However, if I thought there was a good chance that he would follow through I would be both legally and morally obligated to warn someone.
7. The dilemma is whether or not it is okay to kill someone out of mercy to end their suffering. While I would have no problem with an individual choosing to take their own life, I do not feel that it is ethical to kill someone, sick or not.
8. It is not ethical or legal to torture or threaten a man with the torture of his family for any reason, whether or not you intend to follow through, and whether or not lives are at stake. Setting this precedent opens the door for abuse of power and the depletion of all civil rights.
9. The ethical issue here is whether or not you should save someone's life even though it is an inconvenience....
I would not act as Roger Smith has acted in this scenario, as it is just wrong to ignore the immediate suffering of someone who will die when you can save them without any actual risk to yourself; the inconvenience of ruining his clothes and possible catching cold should not weigh into it when compared to the value of a human life.
A ranked these scenarios based on my own understanding of what is morally, ethically, and religiously right or wrong. I noticed that I put a great value on human life and that affected my answers. Life was more important than property. However, the quality of life was also a factor, specifically in cases where maintaining the law was involved. Following the law is important to maintaining a just society, making life better for many people despite some cost.
