Real-life example: A social worker is working on a case, and their client expresses an urge that potentially implies they have an urge to do something that can harm others. The social worker must choose whether or not to remain confidential in respect for the patient or to break confidentiality in hopes of stopping the client from hurting someone
Personally, if I was approached by a client who expressed harmful urges, I would break confidentiality. However, this would not be because I do not respect my client, but the idea that this client is potentially harmful to others and the fact that most social workers by law are required to report on these matters, I believe that assessing the situation would be better than ignoring it and someone getting hurt.
In this scenario, the social worker can do one of two things, they can get more help for their client, or choose to respect confidentiality. The first thing that comes to my mind is the concept of respect, this is a concept that is across the board in terms of moral systems. However, given the client implied they may have an urge to harm someone, the social worker, by law, may need to take action on the matter.
Real-life example: In a clip from the show, Young Sheldon, we see Sheldon expressing his ethical dilemma to his friend Tam. He explains he wasn't sure if he should use a trick he found to turn his floppy disc into a double-sided one, as he only purchased a single-sided one. (This clip can be found here: https://youtu.be/Fw_biJjdz1I?si=kLE9YiIqRTxvxjDr )
If I was in this scenario, I would most likely not punch the hole in the disc. Not only is it not necessarily the most ethical thing to do, but it also risks damaging the product. If I was Sheldon, I would use the floppy disc to full capacity, and save up to buy a double-sided one for when the single-sided one runs out of storage.
Here, in this scenario we can see Sheldon actively applying ethics to his situation, as he is pondering about if it is an ethical decision or not to punch a hole in his floppy disc. This is a very mundane ethical dilemma, but Sheldon is still deliberating on whether or not it would be ethical of him to do the action. In the concept of Samma-Kammanta it is stated not to self- exploit, which may be why Sheldon is worried about making his disc double sided- as he only purchased a single-sided disc, and turning it into a double-sided one would be exploitation.
Metaethics
Real-life example: The golden rule: Treat others how you wish to be treated.
I do have to say that I strongly agree with this rule. I heard it often growing up, and personally, I do value respect. However, in other cases I wouldn't always be so inclined to follow a rule simply because everyone else decides to, I like to follow them if I personally believe they are ethical.
This rule is a great description of a value that people follow supposedly just because everyone agrees on it. This rule, however, does make sense morally, as it once again shows the value of respect - a moral belief common in almost every moral system. However, this doesn't mean that everyone should follow this rule just because everyone else does, right?
The golden rule is something most people hear of at least once in their lives. The most common version of this rule that I typically hear is to treat others how I wish to be treated. However, just because this is a golden rule, and supposedly everyone agrees on it, what makes it right? Especially if nobody knows where this rule comes from.
Real life example: The debate on medically induced-suicide (should it be available? Or not?)
Everyone has a different stance on this matter, and since this is such a broad, abstract question there are many answers that stem from many different perspectives. Personally, I do not believe this should be something that is widely available to society. I believe God gave us a life to live, and that ending it prematurely is selfish in many ways. However, this being said, I do also somewhat agree with the concept of allowing this for patients who are terminally ill. Should the person be suffering and in immense pain, and other treatment options do not work, I do believe this can be an option, but that this is not something that should be offered to everyone, only severe cases. I do think that in some ways this can be morally incorrect, especially when it comes to people wanting to receive this treatment just for the sake of it, given how many moral beliefs are against ending lives prematurely, but I do also believe God does not want us to be in pain or to suffer, which is why in severe cases I believe this can be permissible.
The topic of medically induced suicide has been in debate for some time now. Some argue that it can be helpful for those with severe mental illness, and allow for them to finally be free of their mental pain and suffering without taking their own life in another manner, thus making it permissible. Others may say this goes against the word of God, and that unless the person is terminally ill (eg. on their deathbed) that it is not an acceptable choice. In the ten commandments and the Quaran, it is stated that murder is unacceptable, and many will see this as going directly against these beliefs.
Normative Ethics
Real-life example: Your friend is being falsely accused of trespassing on a property. In order to help your friend, you must lie and say you were with your friend when the event supposedly occurred, or else your friend will face consequences for a crime they didn't commit. What do you do?
If I was in this situation, given my understanding of the moral systems and my personal virtues, I would lie for my friend. Not only would I do this because I disagree with my friend facing punishment for something they wouldn't do, but because i many of the moral systems (eg. the concept of Justice in the seven virtues of Christianity) it states the importance of fairness, and the concept of getting punished for false accusations, simply put, is not fair. However, despite lying being wrong and it goes against some values, I would argue that protecting the rights of my friend is more important.
In this scenario, we see our friend getting falsely accused of a crime we know they did not commit. We can choose to lie for them, even if that is typically morally wrong, and help them not face consequences. Or, we tell the truth and our friend will face consequences for something they did not do. We can see in many of the moral systems that love and respect are very common concepts, specifically stated in the ten commandments, and the seven grandfather teachings. We also see in the ten commandments that protecting the rights of the weak is of utmost importance, so some may argue that given our friend is weak in this situation, lying for them to protect their innocence would be the more moral decision.
Real-life example: In the television series, Young Sheldon, we watch a scene where Sheldon and his Meemaw play a game of cards. She shows him facial expressions, implying that she didn't have a good hand, bluffing her grandson. After this, Sheldon is upset, taking a more deontological stance as he believes lying is wrong, regardless of the outcome. Meanwhile, his Meemaw takes a more ultitarianism stance as she was focused on winning the game. (clip found here: https://youtu.be/U2GOxozU7Xw?si=g3lODdC7aniRpWjp )
If I was in this situation, like Sheldon, I would be upset. However, I would also take it as a learning experience. After Sheldon expresses his distress, his Meemaw tells him that not everyone is necessarily an honest person, and this is a valuable life lesson, as some people do not value morals as much as others. This can also be looked at as the value of Nibawaakawin (or wisdom) as the Meemaw is sharing her ideas, and I would have the opportunity to interpret these ideas. If I was the Meemaw, I may not have bluffed the way that she did, but I would have explained to Sheldon that his smile indicates that he is giving me the idea that he has a good hand, which can give me an upper hand. In other words, I would discuss it with him fairly, rather than bluffing him completely.
Sheldon, in this clip shows knowledge of the "Samma-Kammanta" concept as this moral rule typically states the principle to not exploit yourself and others. Sheldon states his dislike towards his grandmother's self-exploitation to win the game.
In this scenario, Sheldon's Meemaw went against the Christian virtue of justice, which states to give each person their due and to act fairly. By bluffing Sheldon, she gave herself the upper hand, thus not acting fairly. She may have chose the action of bluffing to teach Sheldon about how some people are not always honest, as she did explain that you cannot always know what is in someone's heart. However, her actions could have also been driven by the desire to win the game.
