1. Your child is bullied quite frequently at school and the school/teachers are unwilling or unable to address the problem. Eventually, your child beats one of the bullies quite badly, resulting in the bully being hospitalized and the school threatening a long suspension. How would you react?
The key question here for me is intent. Did my child explicitly intend to injure someone else enough to send them to the hospital. And if so, did they have a reasonable cause to believe that if they didn't use that level of force, then either the same, or worse, would happen to them. (Of course, the second question remains pretty much on the level of this hypothetical. I know the few times where I felt that I was gonna pass out from asphyxiation I was also completely and utterly powerless to do anything to change the situation) Quite simply put, if my child intended it, then they are also responsible for it, and I'll probably not only support the suspension, but use that time to instruct the kid on why what he did is wrong, and why he should never do shit like that again. If it wasn't his intention, then I'll probably have his back, and possibly even support a change in schools if a) the kid didn't want to stay where he was and b) I honestly felt that the bully situation would be better at a different school. In my experience, the only real thing that changes is the face and name of the folks doing the bullying.
Now, there is an interesting tangent asking, isn't there some responsibility to be had for the reasonable outcomes of actions you take even if you did not want to cause that particular outcome. As a society, this is a principle that is generally upheld, the easiest example being third degree murder. Someone dies, you didn't intend for that person to die, but you took an action that inadvertently led to their death. Bam, you're now responsible for their death. The thing is, the moral responsibility then rests on the people who made the situation. So, while being in a fight means that an injury like this is perfectly possible, the responsibility is on the person who started the fight since without their starting a fight there would be no injuries.
There is a secondary argument that the person who is being attacked can choose not to fight, and that injuries given to the other side would not be a possibility if the person being attacked declined to fight back. However, there are two reasons I find this argument lacking. First, there are very few moral systems that maintain that you have a duty to avoid harm so strong that you must sacrifice your own well being in order to do so. Most systems of morality accept using proportional self-defense. Secondly, despite what some proverbs may tell you, it only takes one to fight. You can try to run or hide, but if those fail, then the risks of injury are already in effect regardless of whether or not you fight back. The only thing that changes is the odds of such an injury taking place, and a broadening of the number of people who may receive them from just the target to the target and the instigators.. And this is ignoring the fact that running also increases these risks depending on where and how you run, and how the others chase you. Suffice to say, any moral responsibility for an accidental injury would lie with the bullies for incurring the risk when they chose to start a fight.
2. You are on a federal jury, overseeing a white collar crime case. The defendant stole billions of dollars from pensions and siphoned off to his private accounts. You know people who were affected by this, though no one in your immediate family. The evidence presented by itself is however shaky, as the defendant's high priced lawyers got several key pieces of evidence tossed out. Do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
Hmm, so for the sake of this hypothetical I take it we're assuming that we made it past voire dire and that the decision hangs on our vote. I'll also ignore the possibility of appeal here, because if that evidence is always going to be tossed out, and the case can't stand without it, then this is less a moral issue and more a practical one of "He's going to be found not guilty in the end anyways, so let's save society the cash and not send this straight to appeals hell".
So, this question weighs two competing values. The idea of justice/retribution and making sure that the guilty cannot get away with fooling the system. Basically, an argument for making sure that everyone plays by the same rules and is granted equality of opportunity. Against this, we have maintaining proper checks on the state, and ensuring that the innocent do not get indicted. Now, assuming that the shaky case means that there is a reasonable doubt opened up by the exclusion of that evidence, then I would have to go with a Not Guilty verdict.
While I sympathise with the argument that we should ensure that people cannot game the justice system and that no one can play fast and loose with the rules of society. The problem is, that the State is simply very, insanely, powerful. Especially in courts of law. With this fact, it's good to have reasonable checks and balances on the power of the State to incarcerate people, and it is better to let a guilty man go free than risk incarcerating an innocent man.
3. You get your first job. One of your coworkers is extremely unpleasant and rude and indirectly lead to your termination from that job. Years later, you run into this same coworker doing a menial customer service job. They do not seem to remember you, and provide okay service to you. The business provides a website for a customer survey after the fact. If you take the survey and give the cashier a bad review, they could get in serious trouble. Do you take the survey? If so, what do you put down?
I may care enough to take a bit of petty satisfaction. I most certainly won't care enough to lie about them just to get them in trouble.
4. You cut off a delivery truck at a gas station. You go and get something from the gas station and head back to your car. The delivery person is still there and is upset. Do you say anything?
If anything, I'd probably do a non-verbal motion attempting to convey "sorry" but otherwise just do my best to efficiently do what I came to do and get out of there instead of wasting time by going over and doing a verbal apology or explaination or whatever.
5. You accidently find out that one of your coworkers is using illegal drugs while at work. The person doesn't know that you know about the drug use. Management will require the person to take a drug test (Penalty of termination for failing it) if you tip them off about the drug use. Do you say anything to management? Your coworker?
I don't find the mere use of drugs to be morally questionable so this comes down to three questions.
A) Are the use of these drugs endangering anyone besides the user?
B) Are the use of these drugs damaging the ability of the employee to do his job?
C) Is the employee in question any good at their job when they aren't using drugs?
I'll admit, if the answer to C is no, then A and B may be moot in exchange for an opportunity to get someone more skilled into the position. Regardless, if the answer is anything less than yes for C, then a yes answer to either A or B will lead to an immediate conversation with the employer. If the answer to C is yes, or hell yes, then A and B come into play. Specifically, a Yes to C followed by a No to A and B may result in a conversation with the coworker depending on how likely I think it is that someone will find out the same way I did. If I think it likely, then I'll tip them off so that it's less likely they'll get caught.
Where things get interesting is with a YES to either A or B. If the answer to B is a yes, then if minor, I'll point it out to the coworker and hope he cleans up his act. If he can't, and he's good at his job, I'll probably try and find the employer most sympathetic to keeping the guy around and fill them in on the situation. If it's major, then I'll just find the sympathetic employer first and let them decide what to do.
Finally, if the answer to A is yes, then it's straight to the employers. If they're a really good coworker and this is new and aberrant behaviour, then I'll aim for the sympathetic one. Otherwise, I'll probably aim for whoever I think will resolve the situation so there's no more danger.
6. You accidently bump into another car while in a parking lot. There's no one around to witness the event, and there's no real visible damage to either car and you are in a hurry. How do you handle it? Do you wait for the person? Leave a note? Just leave?
Let's be honest here, if you're in a hurry, then even stopping to check for damage is making the right move. If there's none, then there's no reason to hang around.
7. You are unemployed and applying for a dream job, and get the interview. You are qualified for the job. The only issue is that you are short six months experience for the minimum requirement. Because you left the previous employer on good terms, they tell you that they'll lie and say you worked another year at the company than you did to help assure that you get the job. Do you accept this help?
Hmm, while good ol' Kant is whispering in my ear that all lies are bad, I'm honestly going to say that in this case, the lie is acceptable. Why is it ok here? First off, you're not asking for the lie. What you're asking for is an assessment of your skills and competency at this new position. In response to this request, they are willing to pad a non-primary attribute in order to ensure that what they have to say about your primary attributes for this position will be looked at. Now, if it were a lie being offered about the core skillset for the job in question, or some other attribute that would effect your ability to perform in the position being applied for, that would be wrong no matter how you slice it.
8.You place a modestly large order at a fast food place which happens to be very busy. They screw up your order and give you far more food than you paid for. You don't find this out till you're pulling out of the parking lot. Do you return it?
What the others said. There's no value to be gained by returning it. There is only loss. A loss of your time and possibly gas, and the loss of the food itself.
9. An experiment is ran by doctors. They take 1000 victims in the late stages of Alzheimer's and perform medical experiments on them, including brain surgery. This is done of victims with no close living family, so there is no one to give consent. The entire experiment is hidden away so there are no legal or ethical challenges to the experiment. This ends up leading to a cure that halts the progress of the disease, and opens up other treatment options for brain diseases. What should happen to those doctors?
What has been done here is immoral. There is no question about that. What should happen is that they be tried for their crimes and barred from the profession for life. And their research be handed over to proper professionals to be used in ethical tests where consent is gained before using it for anything else. Aka, expose it all to the light of day and let the sun disinfect the whole mess.
Sadly, what I expect would happen is that these guys would get a slap on the wrist, and then quietly offered jobs in places with little publicity.
