Part 3

Ethics

Consequentialism

Suppose you are a driver of a passenger jeep running on the downhill road near
the CHARM and suddenly you lost brakes just two hundred meters away from the
forking roads in front of the College of Forestry. The jeep is headed to hit the five college
students crossing. At the left fork of the road is an elementary school kid also crossing. If
you continue with your current course you’ll hit the five college students; if you turn left
you’ll hit the child. In both choices death is eminent. Of course you can choose to slam
the jeep on the concrete structure in the middle of the fork but all of your 20 passengers
will die. What will you do?

If you decide to turn the jeep on the left to minimize the consequent deaths, you
are a consequentialist. You deem your action is justified because you choose the greater
good by minimizing the effect of the consequent tragedy.

Consequentialism is an ethical position in which an act is justified on the basis of

its outcome. ‘The end justifies the means’ is the popular expression of this idea. In
simplistic terms, this means that as long as we get what we want or as long as we are
happy with the result, the ‘how’ does not matter much. There are however many versions
and refinements of consequentialism. Ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and situational ethics
are the most common versions.

Ethical Egoism is a doctrine which states that one should always pursue his best
long term interest or one should always pursue a course of action that maximizes one’s
self-interest. The moral value of the action rests upon whether or not the action benefits
the individual, the agent of the action. An act is good if his action benefits him, evil if it
harms him or puts him in a disadvantaged position.

This may give the impression the ethical egoists are selfish individuals who has
no concern for others. But ethical egoism does not require moral agents to do harm to the
interests and well-being of others. Doing such may give the individual immediate benefit,
but in the long run, he may not be able to maximize his pursuit of self-interest. Cheating
one’s opponent in the elections may have immediate benefit, but it will also make the
individual open to electoral protests. Lying to one’s parents to get money may give
immediate results, but could also lead to not being able to get money in the future if the
lie is discovered. The theory that allows setting aside the well-being and interest of
others as long the action taken leads to the satisfaction on one’s interest in called
individualism.

It is not also required in ethical egoism to do what one wants to do or to satisfy

immediately what one desires. Oftentimes satisfying short-term desires proves
detrimental to long-term self-interest. Cheating may help the student pass the exam but in
the long run it is disadvantageous to him because cheating can take away self-confidence

34
in taking exams later on, especially board exams. Taking drugs may make one forget the
problems momentarily but in the long run, it will cause physical and psychological
problems to the individual. As James Rachel said: Ethical egoism endorses selfishness
but it does not endorse foolishness.

As a consequentialist theory, ethical egoism is not so much concerned with the

inherent value of the action or the object of the action but the outcome. But a good egoist
must also be careful in choosing the means because the means also can have an effect on
the long term effect of the action.

It is easy to see that it is hard for ethical egoism to settle conflicting interests and
claims. In fact it is one of its fundamental problems. Two candidates running for elective
posts cannot settle their disputes using ethical egoism. This particular problem was
attempted to be addressed by utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham

One of the early utilitarians was Jeremy Bentham. He said:

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two

sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what
we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand
the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and
effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we
say, in all we think.”

On the basis of this observation about human nature, Bentham formulated a

principle of conduct called the greatest happiness principle according to which the
“right act is that which promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people”.
Unlike egoism in which morality is agent oriented, utilitarianism is community oriented.
In egoism the ground for morality is the individual doing the action; in utilitarianism it is
the community affected. We consider others in making our choices because they are also
ultimately affected by the consequences. The problem of an overcrowded boat can easily
be solved using utilitarian principle by drawing lots to determine who will jump to the
sea because it benefits the majority. This is not so with ethical egoism because it will not
serve the self-interest of the person chosen to jump to the sea. In utilitarianism the chosen
course of action can easily be justified because of the consideration of the interest of the
community or the majority.

Bentham’s utilitarianism is hedonistic in the sense that the goal or the

consequence which is the consideration of the action is equated with pleasure or
happiness. Pleasure or happiness is good. Bentham invented the calculus by which we
test our actions for the value or quantity of pleasure it gives us. The following are the
criteria of his utilitarian principle called felicific calculus.
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?

35
 3. Certainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the
same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite
kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

When deciding what action to take in a particular situation out from several
alternatives we simply have to go over these criteria one by one and assign values to each
alternative action. The alternative that has the biggest value is then the right action to
take.
Suppose you needed money because your brother is in a critical condition in a
hospital and your only way to get immediate money is to sell shabu. Now you are
contemplating whether to sell shabu or not. What you need to do is assign numerical
values to each criterion of the felicific calculus for each alternative. The alternative that
has the bigger value is the right action to take. Obviously in this case the choice not to
sell drugs has the greater value.

36
 John Stuart Mill

Mill wrote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better
to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a
different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

Why is it better for a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied? Why is it
better for Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied? What satisfies a pig and a fool? A pig
can be satisfied even with a spoiled food, but not a human being. Socrates willingly chose
to drink poison rather than escape prison and death - that is for him a satisfactory choice;
a fool or most human beings would choose otherwise. Why? When we chose to do an act,
we do not only consider the magnitude of pleasure derived from the act but also the
propriety of the pleasure with regards to our status in the society or our status as dignified
human beings. The satisfaction of Socrates is not the same as the satisfaction of a fool or
a pig. This difference is not only a matter of degree but of ‘kind’.

Mill accepted Bentham’s idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people. But while for Bentham pleasures are only quantitatively different, for Mill there
pleasures can be qualitatively different.

An important addition of J.S. Mill to utilitarianism is the introduction of this

distinction between two kinds of happiness: the lower kind of happiness which refers to
bodily pleasures, and the higher kind of happiness which refers to the mental, aesthetic
and moral pleasures. J.S. Mill said that only those who have experienced these two kinds
of pleasures are the only ones who can judge which is better. J.S. Mill, therefore,
promotes legislation for the education of the masses to elevate their taste to enable them
to appreciate and experience higher kinds of pleasures. The higher forms of happiness are
to be preferred not because they are in a higher scale in the felicific calculus but because
they are better ‘in kind’ rather than in degree.

Mill concedes that we cannot at all devote our energies to computation of the
effects of our action just like what Bentham wanted us to do in his felicific calculus. That
is why we have to be guided by moral rules which passed the utility test. Most of the laws
or rules our society today are founded upon utilitarian principles. Learning and following
these rules may not automatically bring bodily pleasure but are ultimately good because
they prepare us intellectually and put us in a better situation where we can prevent pain
and have higher chances of experiencing pleasure. This idea of Mill presaged the later
distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

According to act utilitarianism an act is good if the action produces the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people.

On the other hand, according to rule utilitarianism an act is good if the rule behind
the action produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The
emphasis in act utilitarianism is the single act; while in rule utilitarianism is the rule

37
behind the act. The idea in rule utilitarianism is that the constant or the consistent
performance of the act will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

38
 Situation Ethics

Suppose you were a woman captured by the enemy. It is the policy of the enemy
to release women captives who were pregnant because they are liabilities. Now you have
the option to befriend one of the guards to get impregnated. If you get pregnant you will
be released, if not you will required to render forced labor until you die. Now you have a
young child and a husband waiting for you back home. What will you do?

In this case it is just difficult to appeal to established moral rules to help us decide
what to do. We wished rules are flexible to suit to our situation. But we also wished that
the justification of our action is based on something enduring and ideal not susceptible to
human caprice and raw relativism.

Situation Ethics is a consequentialist position in which the morality of the action

is judged on the basis on whether or not the action is the most loving thing to do in a
particular situation. It assumes that there is no ethical rule that can be universally applied,
each situation demands its own ethical standard; each action must be motivated however
by Love. In every situation, the moral agent has to ask himself “What is the most loving
thing to do in a particular situation?”. The loving end justifies any means. Situation
ethics preaches that love is the ultimate law. The only human thing that has intrinsic value
is love.

Situation ethics comes as a reaction to the rigid, cold and dogmatic application or
adherence to the law. The law admits of exceptions, and there are numerous exceptions. It
is not just possible to enumerate all the exceptions of the law and include it in the
statement of the law. What basically makes exception to the law? It is when the
application of the law becomes harsh, unreasonable, and against the spirit and intention
by which the law was established.

The following are the principles of love in situation ethics as established by

Joseph Fletcher.

1. Whatever is the loving thing to do in any given situation is the right thing to do.
2. One does not follow love for the law’s sake; one follows the law only for love’s
sake. Love and law sometimes conflict and when they do put love over the law.

3. Love and justice are identical. Justice means to give others their "due," and love is
their due.

4. Love is a multidirectional and utilitarian principle. Calculating the remote

consequences, it strives to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of
people. Love foresees the need to use force, if necessary, to protect the innocent;
or to disobey an unjust civil law; or even to revolt against the state, if the end
consequence is for the greater good of the majority of the people. "Only the end
justifies the means; nothing else." The loving end justifies any means.

39
5. Love decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. Love does not prescribe
in advance what specific course of actions should be taken. Love operates apart
from a pre-tailored, prefabricated list of moral rules. Love functions
circumstantially, it does not "make up its mind" before it sees the facts in any
given situation.

The following are some examples of the application of Situation Ethics:

1. Merciful murder: a mother smothers and eventually killed her own crying child
to prevent her group from being discovered and killed by a band ofhostile Indians.
2. Sacrificial suicide: Taking one’s own life is not morally wrong if it is done in
love for others.
If a man has a choice of either taking an expensive medication which will
deplete his family’s finances, or refusing the medication and shortens his life, it is
the loving thing to do to stop taking the medication.
A soldier is justified in taking his own life to prevent being captured and be
tortured by the enemies to divulge secrets that can result to the death of his
comrades.
3. Acceptable abortion: Abortion is justified for an unmarried schizophrenic patient
who becomes pregnant after being raped. It is the loving thing to do for the
unborn child.
A Romanian Jewish doctor is also justified in aborting 3000 babies of Jewish
mothers because pregnant mothers in concentration camps were liabilities and
will have to be incinerated. The doctor actually saved 3000 and prevented the
murder of 6000. What the doctor did was the most loving thing to do to both
mothers and their unborn.

40
 KANTe the choice to save them or let them die. You can save them by opening up
the slightly wounded soldier remove the organs and transplant them to each soldier
accordingly. So the decision to save them entails that the slightly wounded soldier would
also die. What would you do? What if the fatally wounded patients are generals and the
slightly wounded one is a private, would your answer be the same? What if there is a
command from your superior that you have to save the generals though it entails the
death of the private, would your answer still be the same?

If you would not sacrifice the life of that one man to save the lives of five men
notwithstanding the conditions because the life of a person has an intrinsic worth and that
his life should nor be made as a means for others, then you adhere to Kantian imperative.

As a rationalist, Kant created an ethical system also based on reason. Since man is
a rational being, it is unavoidable that he attributes freedom to himself. It is impossible to
assign moral responsibility without also ascribing freedom to man. The fact that we can
attribute causes to our actions puts us outside the system of determinism of our actions.
This is because if we are conscious of the causes and effects of our actions and the
principle by which we based those actions, we could always think of other possibilities of
our actions. That is in itself the initiation of freedom.

One main problem with the consequentialist is that we cannot always be certain of
the outcomes of our actions. One kind of action does not always bring the same result
even given the same conditions. Hence, the moral value of the action may differ
depending upon the consequences.

That is why morality should be founded upon the source of the action rather than
the outcome. This source of the action is called the will. We cannot control the outcome
of our actions but we can control the will behind the action. Meaning we can decide
which principle our actions should be based upon.

For Kant the only thing that is good without qualification is the good will. A good
will cannot be the basis of evil purposes, but other things which we consider to be
intrinsically good can be instruments for evil. Wealth, health, etc. are intrinsically good
but they can be used for evil purposes.

For Kant goodness cannot come from impulse or natural inclination, but only
from a determined intention to conform to the law for the sake of the law. There ’s a
difference between being honest because of the fear of getting caught and being honest
for the sake of honesty.
To be motivated to do something out of the desire to make others happy is less a
motive for Kant because that is still dependent of the outcome. But doing something out
of a good motive no matter what the outcome is the right action.

That is why Kant formulated the categorical imperative: “Act only according to
that maxim which you can at the same will to become a universal law.” In trying to

41
decide whether or not to perform a particular action, I must undergo through the
following steps.

a. formulate the maxim of the action

b. universalize the maxim
c. determine whether the universalized maxim could be a universal law.
d. determine whether we could will the maxim to become a universal law.

Suppose you are taking an exam. The exam spells life and death for you. But you
are not prepared. You know you can pass only if you cheat. Now you are in a quandary
whether to cheat or not to cheat. Now according to the first step, the maxim of my action
will be: If I am taking an exam that I have not studied, I am justified to cheat. To
universalize the “If any is to take an exam and he has not studied, he is justified to cheat”.
Now we have to ask can the universalized maxim become a universal law? Can we allow
everybody to cheat? What happens if we allow cheating universally? Could we allow
cheating in board and bar exams? So cheating cannot pass the categorical imperative test.

The first formulation of categorical imperative defines a perfect duty. Our perfect
duty is not to do acts based upon a maxim that results to contradiction when such maxim
is universalized.

The second formulation of categorical imperative is: "Act in such a way that you
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the
same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Obviously slavery or
prostitution is prohibited under this formulation. Same as bribery or hiring a killer to
silence our enemies.

Kant in his work Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals provides illustration
for the application of Categorical Imperative.

Laziness. If the person has everything he needs, is he justified to be lazy? The

answer is no because if we universalize laziness we cannot have wealth which is the
condition for lazy people to survive.

Theft. Is taking a thing without knowledge and consent by the owner justified?
Obviously not. But what if we know beforehand that the owner will agree to the taking
had he been notified? Taking without consent cannot be universalized because consent is
the condition for the taking to be not considered as theft.

Suicide. If a person is sick of life after a series of misfortunes, he is not justified

to end his life. The maxim of the act of self-killing is this: “from self-love I make as my
principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it
promises satisfaction”. It is easy to see the contradiction here because the reason we
continue to live is that we love ourselves, that same love cannot also be the cause for the
extinction of the self.

42
 universal principle not to help others in need? We know that there will always
come a time that we need the help of others. Is it acceptable for us that they will not also
help us in times we need their help?

43
 Virtue Ethics

There are cases where we do not know the rules to follow or what principles upon
which to base our actions. In some cases also we also do not know exactly the
consequences of our actions. So what should we do? Is it possible to not refer to rules and
principles to determine what course of action to take?

Virtue ethics is different from other ethical theories that were so far. It is not
concerned with the consequences of the action, nor the intrinsic value of the action or
motive or rules behind the action, but on the kinds of virtue or moral character of the
person from which the action proceeds. The moral value of the act depends on whether it
is the result of the individual possessing a particular virtue.

Suppose an injured man in the street needs help. For a utilitarian, helping the man
is good because it promotes helpfulness to the society in general; for a Kantian it is good
because it can be universalized rationally that it is a duty to help someone in need. For the
virtue ethicist helping others is good because it is a manifestation of one’s virtue of being
helpful.

A virtue is not only a tendency or an inclination to do something good but also

requires a frame on mind that considers the whole range of reasons for the action. An
honest person does not only do honest dealings for fear of being caught or because of
dogmatic adherence to some universal principles but because he finds it the proper thing
to do because his whole being - world view, emotion reasons – supports the action and
loathes if he tells a lie.

When a person acts honestly it reflects his world view and his basic attitude
towards others. It shows that he is inclined to be with honest persons, expects others to be
also honest, and consciously and intentionally careful to always put himself in a situation
where he can exercise his virtue. This means that virtue is not a singular unconnected
thing. It is multi-dimensional. It is interconnected with the various aspects of the person.
We cannot just impute virtue to a person by observing a single act or a series of acts
without knowing the reason behind that person’s actions.

Now since virtue includes the whole person, not simply reason or inclination, all
aspects of the virtuous person works harmoniously when doing an action. His will and
reason will go hand in hand. He is not only convinced to do the act but also emotionally
and psychologically willing to do the act. A fully virtuous person will not struggle to do a
righteous act. He will have no problem with his desires violently reacting to his reason.
He will have no problem controlling his desires because it is in synch with his reason.

A virtuous person is equipped with knowledge and information to do virtuous acts

in a given situation. This is contrasted with the natural predisposition to be honest or to be
courageous. If a person simply relies on a predisposition, even if that is well-ingrained in
him, he is still apt to be wrong. Meaning, compassion is not enough. One can be
compassionate wrongly. Being generous is not enough, one should know the conditions

44
and the reasons to be generous. A person may have the inclination to do good to friends
but if he does not know the conditions when to be good to friends, he may end up doing
harm to his friends. It’s not a generous act to give money to a friend who needs the money
to buy prohibited drugs.

45
 Stoicism

The ethical teachings of the Stoics can be summed up into: Live according to
Nature. The stoics believe that nature is rational and everything that happens in nature is
guided by reason. Reason permeates the universe. Our goal then is to live in harmony
with nature. To be virtuous is to live our lives in accordance with reason.

For the stoics man is a microcosm, a miniature universe himself. The macrocosm
or the universe is not only governed by law, but also by law of reason. So man, the
microcosm, in following the laws of reason, also obeys the law of the larger world, the
macrocosm.

The Stoics also believed that although man is both mind and body, they are
separate realms. Mind or the inner realm is the realm of freedom; body of the outer realm
is the realm of determinism. We have control of the inner realm but we do not have
control over what is happening outside us. It is possible therefore to be free internally
although we are enslaved externally. Our body can be chained but our minds are always
free. Our enemies can harm our body but not our soul. Because of this separation
between mind and body, we can remain to be calm even when we experience bodily pain
or illness. The mind can shut off itself from external events. We can will to not depend on
external things for our happiness, but upon reason. We can order our thoughts logically
and stabilize our will to be in accord with the reason and stability of Nature.

God, for the Stoics, is the reason or principle within nature. As human beings, we
should follow the reasonableness of god and leave external fate to him. This means we
have to exercise acceptance or resignation when things happen beyond our control. A
virtuous person is one who subordinates his life to the reason of the universe. But the
virtuous person must also pursue knowledge. The study of science, logic, physics, etc are
not only good in themselves, but should be pursued because these studies help us see
ourselves in a larger scheme of things, our place in the universe; the knowledge gained
from these studies provide foundations for virtuous actions.

The stoic believes that virtue alone is good, vice alone is evil. Poverty, pain, death
are not evil. Pleasure and wealth are not good. Pleasure is also not good. One ought not to
seek pleasure. One must be virtuous not in order to be happy but out of sense of duty. The
person who is genuinely happy lacks nothing and is independent on the unpredictability
of external events. For him there is no conflict between happiness and duty. He does not
complain but tries to understand.

As members of a society, we are enjoined to be benevolent to all human beings.

But we should also be free from emotional entanglements because it can be the source of
pain. It is not good to depend on anyone other than ourselves. The key to peace is
detachment. We can be as benevolent as possible, but our inner attitude should remain
free, calm, detached.

46
 Stoicism teaches that suffering is caused by desiring and craving things beyond
our power. If we want to stop suffering and be happy we should bring an end to such
desires and cravings. Craving for external things manifests our dependence on them for
our happiness. But we need to understand that stability is only found internally, within us
- through our reason. External things are always in the state of flux. So, we need to detach
ourselves from external things. Dependence on what comes to be and passes away brings
us pain; dependence on reason brings peace and happiness.

47
 Epicurianism

Like most ethical theories, Epicureans also believed that the goal of life is
pleasure or happiness. But unlike also most theories, it also advocates a different concept
of pleasure - pleasure as the absence of pain. This does not of course mean that we turn
away from positive pleasure but we need to manage ours desires to prevent them from
generating pain.

The way to manage our desires is to understand the mechanics of pleasure. There
are two kinds of pleasure static and kinetic.

Static pleasure is simply absence of pain, which can also be bodily (painlessness)
or mentally (state tranquility). Static bodily pleasure is when we do not feel pain or
excited sensory state. Static mental pleasure is when we do not have problems, worries or
distractions. It is important to realize that absence of pain is already pleasure.

Kinetic pleasure involves stimulation to arrive at a static pleasure or to be in a

heightened sensory state. Kinetic pleasure is also bodily or mentally. Kinetic bodily
pleasure is when we are in a heightened sensory state, like when we eat ice cream or
when we dance at a party. Having a massage to ease the pain in our body is also a kinetic
bodily pleasure. Kinetic mental pleasure is when we solve a mathematical problem or
puzzle, or when we remember a kinetic pleasure.

Kinetic pleasures are fleeting because they are gone when the stimulation is gone.
But they are essential because mental pleasures can overcome present pain when we try
to relive our past experience of kinetic pleasures.

Epicurus, from whom Epicurianism got the name, said that human misery comes
from ignorance of the workings of our desires and emotions. He observed that when we
primarily engage ourselves in the pursuit of luxury and positive pleasure, our desires also
enlarge and generate more desires. And as we satisfy these desires, we will become
susceptible to more pain.

There are three categories of desires:

(1) natural and necessary -- such as food, clothing, shelter, friendship, reason.
(2) natural and unnecessary -- more than we need.
(3) vain (artificial and unnecessary) -- things we think we need and that others
have fooled us into believing we need, but do not really need.

It is the pursuit of the natural and unnecessary, and vain pleasures that cause us
pain. Eating too much is unnecessary and can eventually lead to stomach ache. Living a
lifestyle more than we can afford can later on lead to financial problems which is a form
of mental disturbance. If we weigh in the net pleasure and pain we get from indulging
imprudently with positive pleasure, we will realize that that weighing scale will tilt to the
side of pain.

48
 The Good Life then involves a careful selection of what bodily and mental
pleasures to pursue, noting that mental pleasure is ultimately also rooted in bodily
pleasure. There are pleasures whose memories later on will help us overcome bodily pain.
Occasional kinetic pleasure is also to be pursued. Like having some quality time with
friends because the memories of these can overcome the pain.

Mental pleasure is to be pursued because the pleasures of the mind are superior to
pleasures of the body. If one has peace of mind, one can be happy despite having bodily
suffering. We must also prioritize the quality rather than quantity of pleasure. The
enjoyment of simple pleasure, such as conversing with a friend, is much more
tranquilizing than continuous revelry over bottles of beer. Self-control and moderation,
not endless satisfaction without moderation, is the key. We should therefore exercise
prudence for prudence rids the mind of anxiety and the body of needless suffering.

49
Assignment/exercises. Watch the movie My Sister’s Keeper.

1. Are there egoistic elements in the movie? Who represents this element?
2. Are there utilitarian elements in the movie? Who represents this element?
3. Are there Kantian elements in the movie? Who represents this element?
4. What is the ethical dilemma in the movie? Can the dilemma be solved by virtue
ethics? How about situation ethics?
5. If we use Stoicism how is the ethical dilemma solved?
6. If we use Epicureanism how is the ethical dilemma solved?
7. Discuss how each ethical theory decides the issue in the dialog below.

Anna: I want to sue my parents for the rights to my own body.

Campbell Alexander: Would you repeat that, please?
Anna: I want to sue my parents for the right to my own body. My sister has
leukemia. They are trying to force me to give her my body parts.
Campbell: You're supposed to give her a kidney?
Anna: She has been in renal failure for months now.
Campbell: Well, no one can force you to donate if you don't want to, can they?
Anna: They think they can. I'm under eighteen, they are my legal guardians.
Campbell: They can't do that.
Anna: Well that's what I want you to tell them because they have been doing it to
me my whole life. I wouldn't even be alive if Kate wasn't sick. I'm a
designer baby. I was made in a dish to be spare parts for Kate.
Campbell: You're me kidding, right? You do know what will happen if you don't
give her your kidney, right?
Anna: Yeah, she will die.

8. Anna: “When I was little, my mother told me that I was a little piece of blue sky
that came into this world which causes her and dad loved me so much. It was only
later that I realized that it wasn't exactly true. Most babies are coincidences. I
mean up in space you've got all of these souls flying around, looking for bodies to
live in, then down here on earth two people have sex or whatever and bam,
coincidence. Sure you hear all these stories about how everyone plans these
perfect families. But the truth is, most babies are products of drunken evenings
and lack of birth control. They're accidents. Only people who have trouble making
babies actually plan for them. I on the other hand, am not a coincidence. I was
engineered, born for a particular reason. A scientist hooked up my mothers’ eggs
and my fathers’ sperm to make a specific combination of genes. He did it to save
my sister's life.”

a. If Anna continues to talk and she is a stoic, how would she continue?
b. What if she a virtue ethicist?
c. What is she is a situational ethicist?
d. What is she is an egoist?
e. If Kantian?

50
9. What do you think is the ethical basis of the lawyer in the following dialog:

[Alexander Campbell, Anna's lawyer, is sitting in his office]

Secretary: [Over the intercom] Your 11 o'clock appointment is here.
Alexander: I don't have an 11 o'clock appointment.
Secretary: [Through door] Wait, you can't go in there!
[Sara Fitzgerald storms through his door. Secretary tries to pull her out]
Sara: Get your hands off me. Mr. Alexander, I'm Sara Fitzgerald, Anna's mother.
Alexander: [To secretary] It's okay, Gloria.
Gloria: Are you sure? Because I don't mind calling security.
Alexander: No, no. Thank you. [Gloria leaves] What can I do for you, Mrs.
Fitzgerald?
Sara: [Reaching into her bag, taking out a card and handing it to him] The legal
age for emancipation of a minor is 14 in the state of California. It's the law, you
might want to check it out. Anna's 11. You're three years early.
Alexander: I'm aware of the law she's challenging.
Sara: She can't. She's too young to stand for herself.
Alexander: I'm filing for her as guardian ad litem.
Sara: As what? A family independence agency?
Alexander: I have 15 years as a volunteer member of the ACLU. In addition to
which, I have this power of attorney signed by your daughter. [Hands the power
of attorney over to her]
Sara: [Indignantly] This'll never hold up. It's not even legal.
Alexander: Anna doesn't want to do it any more. And 11 years old or not, she has
rights. And so long as she wants to move forward, I am going to help her.
Sara: Why? What's your interest? This isn't a case for you. There's no money!
Alexander: [cutting through her speech in outrage] What's my interest!? Eight
hospitalizations in eleven years, six catheterizations, two bone-marrow
aspirations, two stem-cell purges!
Sara: She was helping her sister!
Alexander: [Continuing] Not to mention the side effects, including bleeding,
infections, bruising. Filgrastim shots! Those are growth hormones, am I correct?
Sara: Something like that.
Alexander: Drugs for nausea, opiates for pain, Ambien for sleep. Not exactly the
proper medication for a pre-teen.
Sara Every procedure had its risks and complications! Anna understood that, she
was okay with it!
Alexander: Really?
Sara: Yeah!
Alexander: At five years old?

51
52