Final Exam Cases

GEC 008 - Ethics

2nd Semester, AY 2019-2020

Direction: Choose just one case and in a maximum of 2 pages (font type: Times New Roman,
font size: 12, double-spaced) discuss and analyze your chosen case by doing the following:

1. Carefully analyze, clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral
dimensions of the case.
2. Clearly and systematically identify your main position/argument about ethical
issue.
3. Clearly indicate your awareness and thoughtful consideration of different
viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of
individuals who disagree with your position.

To avoid confusion, please send your work as Microsoft Word attachment indicating your
class section and full name to my email address: deluna_marlon@yahoo.com

Example:

The file name of the email attachment should also indicate your class section and full name

Important note: Make your own original analysis and discussion. Do not attempt to plagiarize
or steal/copy other people’s ideas.

Deadline of submission: March 19, Thursday until 11:59 pm.

CASE #1. Selecting for Deafness

Andre and Leslie want to have a child. They decide to use a process called
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a 2006 story, the New York Times explained PGD
as a process whereby “embryos are created in a test tube and their DNA is analyzed before
being transferred to a woman’s uterus. In this manner, embryos destined to have, for example,
cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease can be excluded, and only healthy embryos implanted.”
Andre and Leslie, however, wish to use PGD to select for a disability: Andre and Leslie are
deaf and want to have a child who will grow up immersed in Deaf culture, who understands
the experience of Deafness, and who communicates via sign language. Andre and Leslie
wanted their child to be deaf like them.

CASE #2. Fire at the Louvre

Paul is a scholar of Renaissance art history and a curator at the Louvre in Paris. One
morning, a fire sweeps through the museum. As people are evacuating the museum, Paul has
an important decision to make. Should he risk his own life by attempting to rescue anything?
He sees that he has at least two options. First, he could rescue Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa,
his favorite painting in the world and the museum’s most prized work. Second, he could rescue
a museum visitor who seems to have lost consciousness, and who therefore seems to be
incapable of rescuing themselves.
Paul realizes that no one would blame him if he did not attempt a rescue at all, given the
personal risk involved. He also realizes that, if he does attempt a rescue, he faces a separate
question: What /whom should he rescue? Paul thinks of himself as a kind and humane person.
Watching a human being die as he saves a painting would be devastating. But he has dedicated
his entire life to studying and preserving Renaissance art, and he loves the Mona Lisa more than
anything else in the world. Moreover, approximately six million people visit the painting every
year, and its destruction would be an immeasurable cultural loss.
CASE #3. “Don’t Help Me!”

Tom is a sophomore at a prestigious high school. He comes from a low-income household

and is the first member of his family to attend college. During his freshman year, Tom did well
academically and socially, though he sometimes consumed alcohol at parties, and he was twice
cited by the school for drinking in the dorms. Going into his sophomore year, Tom already had
“two strikes”: One more citation for underage drinking on school property and he would lose
his scholarship.
During the semester, Tom and his friend Kevin are drinking at a party in a university-owned
apartment. Tom, dancing merrily, accidentally smashes a glass bottle and badly cuts his hand.
Bleeding profusely, Tom begins to feel lightheaded and wobbly. Concerned for his friend and
beginning to panic, Kevin reaches for his phone to call for help. But Tom pleads, “Just bandage
me up as best you can—if you call for help the school will find out I’ve been drinking and I’ll
lose my scholarship! I’ll go to the health center tomorrow morning and everything will be fine.”
Kevin is uneasy with this plan. He’s not trained to clean and bandage a wound and doesn’t
want to be responsible for Tom sustaining a serious, permanent injury. On the other hand, Tom
insists that the decision to seek help is not Kevin’s to make. Tom says that he’s willing to risk
his health in order to avoid getting kicked out of school and compromising his future. By
calling an ambulance, Kevin might be changing Tom’s life forever.
CASE #4. Swimming for Free

Angel has a college degree but is underemployed, working full-time and struggling
to make ends meet. Mark, one of the college students with whom Angel shares an apartment,
attends an expensive private college nearby where his tuition includes membership to the
school gym and pool. Angel loves to swim to stay in shape, but he cannot afford to join a
gym or have access to a pool. Since Mark does not swim, he agrees to let Angel use his school
ID. Angel and Mark do not look identical, but they look similar enough that they can
reasonably expect that no one will notice if Angel uses Mark’s ID.
Angel thinks that if Mark has already paid for pool access through his tuition fees and
is not using it, then Angel can use the membership. It is not as if they are both using the
membership. The private college, with its big endowment, is not losing money on the deal.
However, the college pool is open but not free to the public: Non-college personnel are
charged fees that help maintain the facilities. The school considers access a special benefit to
the students of the college that would be devalued if open-access were allowed.
CASE #5. Overbearing Mamabear

Over the last decade, technological advancements in mobile devices have revolutionized
the way our society functions: we get directions from GPS maps, stream videos for news, and
check our email all the time. Smart phones and other advancements have created new levels of
efficiency and connectedness, but this comes at a cost. Some may argue, for example, that children
and teenagers have become much more vulnerable to cyber predators. The internet provides a
great deal of anonymity, allowing dishonest people to operate from behind a veil, or worse, to
disguise themselves as people they are not. Betsy Landers, president of the National Parent
Teacher Association, says “Predators now can prey on our kids online when they are totally
unaware that they're dealing with an adult.”1
How can parents best protect and monitor their children’s online activity? Some parents
are using special software that monitors their children’s social media accounts and web searches.
One app, MamaBear, allows parents to “Discover when your kids get tagged in a photo or check-
in[s] with friends at a location on Facebook and Instagram,” and “Learn when your kids make
new friends on Facebook or Instagram and get alerted to bad language or signs of bullying”.2 It
even allows parents to track their children’s cellphone with GPS and find out if they are in a car
that is traveling over the speed limit. Another program called Web Watcher “logs every email,
instant message, and keystroke” of the child’s mobile phone.
Other parents, however, see MamaBear and other similar software programs as intrusive,
claiming that it undermines the trust that exists between parents and their children. Many teens
whose parents monitor their internet activity and social media accounts often create two accounts:
one for parents to monitor, and another as a secret outlet for supervision-free activity. Perhaps
more importantly, children may feel like they aren’t trusted or that their privacy is being invaded.
Lynn Schofield Clark, the author of The Parent App, says, “When parents are engaged in these
kind of monitoring activities, they end up being interpreted by their young people as spying.”
CASE #6. Ethical Consumerism

Maria often feels conflicted when she is making purchases—at clothing stores, at pharmacies,
even at supermarkets—since she knows that many of the products she buys are manufactured by
people working for low wages in poor, perhaps even dangerous, conditions. In extreme cases,
these products may well be manufactured with the use of child labor. She worries that she is
benefitting only because others are being exploited. At the same time, she realizes that often the
jobs offered in such places are, despite being terrible, actually the best jobs available to people
living in severely impoverished countries.

Although Maria wants to be a conscientious shopper, she does not have the time to research
every purchase she makes. Even if she did, it isn’t likely that information is available on every
product for sale. Maria has no desire to support practices she finds unethical, but it seems
downright unrealistic to expect her to avoid making purchases that contribute to them.

Maria strives to be a good person—even if it is not always clear what that means. She
genuinely doesn’t want to live her life in a way that causes suffering for others. She wonders
whether it is acceptable to buy products produced under such bad conditions; or perhaps it might
even be required, in order to help those who, without the jobs, will suffer even more.
SCORING CRITERIA

A. Did the discussion/analysis clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral
dimensions of the case? (20 points)

20 = Clearly and precisely identified central moral dimensions, and discussed these
dimensions thoroughly.
16 = Mostly identified central moral dimensions and discussed major issues.
12 = Adequately identified and discussed some central moral dimensions (passable).
8 = Misidentified some moral dimensions of the case and inadequately discussed
(poor).
4 = Misidentified the central moral dimensions.

B. Did the discussion/analysis clearly and systematically identify the student’s main
position/argument about ethical issue? (20 points)

20 = Extremely clear presentation that systematically identified the student’s main

position/argument about ethical issue.
16 = Reasonably clear presentation that systematically identify the student’s main
position/argument about ethical issue.
12 = Hard to follow the argument. Significant dimensions of the ethical issue missed
(passable).
8 = Serious logical problems or underdeveloped argument (poor).
4 = Incoherent discussion/analysis.

C. Did the discussion/analysis indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of

different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of
individuals who disagree with the student’s position? (20 points)

20 = Insightful analysis and discussion of the most significant viewpoints, including full
and careful attention to opposing points of view.
16 = Solid analysis and discussion of some different viewpoints.
12 = Underdeveloped discussion of different viewpoints (passable).
8 = Minimal consideration of different viewpoints (poor).
4 = Minimal awareness of different viewpoints.