Moral Situation

Moral Situation Both Tom and Joe contributed to the deaths of their wives. However, Tom's actions are more severe than Joe's are. In fact, Joe did not actually take any action at all. Tom actually, purposefully, and maliciously administered the poison, whereas in Joe's case, his wife accidentally took the poison herself. Her death can be considered an accidental suicide, whereas Tom's wife's death was an out-and-out murder. Tom's actions were premeditated: he planned the event and executed it in cold blood. Joe's inactivity was incidental.

Although he desired to kill his wife, he made no overt plans to do so. He did not actually feed his wife poison, unless he had deliberately switched the container of cream for poison or unless he had placed the poison in the cream. However, if he did not do so, Joe cannot be considered as morally repugnant as Tom. After all, Tom directly caused his wife's death, whereas Joe was not the direct cause of his wife's death.

Causality is therefore one of the major factors in determining the morality of this case. However, Joe's failure to provide his wife with the antidote is morally wrong as Tom's deliberate poisoning of his wife. Both men had the opportunity to save their wives, and both made a conscious choice to let their spouses die. Joe simply watched while his wife passed away; he could have saved her and chose not to.

During those moments of deliberation, during which he could have given her the antidote, Joe consciously decided to allow his wife to die. Joe's inaction was equally as harmful as Tom's action. A court of law would probably rate Tom's crime as more severe than Joe's. Although.