The Scenario for the Ethical Dilemma - Assignment Example

? Assignment 2: Ethics Assignment 2: Ethics Background The scenario for the ethical dilemma focused on a scene in naval warfare where the ship is supposedly hit by either a tornado or a bomb and the interior of the ship begins to take in considerable amount of water, reaching the engineering compartment. As indicated, “when the major engineering compartments begin to fill up with water, the large water-tight hatch must be closed quickly or the ship will sink with all hands aboard” (case facts, par. 1). Given this situation, three men were identified to be in the compartment trying to stop the flooding, and as the Commanding Officer (CO), one is faced with the dilemma of closing the hatch based on ethical theories. Answers to Questions 1. What would you do if you were the acting CO of the submarine? What level of Kohlberg’s moral reasoning is this decision based on? As indicated in Lesson 8, Kohlberg’s theory “assumes the primacy of cognition and defines a moral act as one that follows a process of moral reasoning and judgement based of principles” (1). Kohlberg’s six stages are enumerated as: Level 1: Preconventional Morality where Stage 1 is indicated as Obedience and Punishment Orientation, Stage 2 is Individualism and Exchange; Level 2: Conventional Morality made up of Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships and Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order; finally, Level 3: Postconventional Morality composed of Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights and Stage 6: Universal Principles (Crain). Upon evaluation of each levels and corresponding stages, one can deduce that the decision to close the hatch in this particular scenario falls under Level 3: Postconventional Morality where both rules of law are considered and the possibilities of considering the universality of ethical principles. To answer the question, what would you do if you were the acting CO of the submarine?, it is not simply a matter of stating that one would order the hatch to be closed immediately without taking into consideration a number of factors. For one, the only other information noted from the case facts is that there would be three people who would die within a minute of closing the hatch. However, the number of people that would be saved was not indicated. A quick research on the average number of on a submarine revealed that the crew of a Canadian naval ship “must be not more than 165 personnel” (National Defense and Canadian Forces 16). Assuming that this is the average number of personnel on a navy warship, by closing the hatch, the CO would apparently be saving 162 people. Using Kohlberg’s moral reasoning, under Level 3, a review of the laws governing naval warfare ships indicate that as part of damage control “the moral is HOLD WHAT YOU HAVE; DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT PROGRESSIVE FLOODING AND BURNING” (Sea Cadets. org 14). Further, the mission of the Canadian Maritine Ships (CMS) is “is to maintain maritime and assigned air forces on each coast able to respond to maritime incidents, contribute to the surveillance of Canadian approaches, and assist in the tracking of ships of interest, such as ships involved in illegal activity or posing a possible threat to national interests or security” (National Defense and Canadian Forces 6). . Therefore, all personnel are aware that there are risks involved in manning naval warships and the priority is always to ensure that the ships is ultimately saved and preserved at the top of the agenda. The CO’s responsibility is abide by the mission that “Canada’s navy – versatile, multipurpose and combat-capable – diligently protects our interests by safeguarding our maritime approaches, exercising sovereignty over our waters, protecting our offshore natural resources and contributing to global security” (Canadian Navy par. 1). In this regard, as CO, I will order to close the hatch at the earliest possible time to prevent progressive flooding. Presuming the consequential risks of the three men within the compartment would be secondary to the obligation. Further, it is understood that these men also know their respective responsibilities and closing the hatch is actually one of their tasks for damage control. By doing so, these three men would be acting towards their moral obligation to save the rest of the crew by doing what is expected of them. As research has revealed, the Canadian Navy has a designed damage control “organization and systems (that) must detect, contain, and suppress fire, smoke, toxic fumes, and flooding effects following accidental or weapon-induced damage” (National Defense and Canadian Forces 21). Therefore, since every crew member has been trained on what to do in cases of sinking ships, there are routes that could be taken by the three men who are ordered to close the hatch and could be assumed that they could also be saved. 2. How could a decision to close the hatch be morally justified by: a. Utilitarianism? The theory of utilitarianism was aptly summed by the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number” as cited in Lesson 7 (2). The decision to close that hatch can be morally justified as previously mentioned that by risking the lives of three men in the compartment, the CO would be saving the lives of approximately 162 more. Therefore, sacrificing three lives is lesser than endangering the lives of the whole crew, if closing the hatch order is not commanded. As deduced from the lesson stated under Lesson 7, “an act may be utilitarian in a practical sense but not in a moral sense unless it maximizes the good for maximum number of members of society” (2). The action of the CO therefore is morally justified under the utilitarianism theory for maximizing the good for the greater number of people. b. Kant’s categorical imperative? Kant’s categorical imperative states that “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal moral law” (Lesson 7: Categorical Imperative 1). Given that there are laws, rules, policies that govern every action and responsibilities in the Navy, it is assumed that each personnel has full knowledge of the risks and accountabilities that go with their jobs. For the CO, the responsibilities abovementioned, adhere to “diligently protect our interests by safeguarding our maritime approaches, exercising sovereignty over our waters, protecting our offshore natural resources and contributing to global security” (Canadian Navy par. 1) clearly morally justifies his command to close that hatch to prevent progressive flooding and to control the damage. On the other hand, taking the points of views of the three men, they know that it is their obligation and responsibilities to close the hatch, at the onset, to prevent further damage and the potential for flooding. Therefore, using Kant’s categorical imperative, it is morally justified that they accept the accountability that the hatch would be closed with them inside as a universal law of their profession. As the categorical imperative likewise encompasses the principle of universalizability, principle of ends and principle autonomy, the acts of the CO and the expected acceptance of the three men, are morally justified. c. Doctrine of double effect? The doctrine of double effect (DDE) contends that “there is an intrinsic moral distinction between intended and foreseen harms.  The DEE is often fully formulated as follows: It is morally indefensible to intend to harm an innocent person, but it is morally defensible to perform actions with good intended consequences, where harm is a foreseen but unintended consequence  (e.g. in the waging of a just war civilian casualties might be permitted, but it is always forbidden to target civilians” (St. Andrews par. 1). The situation clearly manifests the applicability of this doctrine as the CO’s action or decision to close the hatch does not, in any way, intend to harm the three men in the compartment. However, the decision is intended to control the damage and prevent progressive flooding that would endanger the lives of the whole crew and potentially sink the naval warship. Eventually, one is made to select which consequence or outcome would create the greatest benefit and the minimum damage. As indicated above, it can be presumed that despite case facts revealing that the three men will die within a minute, the outcome could also be contested as these navy personnel have been trained to protect themselves and to escape from sinking ships. There are presumably escape routes that are built in their compartments so that they could seal the area and opt to free themselves from danger at the nick to time. My research has further revealed that Canadian Navy’s Sub Safe Program ensures that “submarine operations are to be conducted safely, balancing risk against the goals of achieving the mission; submarines will be operationally and weapons certified; submarines will operate with a full medically-fit and trained crew; submarines will be material certified; all personnel onboard the submarines will be aware of all known significant hazards and trained to react accordingly to counter the associated risks; an efficient and effective Sub Safe program will be maintained and, importantly, in the absence of specific procedures risk management and due diligence are to be exercised” (Canadian Navy par. 12). In this regard, it is safe to presume that despite the CO’s decision to close the hatch, the three men would determine and discern the most appropriate action to ensure that their lives would be saved. 3. Assume you know the three men in the flooding engineering compartment very well. Explain how Jones’ (1991) model of moral intensity could influence your decision. Lesson 9 explicitly enumerates Jones’ model of moral intensity encompassing six characteristics, to wit: magnitude of consequences, social consequences, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity and concentration of effect (Jones Model 2). Using Jones’ model, assuming that the three men in the flooding engineering compartment are very well known to me, the decision could be influenced and swayed towards ensuring that they be saved in favour of others who I do not know or I do not have any regard to. After examining the magnitude of consequences, the case facts reveal that these three men will die within a minute. Knowing this as a fact, and hoping that through the escape routes they can reach escape areas within the time left, I could opt to still go on with the decision to close the hatch, especially if I am aware that they all have the capabilities to escape in due time. Otherwise, I would think twice on making this decision knowing that I would be deliberately contributing to the death of the three persons I know. Under social consensus, again, the deliberation is if other people were sought to reflect on the issue, the decision could be regarded as good or bad taking diverse points of views and perspectives. From the points of views of these three men, who presumably know me very well (as they could be my long time friends or in the capacity of subordinates who know my commanding authority), I could decide still to close the hatch given that it is the most beneficial recourse to possibly save more people, including them. When taking the probability of effect into perspective, the decision to close the hatch could actually result in the death of these three men, as indicated in the case; or the decision could even save them, if they take the appropriate escape routes as identified in their training. For all possibilities, by not deciding to close the hatch, progressive flooding is sure to occur endangering everybody on board and could result in killing, not only the three men, but everybody else. Temporal immediacy gives proper accountability of the time factor in making the decision. In this case, knowing them or not, the need to decide is immediate otherwise progressive flooding would occur. Proximity is most influential to affect the decision to close that hatch if indeed the three men are known to me (as the CO); depending on what capacity – as close friends? Or as subordinates serving the same naval warship with me? In this regard, the decision could be confounding in terms of subjecting these men to sure death or trying to rationalize their professionalism and capacities to escape. The concentration of effect, as averred by Jones, is most difficult to explain (Lesson 9: Jones Model 2). It is like trying to determine and compute the value of lives in monetary form. It is computing the possibility of losing three lives versus the monetary value of saving the rest of the crew. However, as contended, the gravity of the decision actually lies in presuming that as CO the responsibility and accountability falls in ensuring that all lives and resources are saved at the farthest possible options to maximize effectiveness. Therefore, after taking into consideration Jones’ model, the decision to close the hatch, although given some thought in terms of proximity and magnitude of consequences, still adheres to the need to close it to possibly save everybody, including the naval warship. Conclusion The essay focused on addressing the ethical dilemma on a scene in naval warfare in view of a sinking ship and three men identified to be in the risk of losing their lives. As the Commanding Officer (CO) various ethical theories ranging from Kohlberg’s moral reasoning, utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, doctrine of double effect and Jone’smodel of moral intensity are used to determine the ethical decision that would possible result and the implications of the decision. Kohlberg’s moral reasoning used and evaluated the three levels and six stages to arrive at a decision focusing on social contract and individual rights as well as the universal principles that govern the responsibilities and duties of all involved giving utmost priority to the safety of the ship being commandeered and its ultimate mission. Under the ethical theory of utilitarianism, the decision would always be made following the philosophy of according the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. Kant’s categorical imperative centers on encompassing the principle of universalizability, principle of ends and principle autonomy where people involved in the dilemma recognized their duties and the risks involved. The doctrine of double effect emphasizes that the CO’s decision does not intend harm to befall the three men but there is still the foreseen harm from the course of action. Finally, Jone’s model of moral intensity evaluated the CO’s options and decision using the elements of magnitude of consequences, social consequences, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity and concentration of effect. The essay proves that decisions are guided by principles of ethics and standards of morality paving the way for people to choose one alternative over the other. Depending on the personality, view of responsibilities, values and preferences in life, ethical decision are made and guided with the ultimate aim of choosing the best option that would maximize benefits with the minimum cost. Works Cited Canadian Navy. Domestic Stories: Technical Briefing to Explain the Navy’s Sub Safe Organization. 14 October 2004. Web. 28 June 2011 . —. The Navy. 21 June 2011.Web. 28 June 2011 . Crain, W.C. "Theories of Development." Prentice Hall, 1985. 118 - 136. National Defense and Canadian Forces. Joint Support Ship. 25 July 2010. Web. 28 June 2011 . PSE402. "Modlue 2: Ethics Lesson 7: Ethical Theories II." Royal Military College of Canada, n.d. PSE402. "Module 2: Ethics Lesson 9: Ethical Decision Making." Royal Military College of Canada, n.d. PSE402. "Module 2: Ethics Lesson 8: Moral Development." Royal Military College of Canada, n.d. Sea Cadets. org. Chapter 7 Damage Control. n.d. Web. 27 June 2011 . St. Andrews . The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). N.D. 27 Web. June 2011 . Read More