Name:
“Pick a Side” and “Pro or Con”
Planning 10
Mr. Barazzuol
_________________________________________________________
“Pick a Side”
1) Unions – Strikes
2) Pro – Choice
3) Pre – Marital Sex
4) Gay Marriage
5) Legal Drugs
6) Death Penalty
7) Euthanasia
8) Conscription
9) Welfare
10) Religion in School
11) Canada belongs to the First Nations
_________________________________________________________
“Pro or Con”
1) I am excited to be back at school
2) I speak a language other than English
3) I participate in sports and clubs
4) I have friends in this class
5) I feel that there are good reasons to go to school
6) I currently have a job
7) I plan on attending university or college
8) I want to live in a different country one day
9) I plan on getting married
10) I want to one day have kids
11) I think that everyone should be able to get married
12) I am mature enough to talk about sex
13) Sex is a subject I feel comfortable talking about
14) I know or have experienced love
15) I believe that the legal age is too old
16) I feel that I am old enough to vote
17) I am responsible for my own finances
18) I have a resume already accomplished
19) I find it easy to express my feelings
20) I find it easy to back up feelings
_________________________________________________________
Block:
Moral Dilemma Scenarios
1) The Fat Man and the Impending Doom
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a
short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the
fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a
stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite
which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
Since the fat man is said to be "leading" the group, he is responsible for their predicament and
reasonably should volunteer to be blown up. The dilemma becomes more acute if we substitute a
pregnant woman for the fat man. She would have been urged by the others to go first out of the cave.
We can also make the dilemma more acute by substituting a knife for the dynamite. Hikers are not
likely to just happen to be carrying around a stick of dynamite (federal authorites may be interested in
this), and setting it off in the cave could just as easily kill everyone, or cause a cave-in, than just remove
the fat man. Instead, one of our explorers or hikers is a hunter who always carries a knife, and who is
experienced with dismembering game animals. The other hikers may not want to watch.
2) The Overcrowded Lifeboat. In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were
crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the
lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right
thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an
action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned
anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could
have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done
and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if
the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be
his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected
this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain
decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he
thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of
hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on
the jury, how would you have decided?
3) You have two mutual friends who are dating. They are both very close to you, and you knew
them separately before they even knew each other. You find out that he cheated on her. It was a one
night stand, and he has not talked to the girl since it actually happened. He has been faithful
excluding that one time. Also, it’s been a few months since it happened. You know that your friend is
the type of girl that would stay with him; she would forgive him if it was only once. Do you support
his decision not to tell her, because it won’t happen again and it will only cause her unnecessary
hurt? Do you keep your mouth shut because it is none of your business and you want to stay out of
it? Do you want him to tell her what happened, because she deserves to know the truth?
4) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied
to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley
down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you
flip the switch or do nothing?
This is a classic "right vs. good" dilemma. By acting, one person dies instead of five. So the Utilitarian
has no problem. However, by acting, that one person who is killed would not have died otherwise.
That person is as innocent as the others, so by acting one is choosing to kill an innocent person.
Their family is not going to be happy about your actions. In fact, any deaths will be morally due to
the actions of the "mad philosopher." Yet choosing to kill the one person, in isolation from the
mitigating circumstances, clearly would be a wrongful homicide.