Moral Dilemas Essay Example for Free

Moral Dilemas Essay This situation is a moral dilemma because Captain Ericson has to make a very hard decision, to either destroy the u-boat whilst killing the men in the water or to save the stranded men but risk future trouble and destruction by letting the u-boat go ie it is a situation to which his everyday morality cannot identify a solution. The ethical principles in this situation are very simple but it is very hard to determine what is best for everyone. If you sink the u-boat and kill the men you may have saved the lives of thousands of people in the future but at the same time you have slaughtered 40 hundreds of your own men who have done nothing but fight for their country. Having said this if you leave the u-boat and save your comrades from the water you have saved the lives of a few men but risked the lives of tens of thousands in the future. By destroying the u-boat he is obeying the principle of the military duty of an officer to his superiors and his country by destroying the enemy, and I quote attacking at all costs. On top of performing his military duty by getting rid of the u-boat he is likely to save the lives of the men on convoys that would be threatened by the same u-boat if it were not destroyed. Ericson shut and battened down his mind because it is human nature to doubt a decision directly after having made it; this is done because of our need for perfection. And so Ericson did this because he did not want nor could he allow doubt to enter his mind for even a second for fear of inaccuracy in judgement and failure to carryout his decision with precision. Also in order to be at ease with his decision he constantly needs to reassure himself that it was the right choice and this would be extremely hard to do if he constantly had doubt creeping into his head. Also he needs to block out all human emotions and pity for those men in order to make the correct decision. Some would argue that Ericsons actions were completely irrational because instead of avoiding violence and death which would have spared many lives he went ahead with his military instinct, as a result killing many men both English and foreign. Some would argue that he had the chance to come out of the situation without a slaughter on his hands, which according to the religious man would have been the moral thing to do. However we must ask ourselves what we are doing in a war if we are not prepared to make a decision based in military procedure and ethics for the greater good. Therefore from my point of view I feel that Ericson made a responsible decision taking into account the factor of the safety of other men in an extremely pressured situation, a situation which thankfully I will probably never have to make nor do I feel I would have the strength nor the character to make a well balanced decision and stand for the consequences. His decision may not have been the right one but there are always going to be people with different points of view on things but whether it was the right one or not is not really relevant nor should it be dwelt upon as everyone makes mistakes at some point in their lives. In this case it was his decision to make because his superiors obviously thought he was the right man for the job, not without reason and so he made the decision under extreme pressure and in a situation which did not have many alternatives which he had been appointed to make following not moral procedure but military procedure as is the custom during. And so taking all of this into consideration I personally feel he did the right thing. As always with a question like this we must consider both arguments. To be honest we cannot establish whether Ericson is a good person or not, as the case may be simply by examining one event as people make mistakes, that is what makes us human. Having said this there is no real reason to assume that his actions were a mistake and that he acted wrongly. On the contrary I feel that Ericson did exactly what a man in his position should do. He acted only after he was sure and only after taking into account the consequences of his actions and in this case he clearly felt that he would be acting for the greater good. In war it is the norm to sacrifice one man for the safety of hundreds of others and I feel that even thought his theory is not religiously moral it is still correct because in a time of war we have no time for things like moral issues, its either kill or be killed, the enemy will shoe no mercy so why should we. Therefore I do think that he is a good person as I simply think that he is a very stressed out man in a very difficult situation with the lives of hundreds at his mercy trying to do the right thing which is military procedure which he would have been taught; kill for the greater good. Having said this a religious man would say not necessarily that he is a bad man but that he made the wrong decision in this case because instead of avoiding murder which although is lisenced in war is morally wrong. He would look much deeper into the emotions of those men in the water which is exactly what military school trains you not to do, mixing emotions with actions can get you confused and in a military situation this can make you weak and vulnerable. Therefore in conclusion I think it is fair to say that we cannot really establish whether he is a good man or not but that according to some peoples views he made the wrong decision.