Tom, hating his wife and wanting her dead, puts poison in her coffee, thereby killing her. Joe also hates his wife and would like her dead. One day, Joe's wife accidentally puts poison in her coffee, thinking it's cream. Joe has the antidote, but he does not give it to her. Knowing that he is the only one who can save her, he lets her die. Is Joe's failure to act as bad as Tom's action?
the point in moral (same thing as an ethical dilemma I might add) dilemma exercises is to decide based on the choices you have. You cannot make up other possible choices, they do not exist and nothing else is possible. They are designed so that you are forced to challenge your morals and make a decision on "what would you do."
moral dilemma copied from
http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm
2007-06-12 12:04:06 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
the point of the story is not to get married!
2007-06-12 12:11:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both are murder. One though inaction and the other though action.
While one can argue that the act of premeditation on the part of Tom makes the crime worse, the fact is the consequence is the same.
2007-06-12 19:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While they are both wrong in my opinion, only the first is actually murder. Murder is the "unlawful" taking of a human life. Failure to act is not murder, though one could make a case for manslaughter. Causing death is worse than allowing death to occur, at least to me.
2007-06-12 19:17:15 · answer #3 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does it matter?
In both cases it is murder.
2007-06-12 19:10:20 · answer #4 · answered by Mystine G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋