Consider case 3.3 in Boatright, pages 66-67. Write 600-800 (minimum) words discussing the following question.
How would you solve the moral dilemma of Janet Moore? Try to put yourself in her place. What would you decide and why? Explain the reasons for your decision carefully. In your explanation you should address the following three points:
1) Is you reasoning consistent or inconsistent with the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends and never as mere means to an end? Explain why or why not. In your explanation address the issues of rights and duties vis-a-vis Kantian moral theory and the categorical imperatives.
2) Is your reasoning and decision consistent or inconsistent with a utilitarian calculation that applies the principle of utility? Explain why or why not. In your explanation be sensitive to various interpretations of how to apply the principle of utility as well as the distinction between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.
3) Explain your decision from a virtue perspective. What virtues, if any, are expressed in your decision? How does this decision relate to your way of life? Explain.
This is a difficult case study. The case study seems to present plausible reasons for compromising ‘principles’ or the ‘right thing to do’ from what we might consider a ‘strict moral point of view’. Since we are detached from these cases that we study rather than live, it is easier to defend and rationalize the higher moral ground. Try to be sensitive to the context of these decisions. And be honest. The response will be evaluated according to the quality of explanation of the case, your reasoning, and your understanding of the moral theories and ideas discussed in the book.
Your personal opinions are not relevant to evaluation of the discussion. The discussion is evaluated according to the quality of
2) explanation of factual issues, concepts and principles relevant to the topics
3) interpretation of the significance of case to concepts, principles and theories discussed in the course.