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.

QUESTIONS:
Were the decisions of the bakeshop owners morally justifiable? Why or why not? Apply
moral/ ethical principles that would support your stand.

THEORY/ PRINCIPLES:
Deontology, this principle adheres to the obligations of things in making a decision when
morals or ethics are considered.

STAND:
1.1 The actions that the bakers did we’re morally justifiable based on their religious
standpoint however in terms of legal actions it can cause violations for the District
Senate in Colorado.
1.2 Basing their beliefs over the law caused them to think irrational faced with a violation
from their religion over the law that caused them to force their ego to believe their
ethics are higher than the just and fair law, it does not assert the critical thinking skills
but it pushed their principles to become obligated to their beliefs.
1.3 If they were rationally thinking same-sex marriage was already considered legal in
the State of Colorado in the year 2014 however by letting the biased actions and the
religious prohibitions they were overwhelmed by their beliefs and rejected what is
considered in today’s community as civilized and shunned the opportunity of
embracing the new norms in the age of revolutionary standards.
CASE #2: A CASE OF PACEMAKER
Mr. Perry (not his real name) was 83 years old and had several medical problems. He
had spent the past several months in and out of hospitals and rehab. Prior to that, he lived
independently in a small town. Widowed many years ago, he subsequently enjoyed the
company of a lovely lady friend who lived down the street from the Perry home. He had
five adult children and numerous grandchildren. Life should have been relatively good for
this octogenarian. But life was not good. Not anymore. “My body is all worn out. I’m worn
out. Don’t want to do this anymore, Doc. They say I can’t go home and be safe. And I’m
NOT going to a nursing home. No way! Just stop that little gadget that shocks me and the
part that keeps my heart going. I want them stopped. Yes, the pacemaker, too. A magnet
will stop it, right? Just do it. Please.”

QUESTIONS:
Is this a case of “good” death or assisted suicide? Is it morally/ethically justifiable? What
ethical principle(s) would support your answer?

THEORY/ PRINCIPLES:
Least Harm, an ethical principle that gives a choice to what can be seen as beneficial by
doing the minimal amount of harm to a group of people for the greater good of others.

Stand:
1.1 It is morally justifiable, however in terms of a career or work profession it violates the
main point of this particular profession such as the doctors that preserves and protects
the life of an organism.
1.2 Regardless of whether the Doctor choose to end the patient’s life or not the existence
of the “Least Harm” principle is likely to occur because there at least 5 family members
that provide financial stability for him but if Doctor chooses to think logically he can
help the family lessen the cost in their lives by losing someone in their life in exchange.
1.3 Economically speaking if the patient dies expenses would no longer serve as a
problem, but by picking the alternate route in which the family place Mr. Perry in a
nursing more expenses will pile up with another factor such as Mr. Perry’s “suffering”
will likely increase by living away from his loved ones, with a ratio of 1:2 statistically
and logically speaking choosing Euthanasia would benefit both affected party
members.
Case #3: DISCLOSURE
Xian, a summer undergraduate research student at Big University, was flattered when a
graduate student, Pingwei, at another university emailed him inquiring about his research.
Since Xian had just finished writing a progress report for his research advisor, Xian sent
it as an attachment to his email reply to Pingwei. Throughout the summer, Pingwei emails
Xian several times asking very specific questions about Xian's work. Xian happily answers
every question. The following spring Xian is surprised to see Pingwei's name on the by-
line of a technical article in a leading scientific journal. Xian is even more surprised when
he reads the article and sees text, figures and tables that were clearly taken word-for-
word from Xian's summer progress report.

QUESTIONS:
What course of action(s) should Xian take? What would be possible consequences for
each action? Given the options, what would be the best action? What specific
moral/ethical principle would support your answer?

THEORY/ PRINCIPLES:
Virtues, considered as an ethical theory that judges the person’s actions and reputations
rather than the characteristics and attitude of that person.

STAND:
1.1 Xian can file a report against Pingwei that involves plagiarism as his best course of
action in which he has a chance of proving the wrongful actions of Pingwei.
1.2 Xian’s judgement is neither clouded with hatred or unjust emotions, through virtues
he connected the actions that made Pingwei as a wrongful person through multiple
evidences that can land him in jail until the end of the judgement.
1.3 The emails and conversation can be used when a complaint is filed that will serve as
an evidence against Pingwei, it also strengthens the authenticity and work of Xian as
an avid researcher and a critical thinker in which he recognizes his own work but can
give a fair and just judgement to figure out the next course of action in which no drastic
measures were taken only put in legal terms.
Case # 4: 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
principle would support your answer?

THEORY/ PRINCIPLES:
Utilitarianism, an ethical theory that predicts the consequences of an action.

STAND:
1.1 The driver is responsible for the actions and the events that had occurred.
1.2 Because of the driver’s failed predictions and reliance on technology it harmed
another person’s life that not only endangered his reputation but also harmed the
standing of safety and technology with one another because of the said event
1.3 Although the user is to be blamed here, the functionality and abrupt technical
functions are also to be blamed here, in the beginning statement it was said that the
car had multiple sensors and ultrasonic sounds if it were to be true it possible if it
cannot see the motions of the person, it can hear its footsteps or vice-versa however
in this scenario those two factors did not happen and because of that reliance and
misleading advertisement towards the usefulness and hope towards technology it
endangered both parties emotionally and physically respectively for the driver and
child.
Case # 5: 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:
What would you have done in this situation and why? Do you agree with Anna’s thinking
and her ethical reasoning that her classmate has ADHD? Explain. What would you have
done differently and why? Justify your answer.

THEORY/ PRINCIPLES:
Deontology, decision making skills are hampered when ethical decisions or dillemas
occur.

STAND:
1.1 Anna’s actions are ethically wrong however her reasoning was good enough in a way
that no existing parties are harmed because of the course of action taken.
1.2 Ignorance became a key part of this case in which the ethical reasoning of Anna got
the better of her in which she could not decide to pick the logical and right outcome
because of her friend.
1.3 Emotional Attachment and Consideration were two factors that engulfed Anna with
guilt for Lenny rather than “Honor Code” which she believed that if no one speaks no
one can also know, because of that the decision ratio would be 2:1 in which 2 favors
the goodness and emotional things related to Lenny over to 1 logical assumption that
would affect both members in the long run in terms of friendship and reputation in the
campus.