Moral Dilemas Essay

This item is a moral dilemma because Captain Ericson has to make a real hard determination, to either destroy the torpedo whilst tearing the men in the water or to save the stranded men yet riskiness forthcoming trouble and destruction by letting the u-boat go ie it is a situation to which his everyday morality can non identify a solution.The ethical principles in this situation are very simple and it is very hard to determine what is best for every 1. If you sink the u-boat and garbage down the men you may bring on saved the lives of thousands of people in the future but at the same time you take wallopinged 40 hundreds of your have men who have done no intimacy but fight for their country. Having verbalize this if you leave the u-boat and save your comrades from the water you have saved the lives of a few men but risked the lives of tens of thousands in the future. By destroying the u-boat he is obeying the principle of the armed services duty of an officer to his su periors and his country by destroying the enemy, and I quote attacking at all costs. On occur of performing his military duty by getting rid of the u-boat he is likely to save the lives of the men on convoys that would be jeopardize by the same u-boat if it were not destroyed.Ericson shut and battened down his head word because it is human nature to doubt a finding directly subsequently having made it this is done because of our need for perfection. And so Ericson did this because he did not deficiency nor could he allow doubt to enter his mind for even a second for fear of inaccuracy in judgement and failure to carryout his decision with precision. excessively in order to be at ease with his decision he constantly needs to reassure himself that it was the even out choice and this would be super hard to do if he constantly had doubt creeping into his head. alike he needs to block out all human emotions and grace for those men in order to make the correct decision.Some wou ld take aim that Ericsons actions were completely irrational because instead of avoiding violence and death which would have spared umteen lives he went ahead with his military instinct, as a military issue killing many men both English and foreign. Some would get by that he had the chance to come out of the situation without a slaughter on his hands, which correspond to the religious man would have been the moral thing to do. However we must ask ourselves what we are doing in a contend if we are not prepared to make a decision establish in military surgery and ethics for the greater good. Therefore from my point of view I feel that Ericson made a responsible decision taking into account the factor of the base hit of other men in an extreme pointly pressured situation, a situation which thankfully I will in all probability never have to make nor do I feel I would have the strength nor the character to make a well equilibrize decision and stand for the consequences.His d ecision may not have been the upright one but there are always going to be people with different points of view on things but whether it was the right one or not is not really relevant nor should it be dwelt upon as everyone makes drop aways at some point in their lives. In this facial expression it was his decision to make because his superiors obviously thought he was the right man for the job, not without reason and so he made the decision under extreme pressure and in a situation which did not have many alternatives which he had been appointed to make following not moral procedure but military procedure as is the custom during. And so taking all of this into hireation I individualally feel he did the right thing.As always with a question like this we must consider both arguments.To be honest we cannot establish whether Ericson is a good person or not, as the case may be simply by examining one event as people make mistakes, that is what makes us human. Having tell this the re is no real reason to assume that his actions were a mistake and that he acted wrongly. On the contrary I feel that Ericson did exactly what a man in his position should do. He acted only after he was sure and only after taking into account the consequences of his actions and in this case he clearly felt that he would be acting for the greater good.In struggle it is the norm to sacrifice one man for the safety of hundreds of others and I feel that even thought his theory is not conscientiously moral it is still correct because in a time of war we have no time for things like moral issues, its either kill or be killed, the enemy will shoe no gentleness so why should we. Therefore I do stand for that he is a good person as I simply think that he is a very stressed out man in a very difficult situation with the lives of hundreds at his mercy nerve-wracking to do the right thing which is military procedure which he would have been taught kill for the greater good.Having said this a religious man would severalize not necessarily that he is a bad man but that he made the wrong decision in this case because instead of avoiding murder which although is lisenced in war is morally wrong. He would look a lot deeper into the emotions of those men in the water which is exactly what military school trains you not to do, mixing emotions with actions can get you confused and in a military situation this can make you weak and vulnerable.Therefore in evidence I think it is fair to say that we cannot really establish whether he is a good man or not but that according to some peoples views he made the wrong decision.