Case 1

This case is extremely bewildering and difficult to comprehend.

As a young person concerned about the health of my fellow students,
I believe that the most demanding need that should be addressed
is the health of all students.
Even a lot of profit is obtained from junk foods and soda.
It should not be the basis for the school to continue to sell these types of
food.
Decision-making becomes more deliberate when moral theories are
applied.
The mother thinks good because she expressed concern about selling junk
foods should prohibit so that other students do not have the same
experience as her son.
They should consider alternative ways to market or sell a large portion of
their income from junk food and soda.
As a student, you must learn to be responsible and take care of your body.
Because the school was designed to teach in the first place.
So for the school it should teach the kids that those foods are bad for their
health.

Case 2
If you are in the business industry you must practice trusting other people
to trust you.
Shopkeepers use critical analysis to determine why they treat their
customers honestly; their actions and outcomes are similar but for different
reasons.
They are bound in Reasoning so that we can develop and evaluate ethical
arguments.
Shopkeeper A is more likely to believe, in the words of others, that if he
does the right thing, he will thrive as a businessman, and it is all about how
he will make money.
Meanwhile, shopkeeper B demonstrates that an honest action can lose
moral value if it is compelled by the wrong motive.
Both want to demonstrate the moral dilemma that business owners face.
And I believe Shopkeeper B is more ethically approving because he is
motivated by the duty of being honest and his motive is to have moral
worth, whereas Shopkeeper A is only motivated by money.

Case 3
In case number three, there are many options too, but it is difficult
dahil buhay ang pinag uusapan
If I were a surgeon and ill based on utilitarianism, I would think it
is ethical to kill a single foreigner to save a given patient, but it is
also against moral intuition.
According to Kantian Deontology, the rightness and wrongness
of acts are determined by the quality of the act itself. Deontology
is also the study of moral obligation with a focus on duties and
rights. As a surgeon, I am responsible for the safety of my
patients; therefore, if I choose to kill one person for the sake of
five others, my other patient may gain an extra life while one
innocent man loses his life forever. Furthermore, there is a breach
of the moral obligation not to kill. Your rights as a person will be
limited to the point way that if it does not correspond with
responsibility or duty on someone else's part,
for example, as a surgeon, I should not choose someone to die
and choose whomever I want, that is so unfair. Also, even if the
organs or blood I seek are rare, we must try another way; we
have another donor among millions around the world. To
summarize, if I were a surgeon, I would be impartial and fair.

Case 4
When death happens in a place other than the patient's choice,
fulfilling the last wishes becomes even more important.
When it comes to integrity, the issue here is that if a promise is
not kept, it would be against the kinship relationship of the laws,
the ethical issue here is that non-fulfillment of the last will lead to
the breaking of a feeling of trust that the dead lady had with her
mother-in-law during the last minute of her life.
Mother-in-law has made a legal promise, so even if she is
emotionally down, she should follow the wish or threat of being
sued in court if there is a case of future disclosure against her.
She has three options.
The first is to bury the ashes in the backyard of her home, which
will not make her feel emotionally low because her daughter-in-
law is close to her, but it will violate the law and ethical values,
and she may feel guilty in the future.
The second option is to bury the ashes in the sea, as requested;
everything will be established, including the law, ethics, and
integrity; however, the ocean will be polluted, and the mother-in-
law will be lonely.
The third option, and the one she should choose, is to bury the
majority of the ashes in the ocean, but this time she can keep a
pinch of it with herself as a symbol of a special moment in her life,
and in this way she would be legally correct because the law does
not specify the quantity, and
the promise made by the mother in law to her daughter would be
kept
Case 5

The women have the option of signing or not signing for the large
monetary settlement.
If she chooses to sign it, the incident will be ignored and she will
have more money,
but she should consider that if she agrees and signs the
company's offer, she has already claimed that it's okay for her to
harass someone she doesn't know.
 Based on Kantian ethics, rational beings do their duty and act by
the moral law.
If I were the lawyer, I will give correct and legal advice because
that is my job, to guide and walk my client through legal
procedures in and out of court.
The woman should also ask herself, "What if I accept the
money?" Because they can get away with anything with money,
the harassment incident will continue and continue to happen
then and throughout the future, and the company will NEVER
remove the harasser since he is one of the ones who grow the
company. Also, if he accepts the offer, his sick father will be
disappointed in her because, despite having money, she has been sexually
assaulted.