George simply paying attention. It a long drive back home family's winter vacation, Interstate coming downtown area city. His wife front. In backseat young daughter younger brother, feeling sick home.ID George's dilemma: Kant vs. consequentialism (utilitarianism)

According to Kant's categorical imperative, the ethical actor must behave as if he is setting a law for all time, not merely dealing with the specifics of every ethical situation. Taking a bribe is wrong, and factors such as George's weariness, his son's illness, and other situational factors do not make the taking of the bribe less immoral. The categorical imperative is categorical because there are no conditions limiting its expression. It is stated by Kant: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law' (4:402). This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of all of morality" (Johnson 2010).

A more colloquial formulation of the categorical imperative might be that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. This can be seen even in the example of George's speeding, an action which Kant would also disapprove of, given that the contingent circumstances of George's son's illness were used by George as an excuse to speed. It is never okay to break the law and George's law-breaking led to his subsequent dilemma with the police officer.

It is easy to find 'good' reasons to be immoral and far harder to obey moral precepts. There are many emotional...

His son is not deathly ill, and although the police officer is behaving immorally, George's immorality will simply compound the problem. What will George do the next time he is offered a bribe, once he sets the principle that he will engage in bribery to make life easy for himself and his family?
A consequentialist might say that that in this situation, extending a bribe will make George's family happier -- his son can go home and his wife and daughter will never know about the bribe. Consequentialism views morality as something that must be engaged in on a situation-by-situation basis. One example of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which proposes a strict calculus for deciding what moral actions to take. In general, utilitarianism supports the idea of doing the 'greatest good for the greatest possible number' of people. George could rationalize that if he gives the bribe, those who might be morally corrupted by his actions (his children and wife) will be none the wiser, he gets to go home to watch the game, and his son can be put to bed at a reasonable hour. "Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me"…