Share a moral dilemma!

[Cosmo]

I thought it might be fun to have a thread where members can share moral or ethical dilemmas they've been faced with, the actions they took, and how the situation was ultimately resolved. I think it could make for some interesting reading - and maybe some philosophical education too! And, as far as I can tell, it's not been done before (or at least in recent forum search history). I'll go first:

The summer between my freshman and sophomore years at college, I worked as a counselor in the university's Precollege program. Precollege is a program that allows talented high school students from across the nation to live in campus dormitories and take between one and three semester-long classes compressed down to 2 months. For just about all of these students, it's their first real taste of university life and the program serves as a very effective recruiting tool for the university. Two years prior to that summer, I was myself a participant in the program; I view my own experiences in Precollege as the primary reason why I applied to the university myself.

The program sponsors a number of weekend day trips for the students; at least two or three are run each weekend. These trips ranged from shopping outings at local malls to museum visits and water park trips. One weekend, I was assigned along with 4 other counselors to chaperone the students on a trip to the nearby Six Flags amusement park.

We had 80 students sign up for the trip. When we arrived at the park, I helped hand each student an admission ticket; the program had prepaid for them and we were holding the tickets ahead of the trip. I and the other counselors soon discovered that the program had bought too many; we had 30 tickets left over after each student had been given one.

One of us five had the idea of selling off the extra tickets and keeping the cash (hey, we thought it was a great idea at the time). We promptly did so, splitting up the tickets and selling them - at $5 less than face value - to random persons approaching the ticket booths. All 30 extra tickets were soon gone.

Of course, the administration wanted to return the unused tickets for a full refund and soon discovered that 30 tickets were missing. The other four counselors and I were caught. One of the other counselors, a graduating senior, decided to take all the blame. He told the administration that it was not only his idea - and his alone - to sell the tickets, but that he was the only person involved in the act of selling them. He urged us four to, when questioned individually, each corroborate his story. He quite correctly stated that, if even one of us didn't go along with the plan, the entire thing would fall apart. There was enormous pressure to agree with the plan. I said I'd do it.

At this point, I began fearing for my future. I was a rising sophomore; I'd only completed one year at the university and I had at least three more to go. If they found out the true story, I was certain that I'd be put on academic probation or have my grades altered or even expelled. I had not yet had any formal philosophy education at this point in my life, so my thought process was largely guided by an undisciplined inner monologue where I tried to determine the right course of action. After a day or two of internal deliberation, I decided that I just couldn't bring myself to take that risk. I told the others of my decision to tell the truth.

But I didn't stop there. One at a time, I went to the other counselors (except for the one who wanted to take the blame) and did my best to convince them to tell the truth with me. Two of them agreed; the third - a close friend of the plan's mastermind - would not go along with me. We were individually called in to speak to the administration and as far as I know each of us did as promised - I and two others told the truth; the other two told their version of the story.

In the end, four of us were spared completely from any punishment - including the mastermind's friend who told a false version of the story. The fifth - the plan's mastermind - was not so lucky. He was booted from Precollege - a significant punishment, as the summer was only about half-over at this point - and was put on full academic probation. I'm told that he was nearly expelled.

But it didn't all end well. The other counselors, even the two who went along with me and told the truth, viewed my defection as an egregious violation of the trust that's supposed to exist between fellow students and friends. To this day, more than three years later, they will not speak with me. Most of them graduated ahead of me, but they did not associate themselves with me for the rest of their time at the university.

I do not regret my decision.

 

[Merko]

I do not believe in morality. But there are a few things to view this. Did you act wisely, given your own interests? You seem to be happy about it. Probably you feel that you want to achieve friendship and success based on being perceived as an honest and uncorrupted person. Acting in accordance with this basic strategy seems sound. I also personally approve of this strategy, I think it has a lot of things going for it, even if it may not likely lead to enormous material wealth it seems like a good recipe for a happy life.

Does it make sense for your former partners-in-crime to loath your action? They probably have a different basic strategy. They want to achieve success by gaining personal advantages based on personal political plots, secret alliances for the benefit of a few involved persons, etc. This strategy is probably more likely to achieve success by many common definitions, but I would still advise against it, mainly because of the constant stress resulting from the need of keeping things secret, remembering to tell the right lies to the right people, etc.

Did the school supervisors act correctly? No idea, there is not enough information about what they actually did, or what their motives were. But assuming that their collective aim is to further the (collective) success and influence of their students, I think they should do best to promote your behaviour rather than that of your would-be co-conspirators.

 

[Cosmo]

Well said, Merko.

Did the school supervisors act correctly? No idea, there is not enough information about what they actually did, or what their motives were.

I'd rather like to know more about their motives and decision-making process myself.

Edit: Let's see some other moral dilemmas!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely the real problem is that there is no "answer" to this moral delima? Or so many others in life.

We all want to see the world with binary answers and it does not work that way.

"The moving finger writes and, having writ, nor all your pity or your wit can cancel out a word of it." Ohmar K.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm not asking for nor expecting there to be simple answers. As I stated, I wanted to hear what the dilemma was, the action(s) you took, and how the situation was resolved - whether for good, bad, or somewhere in between.

 

[Ryokan]

I do not believe in morality.

But the society you live in does, hence it's still quite possible to find yourself in moral dilemmas.

 

[Merko]

Ryokan: I don't think it does. I think it only pretends to believe in it.

Rather than admitting that they did consider stealing from you, but opted not to do it because they wouldn't want to risk their reputation or your friendship, they will say that stealing wouldn't even enter their mind because they are such moral persons. But it's really nonsense. They may not have had that particular impulse at the time, because they had been in similar situations before. But 'morality' is an empty concept, in my opinion. It explains nothing.

 

[Ryokan]

I agree somewhat, Merko, but as I said, as long as the society you live in believes in morality, it's possible to experience moral dilemmas.

Perhaps we should've rather talked about ethical dilemmas?

 

[varwoche]

Here's a dilemma I've wrestled with:

A looong time ago, I learned firsthand that a psychologist who was a family friend (and an uncle-like figure to me) engaged in widespread unethical behavior. To name but one example, he assumed control over businesses that were started by his patients.

I severed my relationship with him for various reasons. I thought about exposing him but didn't.

Many years passed during which time he became somewhat well known (books, documentaries on PBS) and very wealthy. It galls me to no end when I see his sterling public image, knowing what I know.

I have almost no doubt that if he was a stranger, I would tenaciously expose him.

My dilemma is that unrelated to his misdeeds, I had my own personal grievances with him. There's a part of me that would like to stick it to him out of vengeance. However that's a motivation I do not wish to act on.

 

[Beerina]

I do not regret my decision [regarding the decision to not support the fraudulent single-perp explanation the 30 tickets].

Personally I would not have gone along with the ticket "resale" to begin with. If they did it anyway, I would have looked the other way, then denied all knowledge when questioned later.

And speaking of psychologists, does anyone know any reasonably good-looking female ones who use their authority to sexually manipulate and abuse their male patients? Hopefully ones in my state and local area.

 

[Marc L]

I do not believe in morality.

I don't suppose you could clarify this? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to attack or anything.

Marc

 

[l0rca]

I am not one to rat. I would not rat a thing unless the consequences for not ratting were extremely great, and by great I am talking about terrorist plots, or murderous things.

I don't understand what you did, and you didn't really take the time to explain your reasoning at the time, nor your reasoning of why you do not regret it now. Your actions may have gotten your old friend into more trouble.

I do not see why, to some people, honesty is considered an ultimate good. Many times it is not.

 

[Ryokan]

I don't suppose you could clarify this? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to attack or anything.

Marc

He probably means that morality is a social construct. Which it is.

But I may have interpreted him wrong. Not much to go on.

 

[l0rca]

He probably means that morality is a social construct. Which it is.

But I may have interpreted him wrong. Not much to go on.

How are we defining morality here? Hopefully according to the definition?

Either way, I want to bring to mind the genetic angle.

 

[Merko]

I don't suppose you could clarify this? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to attack or anything.

Sure. I think that the term 'morality', in every common usage, infers, in one way or another, a tendency of a person to work towards a 'higher', 'universal' or 'eternal' 'good'. This does not have to be phrased in religious terms, though it often is.

I do not believe that there is a way to identify such a 'good'. And I believe even less that some people would have some general tendency towards it, eg a 'moral'.

We have many instincts, some of which may be called 'moral' by many people. Such as the instinct to 'selflessly' protect our offspring, etc. But these are very specific instincts, no general 'moral' instinct. We have a general instinct to promote what we perceive to be our own interest. Our interest is defined by the sum of our instincts/wishes. Thus this includes 'moral' as well as 'immoral' interests.

I think we can talk about an honest person, or a law-abiding person, or a person disposed to work towards a common good, but neither of these cases (or the combination of them) would, in my opinion, be equivalent to what is commonly understood by a 'moral' person.

 

[Dancing David]

Here is another moral dilemma: In my extended family I have this friend

Well my friend really loves his wife and respects her, she is very cool and often much wiser than my friend. About three years ago there was this family conflict that went like this.

Friend's wife
Friend
Friend's wife's mother
Friend's wife's sister

Back-story: Freind's wife left home and went to college, had to drop out because she was working full time and couldn't make the grades. She married an abusive man and moved away. The abusive man encouraged many unhealthy things, like writing bad checks, by beating her. She borrowed money and ran away to home once but her family was so mean to her she went back to her husband. She got pregnant and had a child, the child was 'failure to thrive' due to her lack of lactation and marriage stress. She fled her husband with the help of protective services where she was. Local protective services would not talk to the other protective services unless they opened a case on her. Despite the fact that my friend's wife took good care of her young baby and never harmed the baby, local protective services opened a case on her.
Friend's wife's family took friend's wife into the house, were she went to school raised her child, did housework and gave all her food stamps to her family. She graduated from college, endured much abuse and humiliation at the hand's of her family.
Younger sister of friend's wife is very dysfunctional, she has never had a boyfriend and has no friends herself, family encourages friend's wife to move in with crazy sister, because that is the only way to get crazy sister out of the house. Crazy sister furthers abuse and control, eventually just throwing friend's wife out of the house (where she had paid her fair share) because friend's wife began dating friend.

One day friend, friend's wife and child are visiting wife's family. They are going to play a game, crazy sister gets upset over very little thing that no one else perceives. She huffs and storms out of room. Friend’s wife says to wife's mother (very gently) "there seems to be some stress, I don't think we will stay long today". Wife's mother goes off her rocker and just goes ballistic; she yells screams and ends up grabbing wife and slapping her.

Family is estranged; mother is not happy about being charged with felony, but gets court supervision and does her service. After two years family reconciles. Wife's family revolves around this crazy sister; they do all they can to control her craziness and enable her when ever they can. Mother apologizes to wife and they make up, crazy sister continues to be mean and crazy. Other family members acts as though wife is good person and they are glad to be reconciled, crazy sister is just mean and controlling to everyone. Family even accepts friend into family and treats him well despite earlier bullcrap made up by crazy sister.
(Much of crazy sister's abuse center's around controlling wife's child and crazy sister's insane jealousy.)


Moral dilemma:
Friend's wife is very glad to be reconciled with family, she loves them and they love her, except for crazy sister.

A year ago crazy sister became a foster parent and fostered an eleven year old. She is abusive to the child but very mild for her and usually about the same old obsessive stuff.
DO NOT CLANK THINE SPOON IN YOUR CEREAL BOWL.
And all sorts of good stuff.

Friend and friend's wife agree that crazy sister is mildly abusive to foster child but well within the realm of bad parenting and not strictly abusive. Given the chaos in the foster child's former life she is doing much better and thriving, she has gone from major oppositional defiant stuff and violence to regular middle school stuff, she is getting A's and B's (instead of D's and F's). Overall foster child is doing well, although she is about to be entered back into her family.

Crazy sister gets dream come true, she receives foster baby that is miracle child, friendly never fussy and just a real happy baby, even when tired and sick.(baby has been neglected and left in crib while real mom went out using).

In midst of interaction with eleven year old and shopping for prom dress, crazy sister goes ballistic and throws CDs at eleven year old foster child while in SUV.


Dilemma:

Crazy sister has crossed line into actual physical abuse, she admits to family that she did this, they respond in the half enabling way.

My friend feels that this is a reportable abuse (no longer as it was a week ago) and that call should be made to child protective services. However my friend decides not to do this.

Reason: my friend’s wife does not want him to; this might cause crazy sister to loose foster license and any chance of adopting said wonder baby. this would definitely make the family situation strained and most likely unrepairable.

So while the 'right' thing to do is call protective services, the wise thing to do is leave it alone, for now.

 

[Merko]

Sure. Keep it internal for now. Unless that CD-throwing was seriously dangerous, which it doesn't sound like it was.

Oh: And one more thing, I think reporting/not reporting to the authorities is far from the only issue. Does your friend and his wife keep a good relation with the semi-abused adopted child? This child is old enough to tell them if the situation is bearable or not.

 

[Dancing David]

I understand that, the event happened three days before 'my friend' found out, so the 48 hour window in Illinois is past. The CD cut the child's head, which constitute the basis for a report in Illinois. But there was not a mandated reporter at work(IE 'my friend') when the story was related to them. It is definitly something to call the hotline about, but not something that the investigator would find 'founded', it would be chocked up to bad parenting. It is still a moral dilemma for 'my friend' they have been a mandated reporter for a long time, and have given trainings on mandated reporting. It is abuse but they feel it is not worth the hassle of calling the hotline. The hotline in Illinois is sometimes painful to call, having sex in the precense of your children, like in the living room when they are awake and present, is against the law, but often the hotline workere won't take the call, and discourages the report.

Until you get to the rest of the story and mention the anal penetration of the child.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Until you get to the rest of the story and mention the anal penetration of the child.

Aack. Would that be an odd joke? If not, I'd certainly describe that as criteria for calling child services. Maybe I misinterpreted the situation, though.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I understand that, the event happened three days before 'my friend' found out, so the 48 hour window in Illinois is past. The CD cut the child's head, which constitute the basis for a report in Illinois. But there was not a mandated reporter at work(IE 'my friend') when the story was related to them.

Can you explain "mandated reporter" and "48 window"?

Another option is to see if you can take over the foster parenting.

I am not one to rat. I would not rat a thing unless the consequences for not ratting were extremely great, and by great I am talking about terrorist plots, or murderous things.

There is a difference between not ratting and lying. And what's so wrong with ratting?

I don't understand what you did, and you didn't really take the time to explain your reasoning at the time, nor your reasoning of why you do not regret it now. Your actions may have gotten your old friend into more trouble.

More than what?