Moral Dilemmas

1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat

In this situation, I would decide that the captain was not guilty. It isn't fair for everyone to die just so that no one would be left with the "blame" of "killing" some people; if anything, the captain (who, incidentally, should have gone down with the ship) made a tough decision that saved lives.

2. A Father's Agonizing Choice

I would not kill my own son; he would be killed anyway, and I'll not be the one to do it. The other innocent inmate would most likely also be killed eventually. I would not play the guard's little sadistic game and have the guilt of killing my own son on my conscience. I would also not feel guilty about the other inmate because I did not kill him; it was the guard's choice to do so.

3. Sophie's Choice

Guilt is an emotion that cannot be controlled, so there is no saying that she "should" or "should not" feel guilty, although I would understand why she would feel that way. I think she made the best decision she could under the circumstances.

4. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom

I would seek the proverbial non-existent third option of blowing up the stick of dynamite in a place that would create an alternative exit for those stuck in the cave. However, to answer the actual question, there is little choice in my mind; it would be unfair for an entire group of people to drown just because a fat guy was stuck, and he would have to live with the guilt of all those people's deaths. The same with the pregnant woman; one life is not more valuable than a greater number of lives.

5. Jean Valjean's Conscience

In this case, tempting though it might be, it would be unfair for Valjean to allow another (presumably innocent) man to suffer consequences for actions that weren't his. The factory situation would not be an issue; he did the right thing by leaving somebody in charge to take care of the employees and accepted his own consequences.

6. A Callous Passerby

Although I believe Mr. Smith would have a moral obligation to save the boy since it would save his life and do nothing more than inconvenience him, legally he is not responsible. The law cannot expect someone to risk danger to themselves to help someone else; doctors are required to do so because they made a pledge, but random strangers cannot be expected to risk anything to themselves to aid a stranger.

7. A Poisonous Cup of Coffee

Although Joe's inaction was morally wrong, he did not instigate the events that resulted in his wife's death, and is therefore not guilty like Tom. Despite Joe's bad intentions, he did not actually commit a crime or do anything to bring about his wife's death. His inaction is not as wrong as Tom's outright murder.

8. The Torture of the Mad Bomber

In the words of Machiavelli, "the ends justify the means"; it is more imperative that hundreds of lives be saved than keeping a crazy guy comfortable. I agree that torture should at least be attempted to extract that vital information since the conventional methods did nothing at all. I would even torture his "innocent" wife if that was what was necessary to save hundreds of lives, which are more valuable than a single individual's comfort.