CASE #4: REMOTE PARKING by Mr.

John Renzo Espinosa

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:
Kant’s Deontology theory states that actions of an individual is determined
to be good or bad based on certain rules. They should adhere to their obligations
and duties when making a decision. Therefore, failing to comply from their duty or
responsibility would mean to bring punishment to the person who made the
mistake or evil deeds.

Response #1: The driver is the one who has the full responsibility on what
happened, because he must be the one who’s monitoring and ensuring the state
of his car before walking away, regardless if his car has auto-parking features or
not.
PROS: If the driver will be proven to have negligence on his part it will be a lesson
to every drivers not to commit the same mistake.
CONS: There will be a major consequence to part of the driver, such as penalties,
medication assistance or to the extent he will be sent to jail, depending on how
grave the injury that the child received during the said incident.

Response #2: The manufacturer of the car must have the full responsibility and
must be held accountable on what the child is suffering from.

PROS: On the part of the manufacturing company who made the car with auto-
feature, they should and must secure other circumstances that might occur with
 that features, such as an accidents like this. I hope that they also take in mind the
auto-stop sensor when there is a possibility that the car will hit an object. These
are some of the consideration that the manufacturing company bear in mind before
releasing the car with auto parking feature to the public.
CONS: If the car company will be proven guilty on neglecting some important
things to consider that can help to reduce an accident like this, there will be a great
lost on their part, most especially the trust of the consumers. If the company’s trust
and sales will drop it will lead to bankruptcy, and many other employees/workers
will suffer.

Response #3: If the kids has parents, the one who are at fault is their parents,
because their main obligation is to give protection and supervision to the kid that
was indicated to the case.

PROS: It will be a reminder to every parents that they need to supervise their kids,
to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.
CONS: The parents will be blamed for the accident while they are still in mourning.

FINAL STATEMENT:
The action of the driver is classified to be unethical since he failed to do his
obligations in securing to park his vehicle safely without becoming a hazard to its
surroundings. As the owner of the car, he should also be cautious of the auto-park
feature since it’s not certain that it would work properly. Once it malfunctions at
any time, anyone who is unaware of the feature can be a victim of an accident.
Based on deontology theory, a person should be able to distinguish what is right
from wrong in depending on the assigned role and attached responsibility with it.
The driver’s actions contradicts the theory as he lacked to fulfill his own duty as
the owner of the vehicle to ensure that the car won’t be a threat to its surrounding
environment such as pedestrians. He could have prevented the accident if he was
more observant and aware of his surroundings and he made sure that the
functionality of the car, especially its auto-park feature is able to work properly.
Primarily, the driver is responsible for the child's injury as seen in a moral sense.
We cannot issue the blame towards the car manufacturer since they are not the
direct cause of the accident and it is vague to say that they are at fault in producing
a defective car since it lacks to show supporting cases that have similar issues.
The responsibility falls down to the driver since he failed to do his obligation as the
owner of the car to ensure the safety of not only his vehicle but also the
surroundings.
CASE # 5: CHEATING OR LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD?
by Mr. John Renzo Espinosa
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:
Deontological theory it states that we all have a duty as a person. This
theory states that we all have the knowledge to determine what is right and what
is wrong.

STAND:
RESPONSE # 1: I will tell immediately to the professor that Lenny is cheating,
regardless of her having ADHD…

PROS: It is my obligation as a student to fulfill what I signed to the honor code and
what I think is right – which is, to tell the truth, and tolerating a close friend cheating
is not right. By this, I will fulfill what I signed to the honor code and the right thing
to do.
CONS: There is a high percentage that If I will tell immediately to the professor
that Leni is cheating she will be put to a very shameful situation and she will surely
 hate me. By doing that I might lose a friend and to the extent, I will be branded as
a betrayer.

RESPONSE #2: I will tell to the professor privately that Lenny cheated right after
the exam.

PROS: By this, the Professor can also talk to Lenny, and she can also explain
herself in private why she did that. Also, there is a chance that Lenny would not
know that I am the one who tattled her to the Professor.
CONS: If Lenny will find out that I betrayed her she will be mad at me for sure
because in the first place I broke her trust, and intentionally I have a plan not to tell
her promptly or not to tell her at all.

RESPONSE #3: I will not tell to the professor for the first instance, but I will talk to
Lenny after the exam and I will help her more in her studies for her not to cheat for
the next exams. However, if she will cheat again I will report her to the professor.

PROS: In helping Lenny in her studies for her to avoid cheating by that I am
fulfilling my role as a friend in helping Lenny. Given that Lenny has ADHD I will
spare her for now – just for now to the consequences of what she committed.
CONS: Given that Leni has ADHD, it will require too many efforts in helping her,
in that sense, we can say that I will give so much time helping her. And that might
cause me to put my grades at stake.

RESPONSE #4: I will talk to Lenny right after the exam and advise as her friend
that she needs to confess what she committed to the professor in compliance
with the ‘honor code’.

PROS: In doing so, I am not compromising my relationship with Lenny.

CONS: There is no guarantee that Lenny will follow my advice, and as a result of
my action in instructing her what to do, she will not trust me anymore, and by this
action it doesn’t make me free from disobeying the moral code.

RESPONSE #5: I will just ignore the whole situation.

PROS: No conflict will arise between Anna and Lenny. She would also keep their
friendship.

CONS: Allowing Lenny to cheat on one occasion may cause them to develop a
habit of cheating.

FINAL STATEMENT:
The best course of action is to tell the professor in private that Lenny cheated, even if it
would cost a consequence of their friendship. Based on the Deontology Theory, it
commands that one must fulfill his/her moral obligation. The moral obligation for this
ethical dilemma is the consensus of the honor code system between students and
professors that needs to be followed. Furthermore, it is clear from the very beginning that
Anna knows that academic dishonesty is morally wrong based solely on her pure reason
as she shrugged off her friend’s suggestion not to get involved in Lenny’s decision. It is
already clear that they are aware of the moral obligation that they are carrying. It is not
an excuse for someone who has a symptom of ADHD to cheat during exams. This ethical
case poses the question “Do you agree with Anna's thinking and her ethical reasoning
that her classmate has ADHD?” No, I beg to disagree. So, the rule which considers
cheating is not in accordance with the moral law. Cheating is, therefore, wrong in any
case, even with the justification that Lenny has ADHD.

CASE # 6: FORGIVENESS AND REPENTANCE by Mr. John Renzo Espinosa

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 principle(s) would support your stand.

THEORY/PRINCIPLES:
Unitive/Restorative Justice, it focuses is on making amends, rather than on
making the afflicted or wrongdoer suffer. This kind of Justice is under the
Distributive Justice, one of the four classification of Justice as ethical principle. For
this theory believes that crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing
that harm.
Response #1: We can forgive someone who wronged us even if they are not
repenting their sinful act.
PROS: If possible, In so far it depends on you, be at peace. You free yourself
from hatred and refuse to be affected by the sin of other person. You forgive not
because that person deserves it, but because you deserve peace.
CONS: That person may think that it is okay and may repeat it.

Response #2: Yes we need repentance first for us to forgive. We need to repent
right after we have committed mistake.
PROS: Even if forgiveness is not that easy to give, in a way when the person who
wronged you admitted their sins and ask for forgiveness, it is easy to start the
process of healing.
CONS: If Mr. Lurie did not make any action regarding his situation and not act the
right thing to - which is repenting, it might lead to a more aggravating ramification
such as confirmation of being egoistic and prideful.

Response #3: Yes we need repentance first for us to forgive, but we must never
force repentance, same thing as forgiveness.
PROS: Sometimes when we allow time to work according to its nature, all things
will be put in its right place. The moment we lend some time for ourselves and the
one who harmed us, it can lead us to a self reflection, a time to ask ourselves - like
‘Am I the one who is hurting?’ Or ‘How do I contributed why that person wronged
me?’.
CONS: The longer we hold our feelings such as anger, the longer the agony we
will feel. In relation to the case, the more we choose not to act on something
because of pride the more it will cause us pain.

Response #4: If a person does not show any remorse after committing a sinful act,
then he does not deserve your forgiveness. It’s just show how arrogant he is. Don’t
compromise. Get even.
PROS: He must be punished and by that he will learn his lesson the hard way.
He will realize that committing a sinful act has grave consequence.
CONS: He may take revenge and the cycle continues. And it might lead to
heavier fatality.
FINAL STATEMENT:
No. Repentance is not a prerequisite to forgiveness. When you look at it, in most
cases, us people tend to be congenital sinners. We seek pardon but sometimes we mean
our words half-heartedly. In this case, the very person that Mr. Lurie wronged might give
in to or not give in to forgiveness just because the act of seeking forgiveness is not sincere
to begin with. Idealistically, repentance begets forgiveness; but there is still a possibility
that even the person who wronged us and pained us repent and ask for forgiveness there
is still no guarantee of forgiveness. In connection to the case one could never anchor their
judgment of a person’s character based on that person’s capability to forgive, because
giving forgiveness is a choice and not an obligation. And regarding to the notion if failing
to forgive is a defect in the character, how would it be actually proven true since humans
are paradoxical in nature? By using restorative justice here as theory, it is true that for
this theory to be realized there should be consequences that must occur to Mr. Lurie in
exchange to his sinful act of seducing one of his student. However, is it always
punishment that will make justice fulfilled? I hope it is not. I am sure it is peace and we
can fulfill restorative justice through peace instead of revenge. Again, Repentance is not
a prerequisite to forgiveness.