In this thread, you will answer the ethical dilemma asked by the previous poster. Like Defending the Indefensible, you answer the question, then pose your own.

Question 1:

You have volunteered to travel in a time machine back to 1930 and assassinate Adolf Hitler before his rise to power. However something goes wrong with the time controls, and when you arrive, you are confronted with a smiling, eight year old Adolf having a picnic with his family. Can you still pull the trigger? (assume that you don't have the option to use the time machine a second time)

This is an extremely profound and difficult question. Let's turn the screw a bit by assuming that I know that my killing of the boy Hitler will create a much better universe. That way, I can't back out of it by saying "Well, it might have made things even worse. Better the devil we do know than the devil we don't know."

Will I pull the trigger? Almost certainly not. I have never touched a gun, let alone fired one at a living thing. No matter how justified the action, I would have great difficulty doing it. If it were a matter of pushing a button and causing a non-violent death, that might be easier. But I would still hesitate out of sheer squeamishness.

Should I pull the trigger? Probably, if I know that this one, very evil act, will spare millions -- millions! -- from agony and death. I would also feel terrible for the rest of my life.

Another excellent idea, quarkhead.

Question 2:

By some supernatural means, you have been given the knowledge that a good friend will die suddenly within 24 hours. Should you tell her, alllowing her to arrange the last day of her life, or spare her the anxiety of expecting death? (Assume that she will believe you.)

I would tell her because there would be many things she would want to do on her last day on Earth

She would probably want to heal old wounds before she died, pay off outstanding debts, and last minute arrangements like make a will

Also, i feel that it would relieve the guilt that i knew & she didn't that she was gonna die


Question 3:

You have a friend. This friend needs a heart transplant & will die in 2 days without it. He has a high rejection rate. You find out that he will recieve a heart in time but it will be from his sister, who will die in an accident. The sister's heart will not reject your friend. Do you prevent the death of the sister & kill your friend or do you let time take it's course and let her die?

Tough one GoAmerica. In that situation, I would like to think that I would allow time to take its course, but in reality, I would probably tell someone about the impending death of the sister. I would hate to weigh it out in such a manner, but the sister, I'm assuming, has a stronger, healthier body than the friend, and I wonder what the psychological effects would be if the friend's life was saved at the expense of his/her sister's death.

On the other hand, my loyalties would lie with the friend, and that might influence my position as well.

Question 4:

You are an anthropologist working with a remote tribe of people in Africa who rarely accept outsiders into their community, and you have been vaccinated against smallpox. When you become aware of an epidemic of smallpox in the country, you try to convince the people of the tribe to visit a Western doctor for a vaccination. They refuse, and their way of dealing with the situation is to banish infected people from the tribe. A young woman becomes infected, and you know that she will not be able to procure food on her own, but if you leave to help her and return without smallpox, you will be considered a witch. This will mean that you can no longer complete your studies with the tribe. Would you stay with the tribe or go help the woman?

Well, isn’t that a dandy question. If you help the women that is effected will she be able to return to the tribe, and what effect will she have if allowed to. The other end of it, what is the women that was cured allowed to do then with the rest of her life if not able to go back to her tribe? I would have to go with helping the person, even if it meant I could not study anymore, after all the field of anth has many workers and I could share my knowing of being accepted. If overall it meant anth could no longer study the tribe in an embedded fashion, oh well, at least the field would not be killing for data.


You see your friend drop a lotto ticket, it becomes the winner and he/she does not know, would you give them the ticket, or what would you do?

As a decent human being and a good friend of course I would pick up the ticket and give it back to him. We have an obligation to our friends and family to help each other out. I might hold on to it for a few days before I give it back so he appreciates the favor enough to ponder the rich aspects of reciprocity though.



This is based off a true story and this kind of thing goes on over there to this very day. I have changed the scenario slightly, usually they use children in these tactics of tyrrany and terror. Suppose you're a Christian in Vietnam. Your house is raided by the police and they find a secret stash of bibles. They tell you to spit on the Bible and renounce Jesus, or they'll shoot you. Do you renounce Jesus to live, only to live on in shame before your community and family. Or do you Take a bullet in the head and figure you're on your way to heaven?

Edited to add: As a side note Cyan, Doesn't convincing Bands to go see a Western Doctor conflict with the principles of Anthropological field work for ethnographers?

I will spit on the Bible and renounce Jesus. Afterwards, I'll go to church and thank him for sparing my life, and I'll make it my mission to spread the word of Christ, and help make the world a better place. I'll also pray that something bad happens to the anti-Christian Vietnamese hoodlums.



Next ethical question?

Your spouse dies unexpectedly. He/she died catching a bullet from a drug dealer. You are in financial 'dire straits'. A neighbor that you have known for years offers you $100,000 to carry a load of cocaine across the border. There is no chance you will get caught. If you don't do it you'll have to resort to welfare and you and your children will live in poverty.

What do you do?

NO chance of being caught? I go to mexico, get the coke, and come back to america. (what people put in their body is no business of mine) I would do so even if I WASN'T going to be in financial straights.

next question:

you have access to documents proving atrocities that the US government has committed. these include massacres of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in vietnam, proof japan was ready to surrender in july of '45 (thus negating the need for the nuke) evidence that the US gov. was behind terrorist attacks such as 911 and many more. turning these documents over would put your loved ones and yourself in extreme danger, in fact it is highly likely at least you will be killed. it will also result in the collapse of the government and america as we know it. do you turn over the documents to the media of the world, or stay quiet, thus becoming an accomplice, accessory, conspirator in these crimes, as well as making you a traitor to the american people?

I would take the bullet and not only be one with Christ, but also become a martyr for His sake.


I would help the woman.



Since I couldn't use the time machine a second time and was stuck there I would fenagle my way into his family(become a friend) and would try to influence him and do everything possible to make sure that he had a better life growing up and exposed him to positive enlightenments.



I would say "Thanks but no thanks" and keep my self respect and wouldn't jepordize loosing my children for any amount of drug money.



I would have given the ticket back before the drawing.

Killing is wrong. Even if your time machine worked 100% correctly, the proper solution would be to educate the people of Germany that the Nazi Socialist party was a bad thing. Murder is bad, even if it is Hitler or Kim Sung Ill, or Bin Laden.





Save the sister. If that option was opened, it is the logical choice IMO.



You most certainly have to help the woman. Life is more important than science, although sometimes the Government will say otherwise (Tuskgigi, Cinicinatti, etc...)



Any Person with morals and ethics would give it back.



Right now I would say that I am prepared to die, but in the heat of the moment, one cannot really know what they will do in a life or death situation without experincing it first-hand.



No. It is not a matter of being caught, it is a matter of you knowing you did something wrong. Like I say earlier, you don't know until it happens, but I like to think I would do the right thing.



You let people know. If you have to die to let out the truth to millions, then that's what has to happen. If you give your life up to help millions or even billions, then you made an impact on the world.

--Rob

Billy Jean & Rob - you're not quite playing this right. You're supposed to answer the dillemma in the post prior to yours and then offer a new dillemma for the next person.

oops!

Well, I'll propose a new dilemma then:

You have conjoined twins and doctors tell you they have a 50% chance of surviving a separation surgery. Would you risk separating them so they can have a normal life but with the great possibility one or both of them could die, or would you allow them to stay in the condition they're in and let them live permanently attached to one another?

I would risk the seperation.

Look at the twins who recently attempted a separation after 30 years of being joined. Obviously they were willing to take the risk.

The possibility of being quote unquote normal is one that I would accept the risks for acheiving.

Next dilemna:
If you were in a loveless relationship with children and were constantly unhappy, would you get a divorce or stick with the relationship for the sake of the children? Let's assume that no counselling/therapy will ever make you happy in your current relationship. There is no abuse or cheating going on, you are just extremely unhappy. Both parents are good parents.

Apparently not according to all anthropologists. I pulled that from a real scenario. Anthropology is loaded with interesting ethical dilemmas that are still being debated within that community.

I would stick it out until the child was 18 and find happiness through activities with the kids or hobbies.

You and your buddy are watching the football game. At half-time you discover that your car won't start and you are unable to obtain more beer. There is enough beer for one person to get through the second half. There is also sickening sweet wine coolers available, that the wife usually consumes. Do you hide all the beers and simply amazingly discover one at a time while sticking your buddy with the wine coolers, or do you split the beers and have to drink wine coolers throughout the fourth quarter?

"Sorry, but this is the last beer. Any of you like strawberries?"

If you had the ability to change ONE event in human history, what would it be and why?

I would go back in time and find every written scripture
from every religion around, and I would add an excerpt
at the end of each of them.

It would say this:

Never judge others based on their religious choices.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.


Next dilemma:


Your friend gave you one dollar to buy him a lottery
ticket. You buy him the lottery ticket, and forget to
give it to him. A few days go by, and he asks you
if you got him the ticket. You tell him yes, but
it's at home, you'll give it to him the next day.

Later that night, at home, you check the ticket,
out of boredom, to see if it won anything.
You realize it hit the super jackpot - winning 10
million dollars.

What do you do? (Remember, you told your friend that
you had the ticket, and you only bought one, so he is
expecting to get his ticket that was from a couple of days earlier)

(it should be noted that your friend is very tight with money,
and is not the generous type).....

You give it back. No two ways about it....to keep it is stealing.

Next:

You have had a dog for 15 years. The dog gets sick and you discover that he has a heart condition that will require expensive surgery and medication for the rest of its life. You cannot really afford it but you love your dog very very much. Do you go into debt to extend it's life a few years or do you have it put to sleep?

Translate this from dogs to cats and this one really strikes home with me. I have spent a pretty good amount of money to save cats when they could be saved. On the other hand, I have had cats euthanized when there was no way to end their suffering.

I can't give an exact answer without knowing how much "quality of life" the animal would have. If it's a matter of spending money to ensure that the animal is happy for the rest of its life, I would be willing to spend quite a bit. It's hard to give an exact figure, but several hundred dollars at least. If it were several thousand dollars, I would at least have to think about it. In either case, if the treatment would only extend its suffering, I favor euthanasia.


(Next: Your teenage child has expressed political opinions that are the exact opposite of yours in every way, and shows a desire to become an activist. Do you support her, try to persuade her with rational arguments, or forbid her to participate in these activities until she is an adult living on her own? Or do you handle the situation in some other way?)

I would support her, although I would also challenge her/ him in debate.


My turn...

You fall in love with some one and begin a relationship. After a few days, they tell you that they are married, but wish to continue the affair.

They won't get a divorce though... not until their children are turned 18...

What do you do?

Easy: they live a lie, dump 'em.

Next up:

Through a weird temporary quirk involving the space-time continuum, you discover first-hand that what the Bible says about Jesus is not ANYTHING like what really happened. Do you say anything when you return to your own space/time?

Yes I would. Although I believe in a higher power, I believe that organized religion can be dangerous. One need only look at what has happened in our world’s history for proof. I doubt anyone would believe me anyway.

Next:
You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth $15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van worth $30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to help the children. Do you agree to take the van and falsify the report?

I agree to take the van and then (legally) declare it as a $15,000 donation and screw the dealer, because he's going down for lying to the IRS. How mercenary of me

Next:

You work for a company, but feel that your salary isn't enough and your boss tells you there's no money for raises right now. Do you swipe office supplies to use for your kids' school supplies to make up the difference between what you're paid and what you want?

No. I go find a new job that pays me what I feel I'm worth or, failing that, I accept that I'm not worth as much as I thought I was. No, I've never had to do the latter IRL.

Next: you're an artillery officer in Iraq, questioning someone you suspect is involved in planning an attack on your unit. You're pretty sure you can get the information you need, and possibly save lives by resorting to torture, but of course you can't be absolutely certain and you would in any event be violating the standards of your own military establishment (not to mention human decency). Do you torture, or not?

Yes I would. My preferred method would be to shoot off two rounds from my pistol.

Next:
You have a student who is from a single parent family. The student must work to attend college. However, the job is interfering with the student’s performance and several assignments have not been turned in. You have determined that a “D” is all the student can make when a counselor informs you that the student needs a “C” to qualify for an academic scholarship. What do you do?

I would have sympathy, but I would give the student the grade that s/he earned. I have gone to school full time with high grades and simultaneously worked a full time job to support myself. Where there's a will there's a way, and if a person is unable to qualify for a scholarship due to performance, they have the option of taking out a low interest government loan.

The one thing that I would offer is a flexible schedule for some outside tutoring if the student just doesn't "get it." That is the only way that I can foresee a student reasonably getting a D even with a full-time job.

Next: You are an anthropologist. (Yes, I love these anthropology scenarios), and you are working in a country that practices female circumcision. Would you try to educate the people about the damage that can be caused by this practice or would you study the people without attempting to alter the culture?

I'd study without interfering. Anthropolgy is not about changing people. Its about studying them for their differences. If I had a problem with female circumcision, then I'd quit my job.


Next: you're an artillery officer in Iraq... but you've been captured. The Iraqi interogator pulls out a pistol and loads it with a loud click beside your head. Slowly he puts the gun to your forehead and asks for information regarding a possible American attack. In his eyes is the unmistable look which you've come to recognise as pure hatred...

Do you give him information which might endanger the lives of others or do you say good bye to your children and say nothing?

I would talk, but give false details to try and protect my friends. If that were impossible, I'd probably tell the truth. It would be hard for this situation to be a real ethical dilemna - most people, when faced with death, have a tendency to do what they can to survive, ethics be damned.

next:

You are a conservative Republican and a staunch Bush supporter. You are a prominent person, with a lot of friends in high places. You become privy to some "inside" information that if revealed, would bring a certain and swift end to Bush's presidency. Assume for this dilemna that the information is completely accurate and verifiable, just not publicly known. You find out that Bush is not only doing cocaine in the oval office, but he is having a torrid affair with Karl Rove. Do you make the information public, or keep it to yourself?

If I were a Bush supporter I would probably shoot myself regardless... but in the confines of this game, I think I'd probably choose to transfer my loyalties to Cheney, then let the information into the public domain.

I can't imagine a Bush supporter continuing to support him after learning such things.

NEXT:

Your neighbour is a single mother, who drinks... She has a seven year old son, and loves him very much, but after years of bitter set back sin her life and ambitions, she has taken to drinking of a night and is often dead drunk after 8pm.

...recently her son has begun to show the classic signs of an alcoholics child. Do you intervene? and how exactly?

Yes, I'd intervene, to the extent that the single mother would let me. Alcoholism is a symptom of deeper problems, and I'd try to find what those are and try to address those.

Next: You are the President of White Women for Pro-Life. Your 13 year daughter has been dating a black 15 year old gangsta behind your back and has gotten pregnant. What do you do?

Quark,

I really wished I could have responded to many of these questions. I love this thread, but wish you would consider expanding is somehow so that more people could make comments on each dilemma.

I would send her away to have the baby somewhere, and give it
up for adoption. Then I would get her into a counceling program,
to deal with the trauma involved. I would re-examine my own parenting
techniques as well.

Next dilemma: You have been estranged from your father for most of your life
because he is a selfish and self-centered individual. When you
were a child he divorced your mom, and went on his way, hardly caring for you.

Now you are an adult, and he is old. He develops a serious illness, and
humbly asks for your financial aid to help pay for the medical treatment.

Do you help him?

I wanted to answer this since it could potentially come to pass for me because I've been in the first part of this situation.

Next dilemma: You have been estranged from your father for most of your life
because he is a selfish and self-centered individual. When you
were a child he divorced your mom, and went on his way, hardly caring for you.

Now you are an adult, and he is old. He develops a serious illness, and
humbly asks for your financial aid to help pay for the medical treatment.

Do you help him?

It would entirely depend upon my financial situation. If I was able, then yes...I wouldn't let his misgivings and past mistreatment effect MY sense of responsibility if I were able to help. If I was not able, I'd do what I could. I might not have a relationship with him (like I don't have one with him now) but I would feel obligated to help just because I wouldn't wnt to NOT help if I could.


Next...

You are the parent of a young teenager who commits a fairly minor crime (petty theft...something that does not involve physical harm to another person) and you find out about it but you are the only person who knows. Do you turn him/her in?

Depends on the kids attitude. If he demonstrated his remorse for what he did upon being caught, then I'd give him the chance. I'd still ground him, or what ever other measure I had at my disposal.

But if he gave me lip, attitude or simply did'nt care. Then I might turn him in...

NEXT:

Your 12 year kid wants to go and see a film which is PG13. Do you take her or not?

Assuming the child is "typical" (whatever that means) for a twelve year old, I don't think I would have much of a problem with them seeing a PG-13 film, even alone. By 12 the child should be able to deal with the fairly moderate violence and/or sexual content of a film rated PG-13. If the child were, say, eight years old, or if the film were rated R, I would probably want to place some kind of restriction on viewing. There are no hard and fast rules, of course. Someone at age 12 might be able to handle an NC-17 film with no problem, while some adults should be limited to the works of Disney.

(Some personal experience here. Long before there was the rating system, I saw the film Blood and Black Lace at the tender age of 8. I would probably give that film at least a PG-13 for its shocking (if not very explicit) violence. Was I a little too young for that film? Probably. It certainly scared me enough. But I don't think it was a major trauma.)

NEXT: You have neighbors with a large number of cats and dogs, none of whom are spayed or neutered, so their numbers keep increasing rapidly. They are not being directly abused and the neighbors are not violating any laws, so it will do no good to call the authorities. You know the animals are not getting the best possible care, due to their sheer numbers. What can you do about the situation, if anything?

Just an aside, to respond to Beladonna:

I really should have commented on this earlier in the thread. Truthfully, I sort of thought this thread was dead. I have no problem with answering or commenting on previous questions, as long as you end up by posing a new question. What was getting confusing early on was people answering all the previous dilemnas without posing a new question. So have at it! I'd say, make sure to do two things though: answer the question immediately preceding (so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle), and end with posing a new question.

NEXT: You have neighbors with a large number of cats and dogs, none of whom are spayed or neutered, so their numbers keep increasing rapidly. They are not being directly abused and the neighbors are not violating any laws, so it will do no good to call the authorities. You know the animals are not getting the best possible care, due to their sheer numbers. What can you do about the situation, if anything?

Other than drive me nuts, I WOULD contact authorities just as a precaution, so that it could be verified that the animals were being properly cared for. I would also fence my entire property.

next: your neighbor complains that your tree is blocking his water view. He paid lots for his property because of the water view. Your tree was small at the time. You tell him that your tree was put there to give you more privacy from him. the tree,btw,is well within your property. should you do nothing, knowing that your tree will be a constant annoyance to him or do you cut it down to have peace?

I would invite my neighbor to come into my yard whenever he wants to view the water - I would make it a standing offer. But I don't think I would cut down the tree. If he were truly unreasonable, I might offer to remove the tree, if he pays for having it relocated to another part of my property.

Next:You are a US Senator, with bright hopes for the next presidential race. One day while on vacation, you are driving on a remote mountain road. There is no traffic. You have had a few too many beers at the "lodge." Suddenly, a teenage girl runs out onto the road, and you accidently run her over, killing her. There is no one around. Do you keep it to yourself, or call the police and explain what happened, and prepare to face scandal in your career?

Just out of self interest, I would call the police. This scandal is going to come out sooner or later, I think, and better to be as open as possible, and have some tiny hope of rebuilding my political career, rather than to try to cover it up and make myself guilty of a serious crime. (Even if I did have "too many beers" a DUI conviction would be better than a "hit and run" conviction.)

Of course, it is also the ethical thing to do, regardless of self interest.

Let me propose a slight variation of this scenario for the next one:

You are a trusted advisor to the Senator in this tragic situation. You genuinely believe that the Senator is the nation's best hope for a bright future, and that the other leading candidate for President would lead to disaster. You are the only witness to this accident. The Senator asks for your advice.

Do you advise the Senator to contact the police? To drive away? Or, do you offer to "take a bullet" for the cause and tell the police that you were driving?

I would question my own belief in the Sentor's competence
if he does not have the sense to refrain from driving under
the influence. However, that aside, I would advise the Senator
to do the honest and morally correct thing, which would be to
turn himself into the authorities. I would also advise him that
in not doing so he would only be setting himself up for a huger
and more damaging scandal down the road.

I most certainly would NOT be his scapegoat.



Next dilemma:
There is a bully living on your block. One night, while looking out your living
room window, you see him vandalize the car of an elderly neighbor. You make
an anonymous report to the police. They follow up on it, but there is
lack of proof. The bully continues to find ways of badgering the elderly man
who lives on your block, but is very sly about it.

You like the elderly man, and feel sorry for his situation.

What do you do?

There is a bully living on your block. One night, while looking out your living
room window, you see him vandalize the car of an elderly neighbor. You make
an anonymous report to the police. They follow up on it, but there is
lack of proof. The bully continues to find ways of badgering the elderly man
who lives on your block, but is very sly about it.

You like the elderly man, and feel sorry for his situation.

What do you do?

I would gather a coalition of willing neighbors of the elderly man to meet with him so he could vent his fears about this bully. With those of us willing to help the man, we would go to the bully's house as a group to alert him to the fact that we know what he's doing, are all on the side of the victim and we will be watching. Hopefully this will embarrass him enough to alter his anti-social behavior.

Next: (another neighbor dilemma)

your neighbor's kid 10 yr old is out of control, the parent is a single mother. the kid throws a rock through his own window because he's mad. you see the mother take a plastic bat to the kid's behind while the kid is trying to hit the mother back. they are both fighting- physically.
do you close the blinds and turn the TV up? Do you call the police to alert them that the mother has used a bat to hit this kid?

I'd call the police or child services. The fact that the mother is using a plastic baseball bat on her child may be the root problem and could explain why he is throwing rocks at his own house in the first place. The thing is, I don't think I would stop with just calling the police. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe spanking a child equals child abuse, if done with restraint. But hitting them with a plastic baseball bat shouldn't be tolerated. Knowing the protective side of my nature, if I saw this happening, I would intervene.

Next:

Jim is a Big Ten basketball coach with more than two decades of experience; he has coached his teams through several national championships, winning two of them. Jim is obviously a talented and successful coach, but there have been many alleged reports of vulgar incidents and violent and abusive behavior towards team members over the years. Because the reports were unsubstantiated and Jim's tactics have continuously produced winning and loyal teams, the university has looked the other way.

Now, however, a videotape of the coach's engaging in physical conflict with a disgruntled player has come to light. In addition, past incidents have been revealed to the media, which include intimidation of a university employee.

The university now has to face its dilemma: Do they dismiss a valued, intelligent, and nationally recognized coach because of his unacceptable behavior, or should the university give this apologetic and remorseful individual a second chance?

(Courtesy Global Ethics)

The bottom line in inter-collegiate sports is winning. If the coach
is continuously bringing his team Championships I would get him
into some sort of counceling to try and tame his behavior a little.
I wouldn't get rid of someone with that kind of experience and success.



Next dilemma: You are on a double-date with your best friend and
her boyfriend. During the course of the night her boyfriend is being very
flirtatious with you and making subtle advances. It is not the first time
it has happened. You realize that this guy is bad news for your best
friend, but she is totally in love with him.

Do you tell her about his behavior?

I would describe to her exactly what happened during the most recent double date. She can draw her own inferences from that point. When she finds out that he is making moves on other women, she will appreciate my honesty. (Speaking from experience, I did not report the behavior and the break-up happened anyway. Honesty is still the best policy.)

Next scenario: You work with a young woman who is impoverished and has a boyfriend who is wearing a tether and needs transportation from home to get to his job.

The young woman (a very nice person who would help you out if you asked) habitually leaves work on her lunch and comes back 30-45 minutes late because she has to pick her boyfriend up and take him to work during that lunch break. When you ask her if there aren't other people who can take her boyfriend to work, she says that his friends are doing dope and they are the ones who helped get him into trouble in the first place, and she is trying to keep him drug-free.

The boss has noticed that things are not getting done as quickly or efficiently as they used to, and she has spoken to you about it. Do you keep quiet and try your best to cover for the young woman, or do you tell the boss what is happening?

I would cover for her here, because I don't think there are enough people in the world trying to reach out a helping hand to others at their expense.

Next: You are a big time lawyer defending Lee Malvo, the sniper of the Washington, D.C. shootings. Everything points to him being guilty and you know there is know hope - and actually don't care. However, you find a new piece of evidence (maybe a fingerprint or something), that you know will DEFINITELY free Malvo based on reasonable doubt. Feeling instinctively that he is guilty, do you present the evidence, with the certainty that it will have him walking the streets by tomorrow?

There are a lot of things to think about here. First of all, if I am truly convinced that he is guilty, I should not be serving as his defense lawyer at all. (Unless, perhaps, our plan is to plead guilty and hope for some sort of limited sentence.) Aside from that, if the new piece of evidence creates some doubt, wouldn't it create some doubt in my mind as well? If so, then clearly I should present it. If not (which must mean that I possess some knowledge which renders the new evidence irrelevant), then again I can only suggest that I should not be his defense lawyer at all. Any other decision on my part would be denying him a fair trial. (If my main goal is to see that he is convicted, and I have some evidence of his guilt, I should be a witness for the prosecution rather than his defense lawyer. If this evidence was obtained under the confidential relationship between lawyer and client, than I have really painted myself into a corner. I would have no choice except to refuse to serve as his lawyer without giving any of my evidence to the prosecution.) All of these entaglements make me wonder if the adversarial system of justice is really the best.

Next: You are a Roman Catholic priest. A man comes to confession and tells you he is the serial killer who is terrifying the community. He is genuinely remorseful, but seems unable to stop himself. You recognize his voice as a member of your parish. Remember, your vows as a priest forbid you from mentioning anything you hear in the confessional to anyone, even to the man himself. How do you handle this terrible situation?

Next: You are a Roman Catholic priest. A man comes to confession and tells you he is the serial killer who is terrifying the community. He is genuinely remorseful, but seems unable to stop himself. You recognize his voice as a member of your parish. Remember, your vows as a priest forbid you from mentioning anything you hear in the confessional to anyone, even to the man himself. How do you handle this terrible situation?

I would like to think God would forgive me for trying to save the lives of his flock by turning this demented soul in. Turning him in before he commits another murder might also save his life as well.


next:
a young teen nephew with whom your family is very close comes to your house for the weekend. you go to straighten up the boy's room and a joint falls out of his pacpack.

Knowing that the boy will be severely punished by his Dad if Dad finds out as the boy has done a couple of flaky things before but not as serious...do you keep it from his parents and talk to nephew alone without telling his parents or do you tell the parents because it's the "right thing to do?"

I'd have a talk with the young man. I'd try to explain
to him the adverse effects of pot-smoking, in a down-to-earth
sort of way, if possible. Then I would hope for the best.
Teenagers are hard to change, because they really think
they know what is best for their lives.


Next dilemma: You have found the wallet of a stranger,
while at the park, with your toddler. You look inside
to see who it belongs to and you realize it is one of
your neighbors, a man, that you know on a first
name basis. You are a little curious and so you look at several
pictures of his family, AND there is a photo of YOU, taken
without your knowledge, probably while you were at the park one day.
You wonder why he has a photo of you in his wallet?
You are merely neighbors, and he is married.

What do you do?

I think I would probably just give him back his wallet without any comment. I don't think I would feel threatened without more evidence of inappropriate behavior on his part. Possibly he just felt like taking a photograph of me one day, thought it was a good picture, and kept it. (I'd also feel a little guilty about snooping through his photographs.) Maybe I'm not suspicious enough.

NEXT: A bunch of credit card companies keep sending you offers to transfer all your debts to them, with no interest for six months. If you keep shifting your debts from one card to another, you will never have to pay any interest. Does this make you feel like you are taking advantage of them, or is it just good business sense?

It's good business sense. Credit card companies earn money two ways.
Whenever we make a purchase with our C/C they receive a percentage
of that purchase from the business where we made the purchase
(it's around 2% - 5%). Then, they receive the interest from us, the credit
card holders, if we fail to pay the balance in full each month.

I, personally wouldn't feel too badly about moving my debt from credit card
company to credit card company. They are making money hand over fist
because most people are sucked into the C/C quicksand.....it's quite a trap.




Next dilemma: You have been dating a famous basketball player.
You are white and he is black. He made it pretty clear to you that
he has no intentions of getting married. He plans on marrying a
black woman to please his fans and family. You become pregnant.
He asks you to have an abortion. What do you do? (you love him,
but you know if you keep the baby he will not marry you, and
will probably end the whole relationship)