First Principles and Dilemmas

Consider this sample dilemma. A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do? Why?

The Best Solution to Ethical Dilemmas

As you think through an ethical dilemma concentrate on how you solve the problem. Ask yourself what basic rules or First Principles your solution rests on. After you've answered several ethical dilemmas, compare the solutions you arrived at. Are they consistent with one another? Do you apply your First Principles the same way in different situations? If your choices contradict each other, try to figure out why? Are there two basic rules at odds?

Working through ethical dilemmas helps you to focus in on your most basic ethical values; it is in these hard choices where we find out what we really value. Often, solving ethical dilemmas is difficult because you are forced to choose between two valued ethical First Principles. Consider the case of the fat man stuck in the cave. Two First Principles most people agree on are: all innocent human life is valuable and that killing is wrong. We also probably agree that: rescuing people trapped in a flooding cave is a good thing. In this fictional situation, both of these values can't be upheld at the same time. Are several innocent lives worth more than one? Are you responsible for the deaths of the people trapped in the cave if you choose not to kill the fat man?

Following are three ethical dilemmas; though you'll be tempted to wiggle out of the dilemmas, try to stay within the boundaries set by the scenario. For each, decide what the best (most ethical or moral) solution is. Your ethical intuition will lead you to an initial response. Consider the reasons for your choices. Try to identify, as clearly as possible, the theory, basic principle, or rule your solution rests on.

The Over-crowded Lifeboat

In 1842, a ship steam off course due to mechanical error, struck an iceberg and sank before any call for help could be made. 30 people survived the sinking and swam to the single lifeboat that was launched. The survivors included the captain, several crew members as well as injured and uninjured men, women, and children. These 30 people were crowded into a lifeboat meant to hold only 7 people.

As a storm approached the lifeboat, the captain had a terrible decision to make. Since no SOS was sent and because the ship was not on normal trade routes, it seemed very unlikely that a rescue would happen. The closest landfall was the coast of Africa over 1200 miles away. The lifeboat contained limited food and water supplies. Based on years of experience, the captain felt sure that the coming storm would sink the over-crowded lifeboat causing everyone to drown. However, if the load was lightened by half, the captain felt that the boat would probably survive the storm and with lots of hard rowing and difficult navigation, it might be possible to make it to the coast of Africa.

Some people suggested that the weak and injured people be thrown overboard since they wouldn't survive anyway and would be unable to row. Others suggested that everyone should stay in the boat and find their fate together.

You are the captain, what do you do?

A Callous Passerby

Roger Smith, a competent swimmer, is on his way to a job interview. He has been out of work for awhile and he knows that missing this interview will probably exclude him from consideration. On his way he passes a deserted pier from which a young boy has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes he would not suffer any physical harm by jumping into the water to save the boy, though he would ruin his only nice suit and also miss his job interview. Smith chooses to ignore the boy's cries and continue on his way.

Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy?

The Heinz Dilemma

Mrs. Heinz is dying of a rare form of cancer. The only hope for a cure is a new compound produced by a local pharmacist who is charging $1000 for the treatment. Unfortunately Mr. and Mrs. Heinz do not have $1000 and they have exhausted all efforts to raise the money. Mr. Heinz has also failed in his negotiations with the pharmacist. The pharmacist argues that he has spent lots of money developing the drug and that the $1000 price is more than fair. If he makes an exception for Mrs. Heinz, he would need to do so for all other people too and this would bankrupt him.

Mr. Heinz realizes he is out of options. In desperation Mr. Heinz considers breaking into the pharmacy late at night when he knows nobody will be there so he can steal the drug to save his wife's life.

Should Heinz steal the drug? Please note that this dilemma is not focused on the morality of the pharmacist, but on Mr. Heinz's choice to steal or not to steal.