Things over in the Should the NHL Boycott thread have unfortunately bubbled over. For a while there though, there was some interesting and productive discussion. Maybe some of that energy could be redirected to a more focussed and hopefully civil discussion? So, below is an ethical dilemma that examines one issue that has come to fore in current times: the moral value of property vs. people.
If you're not familiar with ethical dilemmas, basically they are no-right-answer scenarios designed to prompt thinking about whether a given action is ethical in certain circumstances. One of the classic ones is the trolley scenario:
A trolley is running away down its tracks and can't be stopped. It will hit and kill four people if nothing is done. A person is standing beside a switch that can divert the trolley to another track, where it will only hit and kill two people.
The starting question is whether or not it is right for the person to pull the switch. On the one hand it will save four lives at the cost of two, on the other hand, pulling the switch kills two people who would have otherwise lived.
From there, you can posit other details for the scenario, for example, the four people combined only have 23 years left to live, but the two people combined have 100 years left to live. Does that make a difference? and so on.
For people vs. property issue, I came up with the following ethical dilemma:
A homeowner sees a person (the bomber) preparing to throw a bomb at their house. If the bomb is thrown, the house will be destroyed. There is no one in the house, and the homeowner and everyone else are far enough away from the explosion that they would not be hurt. At the same time, a third person is aiming a gun at the bomber and is prepared to shoot. If the homeowner does nothing, the bomber will be killed and their house will be spared. If the homeowner yells "Don't Shoot!" the bomber will be spared and the house will be destroyed. Assume that the homeowner knows the bomber will die if shot.
What is the right thing for the homeowner to do? Is it right for the Homeowner to let the bomber die in order to save the homeowner's house?
Some suggested adds to the scenario after considering the initial dilemma: the homeowner has no insurance; the homeowner's insurance will completely cover losses caused if the bomb is thrown; insurance will only cover 50% of the losses, which means the homeowner can't afford another house, but can live in a small apartment.
If anyone posts about this, please keep it civil. I assure you that even if moral consensus is achieved, there is no objectively right answer.