Ethics Case Study: Rescue at Risk and Deontological Duty
This paper examines an ethical dilemma in which survivors of a building fire must decide whether to risk descending smoke-filled stairs to rescue trapped victims or remain safely on the roof. Drawing on deontological ethics — the view that moral obligation is grounded in duty rather than outcomes — the author argues that attempting a rescue is the inherently correct course of action. The paper also considers consequentialist reasoning, weighing the risks and likely outcomes of several alternatives. It concludes with a prioritized plan of action that balances moral duty with practical risk management, supported by references to foundational texts in ethical theory.
- The Ethical Dilemma: Defining the rescue-or-stay dilemma
- Value and Ethical Position: Deontological duty supports descending to rescue
- Alternative Courses of Action: Three possible responses to the crisis
- Possible Consequences of Each Alternative: Likely outcomes of each rescue option
- Prioritizing the Alternatives: Ranking options by ethical and practical merit
- Plan of Action: Recommended course of action with roles
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly frames the dilemma before staking a position, giving the reader essential context without bias.
- Grounds the argument in named ethical theories — deontology and consequentialism — with supporting citations, demonstrating academic rigor appropriate to an undergraduate ethics course.
- Moves logically from problem identification, to position, to alternatives, to consequences, and finally to a concrete plan of action, creating a coherent analytical arc.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively contrasts two major ethical frameworks — deontological ethics and consequentialism — by applying them to the same scenario and showing how each leads to a different course of action. Rather than merely defining the theories, the author uses them diagnostically: Joseph's and Peter's reluctance is explained as consequentialist reasoning, while the author's own preference for rescue is grounded in duty-based obligation. This comparative application of theory to a concrete case is a foundational skill in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a structured question-and-answer format with six sections: definition of the dilemma, statement of ethical position with theoretical grounding, identification of alternatives, analysis of consequences, prioritization of alternatives, and a final action plan. Each section builds directly on the last, creating cumulative analytical depth. The References section cites four academic sources in APA format.
The Ethical Dilemma
An ethical dilemma, in the words of Fletcher, Holt, Brazier, and Harris (1995), "occurs when there are at least two possible courses of action that may be taken but each option is problematic" (p. 7). With regard to the case study under consideration, the ethical dilemma faced by every individual who has succeeded in reaching the roof is whether to risk descending the stairs to save the lives of those trapped below, or to remain on the roof where it is relatively safe. Those who elect to remain on the roof would be doing so to enhance their safety while they wait for help.
In the scenario presented, no individual can embrace both alternatives simultaneously. The individuals involved cannot remain on the roof to enhance their safety and, at the same time, take an obvious risk in an attempt to save those trapped below. The two courses of action are mutually exclusive, and a choice must be made.
Value and Ethical Position
In my view, the most appropriate course of action would be to descend the stairs and save those trapped below. I specifically support John's suggestion that he be accompanied by Joseph downstairs to see what they can do to help. Such a course of action would, in my view, be inherently correct. I regard some actions as a personal duty, and for this reason my position is not largely determined by the benefits or harms likely to result from a particular course of action. My principles are therefore essentially grounded in deontological ethics.
As Tannsjo (2008) observes, consequences are not of primary importance within deontological ethics. Corrigan and Farrell (2010) define deontological ethics as "a moral theory based around obligation and not the consequences of your actions" (p. 207). From this standpoint, the duty to attempt to save lives is binding regardless of the personal risk involved.
Alternative Courses of Action
Several other alternatives could be used to resolve the problem in this case. The first, already outlined above, involves John and Joseph descending to join Margaret in the rescue efforts. However, all five individuals could also choose to wait for Margaret — who has already descended — to return. This approach aligns with Joseph's and Peter's suggestions to remain on the roof. Joseph argues that it would be too risky to go back, since the stairs are already smoke-filled and making it back to the roof could prove extremely difficult.
In taking this position, Joseph appears largely concerned with the consequences of attempting a rescue. His stance, and that of Peter, is therefore grounded in consequentialist reasoning. As Preston (2007) notes, ethical decisions within consequentialism are typically based on the calculation of likely outcomes in terms of overall good.
A second alternative would be for John alone to follow Margaret while the remaining group waits for help. This is particularly relevant given that nobody else — except Margaret, who has already descended — appears willing to take the risk. Pursuing this course of action would increase the survival chances of those crying out for help. The situation may not be as dire as Joseph suggests when he claims they would never be able to make it through alive should they follow Margaret.
References
Corrigan, R. & Farrell, M. E. (Eds.). (2010). Ethics: A University Guide. Gloucester: Progressive Frontiers Press.
Fletcher, N., Holt, J., Brazier, M., & Harris, J. (1995). Ethics, Law and Nursing. Oxford Road, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Preston, N. (2007). Understanding Ethics (3rd ed.). Sydney: The Federation Press.
Tannsjo, T. (2008). Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Theory (2nd ed.). George Square, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.