Ethical Dillemas
jinara d reyes
>For the purposes of this scenario all parties involved should be viewed
>as gender-neutral (that is, their sex has nothing to do with how you should
>judge their actions).
>
>There is a person (A) who lives on the west side of a raging river and is
>in love with another person (B) who lives on the east side. (B) is also in
>love with (A).
WHY IS THIS POSTED TO THE MUSIC GROUP????? keep it in soc.singles or
alt.romance......please.
Hardi Stutes
Well for me it would be B,A,D,C.
(C) is the easist to answer. (C) is gutter slime (Which is worse than
pond scum but better than sewer sludge.) Not because I have a problem with
casual sex or even using sex as a medium of exchange. But if (C) had any
knowlage of the relationship between (A) and (B) and how (B) felt about
(A) and how (B) would react and still wanted the deal well, like I said,
gutter slime. If (C) was not aware of how (B) felt then (A) and (C) switch
places because (A) should have told (C) about it. (Unless there was some
reason for (C) not to know at wich point I would throw up my hands and
not answer this.)
(D) is next because (D) had no real right to get involved directly in the
situation. The only reason I can see for (D)'s reaction is righteous
indignation and, well, that's not a good reason for beating someone up.
(A) only comes in second because a plea of insanity could very easily
be entered for her/him/it. But I think that (A) should have tried to talk
(C)'s price to something else, consiering the fact that (A) knew of (B)'s
feelings. If (A) had tried to tell (C) about (B)'s feelings and (C) still
demanded his/her/it's price then (C) is like I said before gutter slime.
(B) is firstbecause he/she/it was basically the victim of (C)'s greed
without having a real choice on the subject. (B) could have been a little bit
more reasonable. (A) only did it because it/she/he wanted to see (B). A little
forgivness wouldn't hurt too much, would it? (But of cource the excuse "I
only did it for you." would wear kind of thin the second time (A) needed to
use it.)
-2 days until I leave the net-
hst...@fs06.nas.nasa.gov(Dr. Sigmund Stutes) -ss-
-3220 days until my 30th birthday-
A single red rose Smileys[:)] a way of life.
when words may fail, speaks without
ambiguity -Dawn Whiteside
Sonja Kueppers
Because A is doing exactly what I would do (and we all know I'm always right,
at least in judging my own moral standards), C is not doing anything
objectionable (but then, I'm one of those people who thinks prostitution is
a good idea if the market will bear it, and in this case the market bore it),
B is being a complete fool, but D loses out overall due to his/her/its
violent reaction. (I think D is perfectly justified in telling B he's being
an idiot, but beating him to a bloody pulp is ridiculous)
-Sonja
-------
-----------------------------Sonja Kueppers------------------------------
|SEK@PSUVM (bitnet) |"Sex should be friendly. Otherwise|
|S...@PSUVM.psu.edu | stick to mechanical toys; it's |
|SEK%PS...@psuvax1.uucp | more sanitary." TEFL, Heinlein |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kudla
a,d,c,b. A is first, because s/he would do anything to get to see shis
love. D is second, because of shis loyalty to shis friend. C is third,
because though sex as currency in lieu of anything else is amoral,
coercing someone to do something against shis will is kinda icky. B,
of course, is last, because s/he is a total ingrate for shis love
making such a sacrifice just to see herm. S/he deserved much more than
to be beat up.
For instance, if you're posting to rec.music.misc because you're
thinking of writing an epic opera about this quadrangle, you might
consider having A kill hermself and leaving a eloquent note to B
heaping a whole lot of guilt on shim. Poetic justice, rendered
kinison-style.....
--
Robert Jude Kudla <ku...@pawl.rpi.edu> <ku...@acm.rpi.edu> <fw3s@RPITSMTS>
Pi-Rho America \\ /// Constitution: A piece of paper designed to
2346 15th St. \\ /// fool people into thinking they are not owned.
Troy, NY 12180 /X\ \\\/// keywords: mike oldfield yes u2 r.e.m. new order
(518)271-8624 // \\ \XX/ steely dan f.g.t.h. kate bush .....and even Rush
Phil Stracchino
First place is easy. A, because A basically just took the only acceptable
way out of A's dilemma. There are other ways out of course - for instance,
beat the tar out of C and _take_ C's boat - but that's not an ethically
acceptable action.
Last place is almost as easy: D, because there was no valid excuse for
beating up B. There wasn't even a valid excuse for getting into a big
argument. D might more reasonably have gone to B and tried to explain
to B that A didn't really have a whole lot of choice given the options
available.
Between B and C, the choice is harder. C's ultimatum is basically
equivalent to rape. On the other hand, if B was that clearly aware of
C's price etc, then B should have been fully aware that A had no choice
except to either pay C's price (which, OK, B didn't want A to do), stay
on the other side o the river (which neither A nor B wanted), or take
C's boat by force (definitely wrong, though under the circumstances it
would have been understandable). Hence if B really loved A, then B
should have been prepared to understand A's choice, knowing that A was
in a no-win situation. Neither of them (B or C) is right; but C is more
in the wrong than B.
|
So, my verdict: A |B C D
|
--
Knight of the Ancient and Honorable | Phil Stracchino
Order of the Rampant Turtle | uunet!microsoft!t-phils
Black Knights fought, Holy Grails sought | INTERNET: t-p...@microsoft.UUCP
(Damsels in distress rescued for free) | Disclaimer: Disclaim who?
Chris Andersen
group. The posting I originally followed up on was cross-posted and I didn't
check it. Whoops.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
--
Chris Andersen (..!{sun,tektronix}!sequent!ccssrv!chris)
Home: (503) 620-4176 Work: (503) 641-8128
"I'm willing to talk...How about you?"