William Shakespeare

Problem Case. Your father has been arrested and put on trial for beating and nearly killing an immigrant from Southeast Asia, a form of vigilantism that you think he would never participate in. The prosecuting attorney, bent on rid- ding society of racially motivated violence, has a weak case so far. But then you find a handwritten letter by your father in which he relates in great de- tail how he intends to beat the immigrant to death. You are shocked and suddenly aware of a terrible choice you must make. You could turn the let- ter over to the prosecutor and ensure your father’s conviction, or you could destroy it and pave the way for his acquittal. • Questions: (1) What would utilitarian do and why would utilitarians act in such a way? (2) What would a Kantian do and why they would act in such a manner? (3) What would Ross do and (why? (4) How would you act and why would you act in such a manner?

Alas, the case before me doth present a moral quagmire of the gravest import. Here stands a dilemma, fraught with weighty consequences and dire implications. My father, a man of honor and virtue in my eyes, stands accused of a heinous crime, a crime of violence and hatred that I cannot reconcile with the father I have known. The prosecuting attorney, driven by a noble cause to root out the scourge of racial prejudice, hath thus far struggled to make his case stick. But lo and behold, a damning piece of evidence hath fallen into mine hands - a letter, written in my father's own hand, detailing his intent to mete out violent retribution upon the hapless immigrant from distant shores. In this moment of reckoning, I am torn asunder by conflicting loyalties and allegiances. Should I, in the name of justice and righteousness, deliver this letter unto the prosecutor's hands, thereby sealing my father's fate and condemning him to the punishment he so justly deserves? Or should I, in an act of mercy and filial piety, destroy this damning missive and ensure my father's freedom, no matter the cost to my own conscience? But let us ponder the philosophies that guide our moral compass, the schools of thought that seek to illuminate the path of right action in times of moral crisis. The utilitarian, guided by the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, may well argue that the prevention of future harm outweighs the preservation of familial ties. By turning over the damning evidence, the utilitarian would seek to prevent further violence and uphold the sanctity of the law, even at the expense of personal relationships. On the other hand, the Kantian, bound by the categorical imperative of duty and moral law, would hold fast to the principle that intentions matter more than consequences. By destroying the letter and shielding my father from judgment, the Kantian would affirm the intrinsic value of human dignity and autonomy, even in the face of abhorrent actions. And what of Ross, that wise sage of moral philosophy? Would he not argue for a middle path, a course of action that balances conflicting duties and loyalties? By considering the various prima facie duties at play - duties of loyalty, of justice, of benevolence - Ross may well advocate for a nuanced approach that takes into account the complexity of human relationships and moral obligations. As for me, in this moment of profound moral reckoning, I find myself torn between competing imperatives of justice and mercy, of loyalty and duty. But in the end, I am compelled to consider the consequences of my actions, both for my father and for society at large. And so, with a heavy heart and a troubled mind, I must make a choice that will shape the course of my life and the lives of those I hold dear. May the gods above guide me in this moment of trial and tribulation, and may I find the strength to choose wisely, in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience.