Friedrich Nietzsche

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?

Ah, the problem case of moral dilemma. How fascinating it is to be faced with such a situation, a test of one's values and beliefs. In this scenario, we are confronted with a difficult choice regarding the fate of our own father, a man we once admired and respected. The act of vigilantism against an immigrant from Southeast Asia, a brutal display of violence that goes against our understanding of who our father is. The discovery of the handwritten letter, a damning piece of evidence that shatters our perception of him, forcing us to confront the reality of his intentions. Do we betray him, turn him over to the authorities and ensure his conviction? Or do we protect him, destroy the letter and pave the way for his acquittal? Utilitarians would weigh the consequences of their actions, seeking to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. In this case, they may choose to turn the letter over to the prosecutor, believing that justice must be served in order to prevent further harm to society. The greater good, they would argue, lies in holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of personal ties. Kantians, on the other hand, would adhere to the categorical imperative, acting out of a sense of duty and moral obligation. They may choose to turn the letter over to the prosecutor, following the principle that one must always act in accordance with universal laws that uphold respect for human dignity and the rule of law. For them, the ends do not justify the means, and justice must prevail above personal relationships. Rossians, followers of W.D. Ross and his theory of prima facie duties, would consider the conflicting moral obligations at play in this situation. They may weigh the duty of beneficence towards one's family against the duty of justice towards society, struggling to reconcile the two competing duties. Perhaps they would seek a middle ground, attempting to find a solution that balances these conflicting obligations, navigating the complexities of moral decision-making. As for how I would act in this situation, I must admit that there is no easy answer. The choice before me is a difficult one, requiring a deep reflection on my values and principles. Would I betray my father, a man who once stood as a pillar of strength and guidance in my life? Or would I protect him, turning a blind eye to his transgressions in the name of familial loyalty? The struggle between filial duty and moral responsibility weighs heavy on my heart, a burden that must be carried with great care and consideration. In the end, my decision will be a testament to my own character and integrity, a reflection of the values that define me as a human being.