Antoinette Perez,
Question #1
This is such a hard thing to justify, I believe it should be up to the family in what they would want to do. However if there is a chance that the baby could live it and it would be healthy I think the baby should be born, there is no right or wrong in this law. I think the state is trying to just give another human the right to live. I spoke with a few of my co-workers and they feel that it is his rights to do with his wife and unborn child. It’s Mr. Munzos choice even if the baby would have no abnormalities.
Question # 2
I do believe that this type of moral choice between the lesser of evils as in this Trolley Problem is realistic to what we might face in our everyday lives or places of employment. Everyday we are faced with decisions some might me harder than others, they also maybe morally right or immoral. Im am not sure if there is such a thing as a moral duty to choose between the lesser of evils. I personally would be devastated no matter what. I would choose to only hit the one person instead of taking the lives of 5 people. It is a really hard decision no matter what you do it will impact your life no matter what. In my career I have to make decision that impact people’s life, and sometimes they aren’t the best but I have to a job.
Brendon Plunkett,
(1) Removing a pregnant woman from life support seems to be a sticky wicket in a utilitarian perspective. The greatest good for the greatest number of people hits on many points. Are we using this scenario as a benchmark for decisions in other potential situations? On its surface it seems that the only people that are directly affected are Mrs. Munoz’s family and her unborn child, unless it is going to be the “gold standard” for making decisions in similar circumstances. The article indicated there was a verbal understanding between a husband and wife that no extraordinary means should be used to keep themselves alive. I don’t know if the conversation between this husband and wife ever factored in a life in the womb, but it seems they had an understanding between each other, and I would venture to say it was to spare the other from having to make the decision themselves. I do believe that Mr. Munoz should be allowed to make his decision with consideration to the status of the fetus. He may have the belief that the potential of a life of suffering for his child is not something he would want to subject them to, or he may believe that the gift of live is grand and he would do anything his child needs to provide the most fulfilling life he can. I feel the decision is his, granted it is being made under duress and in the most tragic of circumstances.
(2) In the simplest of situations, I think the lesser of two evils is a realistic problems that we encounter regularly. Tell a small lie to avoid a major conflict in a relationship, agree with a point of view you don’t necessarily share to complete a project, placate to a quicky resolve a conflict where the ends are of no consequence to you. These are things we all could be involved with during our day-to-day life. As far as a moral duty to choose between the lesser of two evils, I do not believe it can be simply said. The totality of a circumstance would need to be considered because who’s evils are we judging the lesser of the two on? Are we choosing the lesser of the two for our own or for the greater good for the greater amount? Using the trolley example, I am just a bystander not directly affected by either outcome on the surface, there will be a loss of life regardless. Now if I’m a bystander whose parent is a track worker, working alone on a sidetrack on day, what is the lesser of two evils? Mine would probably be not losing a parent, the greater good for the greater amount would be saving five lives. I think the totality of a circumstance affects our decisions daily even if we take them into consideration subconsciously.
0 comments