personal moral dilemma. In the eleventh episode “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues,” we catch the scene of Jack losing a patient on the operating table. His father, the Chief of Surgery is in the room with him and there is an obvious friction between the two. We later learn that Jack assumed responsibility of the surgery from his father (Christian), who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The end result is the death of a girl whose life may have been salvageable, a result that Jack clearly blames on his father. Due to the patient’s death, a formal medical hearing has been sanctioned; as the surgeon of record, Jack must decide to either falsify the report, absolving his father of any responsibility, or testify the true events to the medical review board, an act that will surely ruin his father’s career. What’s unique about this situation is not only do we have conflicting duties, we have added a more personal element to the possible consequences. Keep in mind, a true deontologist would not allow their decision to be impacted by the addition of consequences. If Jack considers he has a duty to his father (loyalty, gratitude, etc.) then his only real option is to falsify the documents. The conflicting duty here is Jack’s responsibility of reporting his father, and hopefully preventing this event from happening in the future; the duty of nonmaleficence. So Jack is now trying to decide which duty is priority. A good deontologist (having grasped the concept that situations like this may arise,) may have his or her duties already pre-prioritized and may be able to assert that one’s duty to his family is of higher priority than other “non-familial” duties. What happens if Jack leaves his little black book of deontology on his nightstand; how does he work himself through this issue? A deontologist might say the moral agent would then have to decide on-the-spot, which duty that person held to a higher value. Jack finds himself at a decision yielding only two possible outcomes. Each outcome represents both an achievement of a duty, and the denial of a duty. For example, if Jack chose to surrender his father; he would achieve the duty of “preventing future harm” but he may also sacrifice the duty of beneficence or gratitude to his father. His alternative option yields results that achieve another duty, and finally the denial of another; almost an “I can’t win” scenario. I think a better solution may be to consider using a different ethic altogether. For example, if you get stuck with conflicting duties, you could progress to a utility-based theory where you can qualitatively and quantifiably choose the better of your two options. This can be looked at as getting the best out of your loss, or doing the best with what you had; it all depends on your outlook. Regardless of the decision that is made, you can say you did your duty of due diligence on the matter. In the show, Jack chooses the duty to his father is of the highest value in this situation and we are given the impression of a mutual understanding between Jack and Christian, one that entails a certain degree of change in Christian’s behavior moving forward. Jack agrees to sign the papers and testify on behalf of his father at the review hearing. The final question during Christian’s medical review reaches Jack and the television audience at the same time when we simultaneously learn that the dead patient was pregnant. Jack is immediately distraught and uncomfortable with this news, a feeling that eventually causes him to retract his testimony and legitimize the report of his father’s actions. Now this is an interesting conflict; Jack made a decision based primarily on duty, yet when we add a consequence to the equation, Jack actually changes his testimony and in essence, disregards the duty to his father. To me this shows us that Jack simply was unable to come to a decision based on duty alone, and he had to revert to the cost-benefit model of a consequentialist theory. Once a pregnancy and a loss of a child are entered into the equation, his choice of the higher ethic changed as well. We the audience never learn exactly what influenced Jack’s decision; it could have been the additional loss of life, or perhaps it was Christian’s willingness to lie in response to his knowledge of the girls pregnancy, all we know is that something did in fact make him change his mind. Because of this, I can only assume that Jack must have used some sort of consequentialist reasoning to come to his conclusion. If he truly made that decision based on duty and duty alone, then consequences (in this case collateral damage) should be irrelevant.
The season five finale presents Jack in a situation where he’s now challenged to make a decision that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on a large number of people. We learn in the “Follow the Leader” episode (S1, E15) that Jack has an opportunity to potentially reverse everything that has occurred over the last five television seasons. The scientist Daniel Faraday learns that if they can destroy the massive amount of energy that’s beneath the island’s surface, then they can potentially travel back to the exact point in time before they ever crashed on the island. This would mean that nothing that has occurred on the island as we know it will actually occur. Now we have a situation where the moral reigns are given to Jack so that he may decide what’s best for everyone. This a step-up from his other dilemmas because now instead of the implications only impacting one or a few, Jack is making a decision that will either work and be catastrophic for some, or it will fail and be catastrophic for all. You would have to be a fan of the show to really understand the implications involved with each of Jack’s options in this particular scenario. It’s important to know that should Jack succeed, he would reverse the deaths of many innocent people. It is also important to know that should he succeed, there would be a significant amount of collateral damage. For example, Kate (the women Jack has come to love) would inevitably end up in prison, Claire (who we learn is Jack’s sister) would give up her baby (Jack’s nephew) for adoption, and Rose would inevitably die from the cancer that has plagued her up to the point until she crash-lands on the island. So how does a good duty-based ethicist move forward? He could revert to his core beliefs and choose which duty “outranks” the other (much like in his first dilemma) or he can adopt methods from another ethical standpoint to help him through the decision (similar to Jack’s dilemma with his father.) Which of these options is the “right” thing to do? If we leave it to Jack to decide which duty to adhere to, we are in essence saying that we trust his judgment, as any good deontologist in that situation would choose the act which is most dutiful. Regardless of what we say we would do in this situation, I find it hard to believe, if not impossible, that any moral agent in this situation would not instinctively refer to the possible outcomes. It simply does not seem rational that an agent could be “right” by doing a duty that leads to many deaths, while there was another option available that resulted in less catastrophic outcomes. If a deontologist cannot at least “see” this point while in the crux of a moral dilemma, then said agent is in fact being ethically lazy. If Jack were to drop down (or step up) to another theory to help resolve the issue, he’s at the very least showing an understanding that since his chosen ethic has led him to a situation he cannot resolve, perhaps there is room to investigate other options or theories.
We’ve now had the opportunity to follow Jack through a number of dilemmas during his time on the island; each dilemma with its own set of circumstances, risks, and potential outcomes. Some might argue that these examples are not an accurate depiction of real life, but I think the series of events that Jack undergoes portrays very realistic parallels to the real world. Let’s take Jack’s first dilemma, the dying federal marshal. Here Jack is faced between two conflicting duties; the duty of beneficence and the duty of nonmaleficence. The crash, the island, and the whiny survivors are mere “multiples of zero” (they cancel themselves out) in Jack’s moral equation; the true dilemma lies with how to treat the dying patient. Jack is now at a point when he only has two choices and he himself must choose one. Once we rid ourselves of the visuals of crashed planes and jungle polar bears, we find this situation strikingly relevant to the euthanasia debate. When discussing this issue we are quick to compare the morality of patient rights with the duties of the doctor, it’s interesting now to see how the doctor’s morality is challenged. It’s almost as if we normally don’t consider the feelings or input of the doctors themselves, like they would do whatever we deem morally acceptable. Because we get to see how these implications impact Jack on a personal level, we gain more insight to the humanity of the euthanasia debate, simply from a different perspective than we might normally consider. What about Jack’s issue with his father? I think this issue is actually a lot more prevalent in our daily lives than we may consider. Again we have to dismiss much of the “movie magic” that’s included in the story, but at the end of the day, Jack is simply stuck choosing between his family and what is right. Personally speaking, family issues are the hardest to resolve. We sometimes may know that what Aunt Bethel did was unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, are we really willing to prosecute our family members based on a belief or value we may personally hold? This is a good example of how a potentially easy decision can go awry once a family component is introduced. Finally we have Jack’s last attempt to save the island. This is a more complex dilemma because so much is at risk and virtually every available option has serious implications. I find a unique correlation here between Jack’s situation and perhaps the situation of any company owner, politician, or leader. Jack is put into a situation where he is responsible for the lives (or well-being) of many people and regardless of the decision he makes, there will inevitably be loss, suffering, and the potential risk that the wrong decision was made altogether. Whether or not Jack wants the responsibility, he has it. To me it’s obvious that his duty now becomes to do that which would ultimately provide the best possible outcomes for the higher proportion of people. Through these examples of the moral turmoil that Jack experiences, we gain more insight to some of the inner workings of a duty-based ethic. We find how a duty-ethicist may approach certain situations, more importantly we discover a certain number of challenges that may be present when using an ethic of this type to approach day-to-day ethical dilemmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)