MIDTERM EXAMINATION
GUIDELINES :
1. Each group is given all these 10 cases.
2. It is up to the group who will be in charge of which case or if the group will answer
each case as a whole
3. The group will answer the guide questions at the end of each selected cases and
apply a particular ethical theory (the theories that we have discussed in class) that
would support his/her stand.
4. Deadline of submission will be on January 11, 2022.
Details: Arial/Times New Roman 12. Default Space and Margins. Justified.
5. The leader will submit to me the final output through MS teams message.
Here are the theories:
Divine Command Theory
Natural Law Theory (Aquinas)
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)
Extreme Hedonism
Moderate Hedonism
Quantitative Utilitarianism
Qualitative Utilitarianism
Kantianism
Emotivism (David Hume)
Example of title page:
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ayala Blvd., Ermita, Manila, 1000 Metro Manila
Ethical Case Analysis
Midterm Examination
in
Ethics
Group #
Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Jaime E. Mozo Jr.
Date of Submission:
CASE #1: Wedding Cake
A gay couple from Massachusetts, David Mullin and Charlie Craig, and, a
lesbian couple from Colorado, Jenita Belliot and Sarah Matherne were refused
by two different bakeshops from two different instances to have their wedding
cake baked. They were denied service because it is against their religious belief
as Catholics to serve gay and lesbian couples in their bakeshop. They say that
it is like condoning something that compromised their deeply held convictions.
Yet, they expressed that they have no malice or hatred for the couple it’s just that it
goes against their religion.
QUESTIONS: Were the decisions of the bakeshop owners morally justifiable?
Why or why not? Apply moral/ ethical theories that would support your
stand.
CASE #2: One Million for a Kidney
Mr. Reyes underwent a yearly medical check-‐up in a well-‐known hospital
in Makati. He is 50 years old and a
businessman. Until recently, his business is in danger of bankruptcy as a result
of the US economic crisis.
While he was resting in his hospital suite, he was informed by his doctor
that a visitor wants to talk to him. The visitor related the story of a 25-‐year
old American scientist working on genetic engineering. The scientist is
about to make an astounding discovery that will cure many of the diseases
that plagued mankind. Unfortunately the genius has a unique blood and tissue
type and hence cannot just accept any kidney from any donor. The doctors of
the scientist were searching for almost a year for a compatible donor.
Fortunately the blood and tissue type of Mr. Reyes is a perfect match
with the American. Mr. Reyes was offered one million pesos for one of his
kidneys.
If Mr. Reyes does not accept the offer, the young scientist will die. And
with his death, the prospects of the cures for the diseases that plague mankind
will die with him. If he accepts the offer, losing one kidney will inevitably
shorten his lifespan. He will not also be able to engage in strenuous
physical activity, like camping, mountain climbing and hunting. But he needs
the money to save his business from bankruptcy.
QUESTION: What will you do if you are in the place of Mr. Reyes? Cite
the moral theory that best supports your solution and why.
Case # 3: Remote Parking
Several car companies produce models with a remote parking assistance
feature that allows a driver to pull a car close to a parking space, and then get
out. After exiting the vehicle, the driver presses a button on his keychain that
tells the car to park it automatically. This feature is very useful for parking in a
narrow space and for parallel parking. The car uses a system of sensors that
emit ultrasonic sounds to detect cars, the curb, and pedestrians. Many
versions also include video cameras to monitor the location of the curb and any
painted parking-‐space lines. A computer in the car uses this information to
automatically pull the car into the space, while avoiding collisions. Imagine
the following scenario: A driver pulls up next to a parking space, checks to
make sure the space is clear, presses the button to start automatic parking,
and then walks away. After the driver’s back is turned, a small child
runs into the space and is seriously injured.
QUESTIONS: Who is primarily morally responsible for the child’s
injury? Why? What moral/ethical theory would support your answer? Justify
your answer.
Case # 4: Cheating or Leveling the Playing Field?
During one of their midterm examinations in their Economics class in
college, Anna was faced with an ethical dilemma. She and her friend, Lenny,
were studying for the exam when Lenny explained that she was going to punch
the formulas into her calculator. She said that she has attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and that it was difficult for her to remember
formulas. Anna shrugged off the suggestion in the hope that Lenny would
exclude Anna from her decision.
A few days later, during the examination, Anna looked around and
noticed that she was the only one who had entered the formulas in their
calculators. Anna’s first reaction was “damn, maybe I could have done the same
thing.” Then she remembered how the professor had told them that this was
not allowed and that they had all signed onto the college’s “honor code” system,
which stated that “we would not cheat and that we would report those who did
it”. It was at that moment that Anna realized she was faced with a dilemma:to tell or
not to tell. She would violate the honor code if she kept silent; She would violate
her friend’s trust if she reported. After all, she thought, Lenny did have ADHD.
Shouldn’t she be given a break? Also, Anna didn’t want to tell so many
students. “I’m not a police officer” she thought.
QUESTIONS: Do you agree with Anna’s thinking and her ethical
reasoning that her classmate has ADHD and is okay to cheat? Explain. What
ethical theory would support your answer? What would you have done
differently and why? Justify your answer.
Case # 5: FORGIVENESS AND REPENTANCE
Based on the novel Disgrace by J.M.Coetzee (1999) David Lurie is a
South African English professor who lost everything: his reputation, his job,
his peace of mind, his good looks, his dreams of artistic success, and finally
even his ability to protect his own daughter. He is twice-‐divorced and
dissatisfied with his job as a 'communications' lecturer, teaching one class in
romantic literature at a technical university in Cape Town in post- ‐apartheid
South Africa. His "disgrace" comes when he almost forcibly seduces one of his
more vulnerable students, a girl named Melanie Isaacs. This affair is thereafter
revealed to the school and a committee is convened to pass judgement on his
actions. David refuses to apologize in any sincere form and so is forced to
resign from his post. The following are the reasons for not giving them what
they want: We went through the repentance business yesterday. I told you what
I thought. I won’t do it. I appeared before an officially constituted tribunal, before
a branch of the law. Before that secular tribunal I pleaded guilty, a secular
plea. That please should suffice. Repentance is neither here nor there.
Repentance belongs to another world, to another universe of discourse . . .
(what are you asking) reminds me too much of Mao’s China. Recantation, self-‐
criticism, public apology. I’m old fashioned, I would prefer simply to be put
against a wall and shot.
QUESTIONS: Is repentance a prerequisite for forgiveness? What
determines whether forgiving (or failing to forgive) would enact a virtue or
a defect of character? Explain. What ethical theory would support your
stand and why?
Case # 6: ETHICS OF LAUGHTER
In 2008, Danilo (not his real name), a Cebuano male florist in his 30s
was teary-‐eyed when he saw the video of his surgery circulating in the
internet. He heard about the so called “canister scandal” but was so shocked to
know that it was him when someone informed him about it. The unauthorized
2:54-‐minute video of a noisy operating room shows Vicente Sotto Memorial
Medical Center (VSMMC) doctors and nurses laughing, giggling and cheering
after a metal can of Black Suede body spray was pulled out of his rectum. The
can was inserted by a man he had casual sex with. Danilo said that his
rights to privacy and confidentiality were violated; and that he was further
humiliated when the video found its way to the internet. However, Dr.
Emanuel Gines, the hospital's committee chairman on media said “The
hospital does not take a video of all operations but only select cases for
academic purposes, and hence will conduct investigation regarding the matter.”
QUESTIONS: Is there such a thing as Ethics of Laughter? Is
what is funny an aesthetic or moral concern? Explain. What ethical
theory would support your stand and why?
CASE #7: THE INCRIMINATING EMAIL
You are the network administrator for a rather large company. You have a
young family and need your job to support them. Part of your responsibility as a
network administrator is to monitor the emails for the organization that have
been accidentally blocked by the spam filters. One day you get a helpdesk
request from a staff member asking for an email to get released. Normally it’s
standard procedure, except this time the request has come from the wife of a
very good friend of yours. The moment you recognized the name on the
helpdesk request, you quickly attended to the problem. As part of the procedure
you need to manually open up the email to ensure that it isn’t actually spam.
You find that it turns out to be an email to your friend’s wife from her lover.
You scan the rest of the contents of the email and there is no doubt that she
has been having an affair for some time now.
You release the email, but you can’t decide what to do now. Your initial
reaction is to call your friend up and tell him about the email, however you
quickly realize that company policy is very strict about revealing the contents of
staff emails, and you will certainly lose your job if your boss finds out. In any
case you know that revealing this information presents great risk, because
even if you don’t do it directly, there is a good chance that the dots
will be joined somewhere along the line and you will be found out. However
you feel that by not telling your friend you are helping his wife to get away with
adultery and this troubles you greatly.
QUESTIONS: What would you do if you were the network
administrator? What ethical/moral theory would support your stand? Justify
your answer.
CASE #8: FIRED FOR BEING SEXY
Melissa Nelson, married with children, had worked for James Knight, a
dentist for 10 years, as his secretary. Her services had been terminated
because of her body revealing apparel. Nelson filed a case against Knight and
she told the court that she had seen Knight as a father figure and a man of
integrity who generally treated her with respect. But about 9 years into the job,
Knight started to complain that her clothes were “distracting” because they
“accentuated her body.” At one point, Knight told Nelson that “if she saw
his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing.”
After Nelson told him that his complaint about the tightness of her shirt
wasn’t fair, he texted back that it was a good thing she didn’t wear her tight
pants too “because that would get him coming and going,” the court
records showed. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, put her foot
down when she discovered that the two were texting each other.
After meeting with their pastor, Knight agreed to fire Nelson because she
was a “big threat to his marriage.” He also admitted that even if there was no
sexual affair between him and Nelson, “he would try to have an affair with her
down the road if he did not fire her.”
QUESTIONS: How would you evaluate the actions of Nelson and
Knight? Who do you think has a greater moral responsibility in this
case? Cite the moral theory that best addresses this dilemma and explain
how it is applicable.
CASE # 9: IN THE FACE OF DEATH
In 1942, Adina Blady Szwarjger was a 22 year old doctor who worked at
Warsaw Children’s hospital. About a year earlier, the Nazis who occupied Poland
created what was then known as Warsaw ghetto. Dr. Szwarjger heard and
witnessed the horrors of many people suffering and dying from starvation,
torture and massacre. Even the sick and dying elderly people were not
spared. Every Jew was brought to the cattle trucks to death camps to finally
eliminate them. Nazis went to shut down every hospital and shot every patient
in bed. The day came when she heard gunshots and screaming from almost
every wing in the hospital. Dr. Szwarjger immediately administered morphine to
the children to spare them -‐-‐ assuring them that the pain would disappear. By
the time the Nazis entered the ward, the children were all dead.
QUESTIONS: Given the situation, was Dr. Szwarjger’s action of giving
morphine to the children to hasten their death and save them from the
Nazis morally justified? Why or why not? Explain ethical/moral theory that
would support your stand.
CASE 10: THE WORDS
Rory Jansen is an aspiring writer who tries his best to market his
manuscripts in the hope of it being published. However they are often rejected.
When he and his wife went to Paris for their honeymoon, his wife, Dora,
bought him an old briefcase. In it is an excellently written manuscript which he
encoded in his laptop. His wife read the story and thinking that it was her
husband who wrote it, prompted him to show it to a publisher at work. The
latter was impressed with the story and offered Jansen a contract which he
happily accepted. The book was a hit and Rory Jansen instantly became a
famous writer.
On one of his book readings, an old man approached him and confronted
him about the book. The latter claimed its authorship. Jansen tried to assuage
the old man by saying that he will pay him and will come out in public to deny
having written the book. The old man said he does not need his money. He
just felt that there is a need for Jansen to know that he, the old man, is the
real author and not him. Jansen approached his publisher, telling him about his
plan of coming out clean in public. His publisher said that he should just pay
the old man. He also said that he will not allow Jansen to do it because it
would ruin the business.
QUESTIONS: What is the right thing to do in this case? Which moral
theory best addresses this dilemma? Why?
