When faced with a moral dilemma in a particular situation there may be no absolutely right or wrong decision to make but just more or less effective decisions to make. Concerning a moral dilemma you may be faced with, most anyone can make the “more or less” right decision AFTER you have had time to weigh all the possibilities and all the consequences to those possibilities. However, when faced with a moral dilemma there may be no time to weigh all the possibilities and consequences to your actions. And remember, what someone SAYS they would do when faced with a particular situation and what they would ACTUALLY do may be two completely different things.
Here are a few scenarios to test your moral decision making skills. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. This first scenario actually happened and is a true story.
Scenario #1: You work in a fairly large school and at least two co-workers or fellow students burst into the building and start shooting up the place with an arsenal of shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and bombs too, attempting to kill everyone in sight. You are surrounded by co-workers or fellow students and one has been shot in the face, and is bleeding but is not able to stand on his own but he is moving around. The shooters have vanished to another part of the building and you still hear sporadic gunfire and people screaming bloody murder! You are already on a cell phone calling 911 asking for help. You tell them exactly where you are in the building and let them know about the injured person. The 911 operator says, “Help is on the way, don’t move, stay where you are!”
Thirty minutes go by and still no help. The injured person is still bleeding and saying, “Please! You have to get me out of here!” However, you still hear gunfire in other parts of the building and people screaming although not necessarily close by. You look outside and see cops surrounding the building and the 911 operator on the phone still says, “Stay where you are, help is on the way.”
An hour goes by. An hour and a half go by and still no help. Two hours go by and the injured person is now asking you to make sure you tell his family how much he loves them if he does not make it out. Believe it or not the 911 operator is still saying help is on the way and “Stay put!” So, what do you do?
You know the layout of the building. With the sounds of gunfire nearby, do you maybe risk your life making a run for it while helping others carry out the injured person to paramedics? Or do you continue to wait? Consider this, if it was YOU or your child or loved one that was injured in this situation, what would you want them to do for you or your loved one?
There are no right or wrong answers in this situation because it is life threatening. There are just “more or less” effective solutions to the dilemma. If you decided not to wait inside but instead make a break for it outside taking the injured person with you, you may get shot or you may get free and save the life of the injured person.
This action could possibly be considered heroic by some even though you disregarded what the prevailing authority said to do, which was to “wait, as help is on the way”. Do you take matters in your own hands based on self-chosen principles or do you listen to the authority and continue to wait?
If the people you are with decide to wait it out, do you listen to the consensus of the crowd logic? Are you afraid of getting shot too and decide to wait it out, basing your decision on self-preservation? Even though some may call this selfishness. In reality, in this particular situation, the group decided to wait it out, the injured person bled to death, the swat-team eventually arrived after three hours of waiting to save you and the group of people you were with.
You and the group, along with the family of the dead person, later blamed the authorities for not rescuing them. Considering the scene, the cops had surrounded the place and the swat-team, as is customary, was slowly and methodically going from room to room looking for the shooters, looking out for booby traps and bombs while helping people they come across along the way get out of harm’s way.
It does little good now to play the “blame game” blaming authorities for the death of the injured person, unless you are maybe trying to reduce your own guilt and make yourself feel better about your actions and decisions since someone died in your arms but you were eventually saved. Consider this possibility, you wait it out like the 911 operator insisted you do, but the shooters find their way back to where you are and kill or wound you before help arrives. Remember there are no right or wrong answers in such emotionally charged, chaotic, violent situations, just actions that may possibly be more or less effective depending on your character or your level of moral decision making in this particular situation.
This scene was actually one that took place in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado when two kids went on a shooting spree and eventually killed themselves rather than be taken alive.
Here is another scenario that tests your level of moral decision making. Again, remember there are no right or wrong answers. Let’s say you are walking down the street and witness a man severely beating a woman, relentlessly, neither of which you know. He just will not stop beating her with his fists. No one else is around so what do you do? Do you possibly risk your life by intervening? Do you run and call the cops? Or do you do nothing?
To do nothing, of course, saves you from injury and possibly death and could be
considered selfishness. To call the cops is what most people say they would do in this type of situation which is a consensual level of moral decision making, meaning your decision is based more on what most people say they would do. However, too often, by the time the cops arrive the damage has been done and in all likelihood the victim could be dead by now or seriously injured and the criminal has escaped, possibly never to be found thus allowing him to perpetrate the same crime against someone else, maybe even against yourself, a friend or a loved one.
If it was you or a loved one being severely beaten, what would you like the onlooker to do for you or your loved one? In this situation, if you had tried to intervene and help without regard for your own safety, you may have been killed or hurt but possibly had saved the person from serious injury and maybe even death, as the criminal may decide it is best to stop, re-think his actions and run away before he gets caught. And again maybe he would not. You just do not know until it happens to you, but regardless, if you intervene, some may call this heroic, “somewhat” like those folks who dive in the water to save a drowning person or help someone out of a submerged car in a lake or canal.
This level of moral decision making a conscious effort to risk your own life to save someone else operates on self-chosen principles, without regard for your own safety or what the group or what many people would likely do in this situation and is against what the cops and some religious groups would suggest you should do, as they may say you should probably wait for help and not risk your own life in a violent or crazy situation.
If it was your loved one being severely beaten, is there any question that you would not immediately intervene and not wait for some cop to show up? Is it that you would only intervene if it was someone you cared about and not intervene for someone you did not know? The decisions you make when faced with a moral dilemma expose or uncover your level of moral decision making.
Are you a giving person or a helping person by nature in chaotic, potentially harmful situations or are you more selfish? Some people rationalize their actions in these type situations by saying, “There was nothing I could do.” This can reduce their feelings of guilt or helplessness or weakness. Of course, a life may be at stake here, YOURS or a loved one’s, but there are no right or wrong answers.
Here is the final test of your level of moral decision making. Let’s say a loved one is in the hospital dying of a painful, terminal disease and, according to the all the doctors, with no hope or chance for recovery. He begs and pleads with you to pull the plug from the life support machine that keeps him alive. Also, most importantly in this particular situation, you have absolutely nothing to gain if this person dies. So what do you do?
To unplug the life support machinery is against the law and you could go to jail. Calling hospice may only prolong your loved one’s misery even though he may be in less pain while he vegetates and waits to die. Calling hospice may reduce your guilt for not doing what your loved one requested and make you feel like you at least did something to help. You could go to court to try and get the judge to allow you to unplug the life support, but this could take months while your loved one continues to beg you to help him die. If this was you on life support what would you want done?
To do nothing and you do not risk going to jail. Call hospice for help here is what most people would likely do. However, if you unplug the machinery this decision is NOT based on selfishness, NOT on law and order or the doctors’ authority and NOT on what most people would likely do, but instead is based on what YOU think is the best action for the dying person, despite what everyone else says you should do according to your own self-chosen principles.
SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES: NBC-TV DATELINE 4/17/01 and KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT