Chapter 1
Discussion Questions
1. A common ethical dilemma used to distinguish between philosophical reasoning methods is the
following. Imagine that you are standing on a footbridge spanning some trolley tracks. You see that a
runaway trolley is threatening to kill five people. Standing next to you, in between the oncoming trolley
and the five people, is a railway worker wearing a large backpack. You quickly realize that the only way
to save the people is to push the man off the bridge and onto the tracks below. The man will die, but his
body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. (You quickly understand that you can’t jump
yourself because you aren’t carrying enough weight to stop the trolley, and there’s no time to put on the
man’s backpack.) Legal concerns aside, would it be ethical for you to save the five people by pushing this
stranger to his death? Use the deontological and teleological methods to reason out what you would do
and why.
Is it Ethical to Save Four People at the Expense of One?
Lessons from the Talmud
The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment in ethics, first introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967. Others have also
The choice is between saving five lives at the cost of taking one life. Before I get to the “answers,” I want to explain
how one researcher is using MRI technology to map brain response while analyzing the dilemma. Joshua Greene at
Greene found that people asked to make a moral judgment about “personal” violations, like pushing the stranger off
the footbridge, showed increased activity in areas of the brain associated with the emotions. This was not the case
Many do not believe it to be ethical to intentionally end someone else’s life whether it is to save others or not. Most
do not believe it is a moral responsibility to sacrifice one life in order that others may go on. If you push someone in
We have no right to sacrifice the life of one person to save others. There is a saying from the Talmud, an
We have no right to decide who lives and who dies. Yes, if we can save one person without harming others we have
a moral obligation to do so. However, to save one life while sacrificing others is an arbitrary act in many ways. What
if the one sacrificed is a humanitarian, well-respected and well-known person who works tirelessly for the poor and
others who can’t help themselves? What if those saved are criminals who committed murder and escaped from
2. Another ethical dilemma deals with a runaway trolley heading for five railway workmen who will be
killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save these people is to hit a switch that will
turn the trolley onto a side track where it will run over and kill a worker instead of five. Ignoring legal
concerns, would it be ethically acceptable for you to turn the trolley by hitting the switch in order to save
five people at the expense of one person? Use the deontological and teleological methods to reason out
what you would do and why.
Again, like above in number 1 you should not intentionally take a life, but if your intentions were to save the other
3. The following statements about virtue were made by noted philosophers/writers:
a. MacIntyre, in his account of Aristotelian virtue, states that integrity is the one trait of character that
encompasses all the others. How does integrity relate to, as MacIntrye said, “the wholeness of a human
life”?
Integers are whole numbers. This is the base word for integrity. Things with integrity are the same all the way
through or whole throughout. Thus, integrity equates with the consistency of one’s actions. We must be consistently
A person of integrity acts with courage, sincerity, and honesty. Integrity encompasses all the other traits or values of
character because it also implies action. Integrity requires a person to be honest, but to also act on that honesty.
Students often think that integrity is synonymous to honesty. Many dictionaries even state that honesty is the
synonym for integrity and vice versus. Yet, just because a thief is being honest in one circumstance does not mean
that he has integrity. A thief may admit to stealing only after being caught. We might say it is an honest act but it
b. David Starr Jordan (1851–1931), an educator and writer, said, “Wisdom is knowing what to do next;
virtue is doing it.” Explain the meaning of this phrase as you see it.
This quote addresses the fact that it is not enough to know what is right or wrong; one must also act on that
knowledge. Knowledge without action would be hollow. Maya Angelou (1928 – ), an author has said that
Ethical dilemmas are situations where deciding what is best requires weighing ethical arguments between
alternatives. Deciding what the best thing to do is almost always easier than actually doing it. Josephson Institute
refers to moral temptations as a choice which is clear but still unattractive. The ratio of moral temptation to ethical
dilemma might be four to one. Even those of us with the worst eating and exercise habits seem to know a lot about
4. a. Do you think it is the same to act in your own self-interest as it is to act in a selfish way? Why
or why not?
Acting selfishly and in your own self-interest is not the same thing. Normally acting selfishly is only being
concerned with self, not others, and being very short sighted; it is being concerned with immediate gratification of
some sort. Acting in one’s best interest may also mean acting in the best interest of all involved. For instance, I can
turn up the television loud while I study because that is what I like, who cares if it is bothering my roommate or
b. Do you think “enlightened self-interest” is a contradiction in terms, or is it a valid basis for all action?
Evaluate whether our laissez-faire, free-market economic system does (or should) operate under this
philosophy.
“Enlightened self-interest” may seem like a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, an individual has to be
“enlightened” to consider the long term effects of a choice upon self, others, and the whole of humanity. For
example, an individual may want the road near his house to be free of litter out of self-interest (resale value, dislike
The doctrine of laissez-faire, free market system is based upon the belief that economies should not be encumbered
by regulation; an economy works best with enlightened self-interest, competition, and the laws of supply and
demand. Adam Smith used the term “invisible hand” to describe how enlightened self-interest, competition, and
supply and demand worked to self-regulation markets without needing regulation. The 2007-2008 financial crisis
4.In this chapter we discuss the Joe Paterno matter at Penn State. Another situation where a respected
individual’s reputation was tarnished by personal decisions having nothing to do with performance on
the job is the resignation of former U.S. military General and Head of the CIA, David Petraeus. On
November 9, 2012, Petraeus resigned from the CIA after it was announced he had an extramarital affair
with a biographer, Paula Broadwell, who wrote a glowing book about his life. Petraeus acknowledged he
used poor judgment by engaging in the affair. When F.B.I. agents investigated the matter because of
concerns there may have been security leaks, they discovered a substantial number of classified
documents on her computer. Broadwell told investigators she ended up with the secret military
documents after taking them from a government building, No security leaks had been found. In
accepting Petraeus’ resignation, President Obama praised Petraeus’ leadership during the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars and said: “By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made
our country safer and stronger.” Should our evaluation of one’s lifetime of hard work and success in
their careers be tainted by one act having nothing to do with job performance?
Although at first glance adultery has nothing to do with Petraeus’ job, an officer in the military is subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under article 133 an officer can be court-martialed for conduct
unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. Article 134-2 identifies adultery as an act unbecoming to an officer and a
Conduct unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman is premised upon the fact that leaders cannot be seen as willing
to violate their own rules, principles and those of the organizations they represent.
Under the Six Pillars of Character, Petraeus violated the pillar of trustworthiness. Leaders cannot enforce rules that
they violate, and they cannot maintain trust by showing that they are willing —as in adultery—to betray others to
whom they have promised fidelity. And when a leader breaks the rules of his own organization, the message sent
A similar situation is the Lance Armstrong affair where he repeatedly lied about not using performance enhancing
drugs. His good reputation was tarnished by this one, albeit very significant, act and a lifetime of being a role model
6. One explanation about rights is that “there is a difference between what we have the right to do and what
is the right thing to do.” Explain what you think is meant by this statement.
Having a right to do something allows one to be concerned with one’s self interest only
(egoism). Doing the right thing often requires one to consider others besides one’s self (at a
7. Steroid use in baseball is an important societal issue. Many members of society are concerned that their
young sons and daughters may be negatively influenced by what apparently has been done at the major
league level to gain an advantage and the possibility of severe health problems for young children from
continued use of the body mass enhancer now and in the future. Mark McGwire, who broke Roger
Maris’s 60-home-run record, initially denied using steroids. He has never come close to the 75 percent
positive vote to be in the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately for McGwire, his approval rating has been
declining each year since he received 23.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and only 16.9 percent of the
sportscasters voted in 2013 to elect him into the Hall. Some believe Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, two
potential future hall-of-famers who were the best at what they did, should be listed in the record book
with an asterisk after their names and an explanation that their records were established at a time when
baseball productivity might have been positively affected by the use of steroids. Some even believe they
should be denied entrance to the baseball Hall of Fame altogether. The results for Bonds (36.2 percent)
and Clemens (37.6 percent) in their initial year of eligibility (2013) were not close to meeting the 75
percent requirement and that led some to question whether these superstars would ever be voted into the
Hall. Evaluate whether Bonds and Clemens should be elected to the Hall of Fame from a situational ethics
point of view.
Using steroids is cheating. What theories would support cheating? Virtue ethics would want
doing the right thing to become a habit. Deontology would emphasize the duty of doing the
right thing. Fairness would emphasize equals competing against one another. When athletes
Steroids might increase speed and strength if well administered and athletes could make a
case that if every baseball player had access to them competition would be equalized;
similar to giving every one access to good shoes or the weight room. There are two
Underneath an almost cult like reverence for athletes is the celebration of sporting,
unearned luck of birth talent, healthy respect for the virtues of diligence, courage,
dedication, discipline, and sometimes teamwork. Baseball is different from some other
sports in that until very recently, it looked like a sport anyone could play. Baseball looks like
a fair game in that short guys, fat guys, skinny guys, and athletic looking guys got to play.
We celebrate the virtues of sports which we ought to celebrate in ordinary life, where we are
8. Your best friend is from another country outside the United States. One day after a particularly
stimulating lecture on the meaning of ethics by your instructor, you and your friend disagree about
whether culture plays a role in ethical behavior. You state that good ethics are good ethics and it doesn’t
matter where you live and work. Your friend tells you that in her country it is common to pay bribes to
gain favor with important people. Comment on both positions from a relativistic ethics point of view.
What do you believe and why?
The basic moral principles of respect, fairness and kindness are timeless and worldwide;
although di8erent circumstances can affect how they are implemented. There have to be
certain ways of treating people that almost always hurt and are almost always wrong; you
might mention a few obvious ones, like robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise there are
cultural practices of great importance without moral signi&cance. An example is which side
of the road you drive on. Left and right sides might be morally equal, but once everyone
promises to drive on the left side, the wrong side becomes promise-breaking and deadly.
Playing “football” in any country besides the United States implies a promise not to use
9. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions in Exhibit 1.2 indicate that China has a score of only 30 in Uncertainty
Avoidance while the U.S. score is 46. Does this seem counter-intuitive to you? Why or why not? Be sure to
include an explanation of why China’s score is relatively low compared to the U.S.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) is the tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within society. A high UAI ranking
indicates that a country has a low tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity and is likely to institute laws, rules,
regulations, and controls to reduce the amount of uncertainty. Although the U.S. score is higher than China’s, it may
not be significant as compared to Russia (95), Japan (92), or Brazil (76). Many have been critical of Hofstede’s
10. a.
What is the relationship between the ethical obligation of honesty and truth telling?
Ask Students to differentiate between telling a lie and breaking a promise. List some lies no
one believes and therefore are not very harmful and list some lies that people might believe
Have we sometimes “promised” to tell the truth and other times “almost warned” people that we weren’t going to
tell the truth? Telling the truth reveals our respect for the other person’s decision making ability when he is provided
Honesty is about keeping promises to tell the truth. Accepting our promise to tell the truth puts someone is a
relationship of trust with us. In the terms of Robert Fulghum in All I Really Need to Know, I Learned in
b. Is it ever proper to not tell someone something he or she has a right to know? If so, describe under
what circumstances this might be the case. How does this square with rights theory? If you believe it is
never right to withhold such information, consider the virtue of caring or empathy to evaluate your
action.
The conflict of not telling someone something that he may have a right to know is choice between two rights. This
situation may cause a person to tell a lie. For example, assume John works in payroll for PQR Inc. PQR has
announced that it will be laying off 100 people from its workforce. Due to the need to prepare all the separation
If John decides that his co-worker has the right to know the pending lay-off, he may be using the virtue of caring or
empathy to justify his action. He will have chosen loyalty to his co-worker over loyalty to his employer. However,
since confidentiality and trustworthiness are important principles for accountants, choosing loyalty to his co-worker
over his employer could limit his career. Also, using rights theory why does the co-worker have a right to know the