TO SPARE OR NOT TO SPARE: :: essays research papers

TO shipshape OR NOT TO SPARE THAT IS THE ETHICAL QUESTIONA twenty-something division old Caucasian male engineering student travels from Prescott, Arizona to Friendsville, Tennessee during his spend and winter breaks from school. The length of distance covered in one take off is about 1800 miles. He drives a 1968 Ford Mustang. This car is in conduct of restoration, but is all-original. Because he is alone, this student can non ruin at anywhere that is not public. Even a Rest Stop is too risky for a lone traveler. This student driver does not even drive at night. The dilemma begins at the half- musical mode point of the trip, the middle of the Texas pan-handle on Interstate 40 East. This area has few gas stops and almost no agrestic or suburban areas. The student passes a car on the ramp of the road. This car is driving on a at once tire. Unfortunately the precisely safe option for this student is to continue down the road and implore for the person in distress. The student -driver stops for gas at the only stop for another 50 miles. Like most gas stops in this area, it stands alone on this exit. The student-driver pumps gas into his car and goes inside to pay for the fuel. As the driver is about to ply, he is stopped by a 60 to 70 year old Caucasian male. This man has a flat tire. He recognizes the car that passed him earlier and asks for help. This man recognizes that the Mustangs spare exit fit his car, and he proceeds to ask the student if he would be willing to part with his spare. The moral dilemma begins. If the student gives the man the spare, his immorality for passing the man will be extinguished and it will be replaced with the satisfaction of helping another human being from being stranded. However, this would leave the student without a spare tire for the last 900 miles of his trip. The three honorable systems being used to respond to this moral dilemma are Kantism, Utilitarianism, and Epicurism. In this dilemma, there are two choices, and each system has its own way to respond. Kant would begin by criticizing the analysis of the consequences, because consequential moral philosophy lacks universality, leads to rules that profane our ordinary moral sensibility, and reverses the proper relationship between ethics and happiness.(Symposia. 2005.