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?