§1 The Dying Passenger

§2 Thieving Granny

§3 Late bid

§4 Whistle-blower

§5 Sick Cat

§6 Dirty Money

§7 The Case of the Purity Ring

§8 The Expert Cheat

§9 Touching the Void

§10 Is Fur Murder?

§11 Exercising Caution

§12 Heart Transplant

§13 The Cosmetic Surgeon

§14 Umberto the Plastic Surgeon

§15 Fat Cat Salary

§16 The Case of the Unemployed Scientist

§17 The Policeman’s Dilemma

§18 Going Back on a Job Offer?

§19 Lost Property

§20 Rick Asks...

§21 Fur Is Murder

§22 Tribal Rights

§23 The Case of the Gender-Change Teacher

§24 Oprah Winfrey sued

§25 Loyalty & Betrayal

§26 Should we make everyone 'normal'?

§27 Should we impose population controls?

§28 Should we give robots the right to kill?

§29 Should we colonise other planets?

§30 Should we geoengineer the planet?

§31 Should we abandon privacy online?

§32 Should we edit our children's genomes?

§1 The Dying Passenger

Mike Nolan had been piloting 747s across the USA and around the world for over 18 years. On this particular day he was flying from Detroit to Seattle when the flight attendant came forward to the cockpit to tell him that there was trouble in the back: a passenger had suffered a severe heart attack and needed immediate medical attention. While a doctor aboard the plane had been able to help, a hospital was needed quickly or the patient would likely die.

Transferring control to his co-pilot Mike took to the radio calling Denver air-traffic control to seek clearance for an emergency landing. From the other end of the radio Nolan heard a pained response: permission denied. The Denver controller explained that weather conditions were very bad making a landing inadvisable and unsafe for Nolan’s crew and passengers. With extreme regret, the Denver tower told Nolan to provide what medical care he could but to continue his flight as prescribed.

The weather *was* a problem, Mike admitted, but not one he wasn’t ready to meet. Nolan felt sure he could land the plane but he wasn’t prepared to risk the lives of his crew and passengers, breaking the conservative standards of the airline’s safety regulations, without their full and informed consent.

The patient’s condition was worsening. The rest of the flight crew had been told of the emergency and had, with only one fleeting hold out, signalled their wish to land the plane immediately.

Should Mike Nolan try to land the plane?

§2 Thieving Granny

While I was waiting at the supermarket checkout the other day I noticed a charming woman in her seventies pay the assistant and then pop a box of cereal, which had not been scanned, into her bag. A cheery “Good-bye” and off she went. I wanted to ask, “Did you forget to pay for that?” but I couldn’t. What was my responsibility?

§3 Late bid

Is a supplier who submits a bid after the deadline entitled to have it considered? Recently, my company sent a letter of intent to the successful bidder. Learning this another bidder submitted a new bid drastically reducing the price, which would, of course, benefit my company. Is it ethical to accept this new bid?

§4 Whistle-blower

I am the solicitor for a former employee of a tobacco company who has evidence that it purchased tobacco contaminated with radioactive residue for use in cigarettes. His wife has prevailed upon him not to allow this information to be made public because it might affect his future job prospects although he bears no responsibility. I am advised by my professional organisation that I must not violate client confidentiality here. What should I do?

§5 Sick Cat

How much is a cat worth? My affectionate and obedient pedigree cat needs a procedure that will cost £300. My instinct, of course, is to pay for whatever she needs but I can’t help thinking it’s wrong. Wouldn’t the cash be better spent on sick humans?

§6 Dirty Money

I am on the board of a hospital raising funds for a much-needed extension. A local businessman with known ties to organised crime has offered a substantial donation. Should we take the money?

§7 The Case of the Purity Ring

Lydia Playfoot, a 16-year-old school girl, has gone to the US High Court to accuse her school of discriminating against Christians by banning the wearing of “purity rings” (which symbolise chastity). Miss Playfoot’s school said her ring broke uniform rules and ordered her to remove it. When she refused, she was taken out of lessons and made to study on her own. She told reporters: “In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith.”

Miss Playfoot is seeking a judicial review under Article Nine of the Human Rights Act which guarantees freedom of religious expression. She says that should protect her right to wear the ring. The school denies breaching her human rights, insisting the ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith. Miss Playfoot says Sikh and Muslim pupils can wear bangles and headscarves in class and that other pupils regularly break the uniform code with nose rings, tongue studs, badges and dyed hair.

Human rights barrister Paul Diamond told the High Court the school’s action was “forbidden” by law. “Secular authorities and institutions cannot be arbiters of religious faith,” Mr Diamond said. He said a question the judge would have to answer was: “What are the religious rights of schoolchildren in the school context?”

If you had been the head teacher, how would you have handled the issue?

§8 The Expert Cheat

Recently, an undergraduate student from the University of Kent published ‘Cheating: a Guidebook’ to help students learn how to cheat. What moral issues do you see associated with publishing such a book? Should the university bookshop carry it? Should the student newspaper and website carry advertisements for the book? Similarly, should the student newspaper carry advertisements for companies that will write students’ essays for them?

§9 Touching the Void

“Touching the Void” consists of an extremely well written poignant and heart stopping account of a climb on Siula Grande, in the Peruvian Andes, that went desperately wrong.

Having successfully climbed the west face, Joe Simpson fell off a small ice cliff and badly fractured his right knee. In the dark with a blizzard raging, Joe’s partner, Simon Yates, successfully lowered him thousands of feet down the mountain by belaying from snow seats, climbing down and repeating the process. Then, with communication impossible between the climbers, Joe is lowered over an overhanging ice cliff with a crevasse below.

Eventually, Simon is forced into the agonising decision to cut the rope in order to save himself from being pulled off the mountain from his collapsing snow seat to an almost certain death.

Is Simon Yates guilty of murder?

§10 Is Fur Murder?

I recently confronted a stranger in public for wearing a fur coat, denouncing her for the violence and cruelty that went into making her unnecessary garment. The friend I was with said what I did was wrong but I think I was simply speaking out against an evil. What do you think?

§11 Exercising Caution

A woman who works out at my gym is skeletal to the point of appearing deathly ill and yet she exercises for hours. I can’t know for sure that she has a problem but she appears to be wasting away, possibly killing herself. Does the gym have a responsibility to intervene? It could be sued if it denies her membership. Should I just watch her get thinner and thinner or should I confront her?

§12 Heart Transplant

I am a 70-year-old man, I weigh 20 stones, little of which is muscle. I don’t exercise, I do smoke, I enjoy fried eggs for breakfast and a nice thick steak for dinner: and let me tell you, I love my life! Except for this - I’m on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Some doctors at the hospital don’t want to give it to me. They say it would be a grotesque squandering of medical and financial resources, that the money and the skills would save a lot more lives if applied to, say, a neonatal clinic. I say they’ve got the heart and the talent; my insurance company will pay for it: let’s do it. Why should they play God? What do you think?

§13 The Cosmetic Surgeon

While there are dermatologists who do important medical work, helping burn victims for example, I’m not such a physician. My practice mostly comprises cosmetic treatments for rich folks. Some say that in a world where so many poor people are desperate for medical care, my professional life is a shameful waste of my expensive training. I agree that the care of some kid in Senegal is a real problem but it is not my problem. What do you say?

§14 Umberto the Plastic Surgeon

Umberto is a plastic surgeon specialising in the repair of birth defects. He lives in a part of the country where there is no-one else with his skills and qualifications. Umberto has two children, whom he sees very little of because he spends long hours at the hospital. He is a nice father and his children want to see more of him. He would not earn significantly less money if he decided not to work at weekends and to take holidays with his children. And his children would be happier. But hundreds of other children would then not get the operations that they need in order to live normal lives. What should Umberto do?

§15 Fat Cat Salary

As the Chief Executive of a large multinational corporation I’m paid about twenty times the salary of an average employee. My predecessor made only about eight times the worker average and certainly did no worse a job than I do. I don’t really need the large salary and I’d happily do my job for a lot less but if the board of directors wants to pay me this amount am I wrong to accept it?

§16 The Case of the Unemployed Scientist

George is a scientist who is out of work. He is offered a job in a laboratory which does research into chemical and biological weapons.  George is strongly opposed to the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. If he does not take the job, his wife and his children will suffer. And if he does not take the job, it will be given to someone else who will pursue the research with fewer inhibitions. Should he take the job and compromise his principles?

§17 The Policeman’s Dilemma (scenario from Coronation Street)

You are a sergeant in the Manchester Police force out on Panda car patrol in Weatherfield. You are accompanied by a subordinate, Mick, who is currently dating a married woman called Janice. Janice separated from her husband, Les, some while ago before she met Mick so Mick is in no way responsible for the marriage break-up. Nevertheless, Les is still very hurt by the separation and is very hostile to Mick whenever he meets him, insulting and goading him at every opportunity.

While you are driving along you both see a car jump the red lights. You hail the car to stop and are surprised to discover that Les is the driver. Mick goes over to talk to Les but on seeing it’s Mick that’s stopped him, Les throws a few choice insults. This is just one too many for Mick who finally snaps and beats up Les even going so far as to knock him to the ground and start kicking him.

Following the incident Mick is utterly remorseful. He admits that what he’s done is wrong and apologises to you for losing control. He asks you to back his story that Les started the fight.

Les is a local ne’er-do-well who is no stranger to the courts. He has been charged several times with minor offences and on occasions has managed to get away with some due to lack of evidence. It is therefore unlikely that anyone will believe Les’ story that Mick started the fight. Furthermore, you are the only witness. Mick has an outstanding record as a police officer, having won several awards and during one incident faced personal injury in order to save your life. If found guilty of beating up Les he will lose his job and pension.

So what do you do? Take Mick to a disciplinary tribunal and tell the truth or tell a lie and help him keep his job but be instrumental in sending Les to prison for six months?

§18 Going Back on a Job Offer?

I recently received a job offer which I orally accepted. When I approached my current employer with my resignation he made a counter-offer. I now wish to remain with my current employer. Is it correct to revoke my acceptance of the original offer?

§19 Lost Property

I am travelling in Egypt during my gap year with a small group of friends. While in a restaurant I go to the toilet and find an envelope containing some cash. There is about £400 in various currencies and the envelope is printed with the logo of a clinic but otherwise contains no clue as to the owner. Knowing how corrupt shop-keepers and law-officers are in this country I am reluctant to hand it in as lost-property as I am pretty sure it will simply go into the pocket of the person to whom I give it. Similarly, if I leave the money where it is I am sure the next person to enter the toilet will take it for themselves. Either way it will never get returned to its owner. My friends and I are very short of cash at present. Are we justified in keeping the money?

§20 Rick Asks...

I live in a city under military occupation where I’ve got myself into hot water and need to get away. Fortunately, I’ve acquired two letters of transit which would make that possible. But here’s where it gets tricky. An ex-lover showed up in town with her new husband, a noble man, a real freedom fighter. I think my ex would come away with me if I asked her but maybe I ought to give the letters to her and her husband so they can escape instead. What should I do?

§21 Fur Is Murder

I recently confronted a stranger in public for wearing a fur coat, denouncing her for the violence and cruelty that went into making her unnecessary garment. The friend I was with said what I did was wrong but I think I was simply speaking out against an evil. What do you think?

§22 Tribal Rights

Papua New Guinea, an island nation in the Pacific, became an independent state over twenty years ago. It has only been a few decades since the tribes populating remote mountain regions of the island discovered they are not the only people on Earth.

Village life in these areas still mostly follows ancient tribal traditions. Central to the tribal way of life is the compensation demanded when members of one clan kill the members of another clan. This includes money, livestock and a female clan member.

Recently, for the first time in Papua New Guinea, a young woman, named Miriam Wingal, refused to go along with the practice, fleeing instead to the home of relatives in Port Moresby, the capital of Papua New Guinea, more than three hundred miles from her village.

Papua New Guinea has a legal system alongside which the customary ancient tribal law coexists in an uncertain relationship. Ms. Wingal went to court, represented by another woman, Ms. Susan Balen, who has broken with tradition to become a lawyer.

Ms. Balen argued that the traditional tribal law can be challenged if it violates Papua New Guinea’s democratic constitution. A judge in a court forty miles from Ms. Wingal’s village ruled in her favour. The elders of the aggrieved tribe are furious. They plan to take Ms Wingal’s clan to court, in effect using the modern legal system to demand their traditional tribal rights.

You are the judge in this case. What is your decision? On what grounds?

§23 The Case of the Gender-Change Teacher

You are the head teacher of a state-comprehensive school. Just before the summer holidays one of your teachers, John Smith, requests a private conversation with you. At this meeting he informs you that he is intending to undergo a gender-change procedure the following year and that as a part of this process he needs to establish himself as a woman. To this end he says, the following term he will be returning to school dressed as a woman and wishes to be referred to as “Jane” by staff and “Miss Smith” by the students. What do you do?

§24 Oprah Winfrey sued

In the late 90s Oprah Winfrey was sued by a group of cattle ranchers from Amarillo, Texas under a recently enacted Texas statute that created legal liability for questioning a perishable food’s safety without “sound scientific proof”. Other states have since enacted similar laws. Oprah’s case, however, was the first of its kind. On April 16, 1996 the price of cattle dropped a dramatic 1.5 cents per pound on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange after Oprah’s program that day. The program, which occurred during the time that the British “mad cow” epidemic broke as big news, dealt with the safety of American beef. Oprah’s guest, a former cattle rancher turned vegetarian, claimed that large numbers of cows that are “fine at night, dead in the morning” get ground and fed to other animals. According to the cattle ranchers who sued Oprah there was no evidence of mad cow disease in the United States. They protest that the “Oprah crash” on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange resulted in devastating financial loss for cattle ranchers.

Is the Texas Statute under which the cattle ranchers have sued Oprah Winfrey a reasonable law to protect the legitimate financial interests of food producers or does it encroach upon the fundamental right of free speech?

§25 Loyalty & Betrayal

Elia Kazan, now 87 years old, was one of the most important American film directors during the 1950’s and 1960’s, having directed classic films such as On the Waterfront and Viva Zapata, A Streetcar Named Desire, and East of Eden, which launched the careers of Marlon Brando and James Dean.

This past year Mr. Kazan was rejected, as he has been now for many years, for lifetime achievement awards by both the American Film Institute and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The reason for this is that in 1952 Mr. Kazan appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and informed on eight friends, all film writers and directors as having been, like Mr. Kazan, members of the American Communist Party in the 1930’s. Mr Kazan did not accuse the eight individuals of any specific actions injurious to the United States. Nonetheless, none of them were able to work in the film industry for many years, in some cases, ever again, as a result of Mr. Kazan’s testimony.

Mr Kazan’s testimony took place at the height of the McCarthy era when the HUAC was zealously looking for evidence of Communist influence in Hollywood. Mr. Kazan was under pressure to testify, as were other former members of the American Communist Party in the film industry, because failure to cooperate with the HUAC had led to many writers and directors being blacklisted by film studios, which made it impossible to find work.

Movie critics are deeply divided over the decision not to honour Mr. Kazan. Some believe that, in the words of one member of the American Film Institute, “All that matters is the movies. You’re honouring a person’s body of work.” Other critics disagree. “When you’re honouring someone’s entire career, says another critic, you’re honouring the totality of what he represents, and Kazan’s career, post 1952, was built on the ruin of other persons’ careers.”

§26 Should we make everyone 'normal'?

Respect difference vs Maximise human happiness

If more people thought and acted in the same way, societies would probably be happier and safer. But at what cost?

Imagine a pill or therapy capable of rewiring your neural circuitry so as to make you more sympathetic: one that decreases aggression, and causes your capacity for moral reasoning and tendency to forgive to go through the roof. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we were all encouraged to have it? In fact, if human happiness lay on the other side of a tablet, why not embrace utopia and prescribe it by force?

Such a scenario may not be as far away as you suppose. Technologies to read and manipulate thought patterns are growing. Elon Musk’s Neuralink project is attempting to establish direct communication between our brains and computers, while Kernel, a company in California, has invested $100 million to develop intelligence-boosting brain implants. Electric shocks delivered to the brain have been found to combat depression, and certain chemicals can help us make more moral decisions.

But even if weeding out aberrant thought patterns and enforcing social conformity through technological or pharmacological means could be made to work in practice, would it be the right thing to do? Or do people have an inalienable right to be themselves?

§27 Should we impose population controls?

Look after future generations vs Realise human potential

Future generations risk inheriting an overcrowded, suffocating planet. Taking action may mean what was taboo is now common sense

Fears that we are too many are nothing new. As long ago as 1798, the English writer Thomas Malthus warned that a growing population would eat its way through the planet’s finite resources, condemning millions to die of starvation.

We haven’t exhausted our supplies quite yet, but seven billion people later our planet’s ability to support us all comfortably does appear to be under threat. If we all lived like affluent Americans, say, resource consumption and carbon emissions would be at unsustainable levels. Given the clear and present dangers posed by climate change, how can we look after future generations without keeping half of the world’s population in poverty?

For Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the answer is reducing birth rates – and not in the places you might expect. When it comes to climate change, says Rieder, “my American kid is way more problematic than the many children a family might have in poor, high-birth-rate countries”. And should the worst consequences of climate change come to pass, it will be the poorest that suffer most severely. So let’s assume that the West is incapable of slashing carbon emissions or finding a technological silver bullet. In this case, we are obliged to explore all options, including the taboo subject of population control.

§28 Should we give robots the right to kill?

Maximise human safety vs Keep technology under control

Robot soldiers that follow orders, unclouded by human emotions, might reduce casualties in conflicts. But who will take responsibility for their actions?

Hot-headed, irrational and swayed by emotion – who’d want a human in control? If we could build machines capable of making tough choices for us, surely we should. That’s the line taken by people like roboticist Ron Arkin at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. For Arkin, autonomous weapons – or killer robots – that remain rational under fire and behave exactly as they were trained to would be more humane than human soldiers in a war situation, and would save lives. We therefore have a moral imperative to create them.

The same reasoning can be applied to many scenarios where human nature may stop us doing the right thing, from driving to making life-or-death decisions in hospitals to criminal sentencing. Computers are already moving into all these areas, and in many cases surpass humans where it counts. But how much autonomy should we give them?

The problem with fully autonomous machines from a moral point of view is that they cannot take responsibility for their actions. Human ethics is built on the assumption that actions are done by agents with the capacity to make a judgement call between right and wrong. If we offload those actions on to machines, who do we blame when something goes wrong?

§29 Should we colonise other planets?

As ever more potentially habitable exoplanets are discovered, it's time we asked ourselves: do we have the right to take over another world?

Next stop, Mars. Space agencies and private companies alike plan to send humans to the Red Planet in the next decade, with the idea of permanent settlements twinkling in the future. As the technical challenges of such missions are conquered one by one, it’s past time to ask: is taking over another world the right thing to do?

This question, like so many ethical quandaries, comes down to rights: does life on other worlds have the same rights as Earth life? What if it’s just microbes? And what if there is no life at all? Do humans have the right to leave muddy bootprints on pristine planets, potentially stamping out future civilisations before they arise?

“There’s this idea lurking behind all of this that the universe has a natural way of doing things and that humans come in and mess it up,” says Kelly Smith, a philosopher at Clemson University in South Carolina. But, Smith says, humans are also part of the natural world, and not everything we do is bad, so a human settlement might enhance nature’s pristine splendour rather than ruin it.

§30 Should we geoengineer the planet?

We only have one Earth. How far should we go in our attempts to save it from ourselves?

The pressure is on. If we want to save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, we need to get our greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2070 – a target that requires immediate and drastic action. But our unbreakable addiction to fossil fuels makes this goal seem more and more unreachable. So what if there were another solution, some quick techno-fix that could let us burn our fuel but not our planet?

Enter geoengineering: large-scale manipulations of the planet designed to clean up our mess. The ideas range from sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to deploying a stratospheric parasol that would bounce the sun’s warming rays back out into space. Some have been field-tested, or soon will be. But while most climate researchers agree geoengineering makes sense as a last resort, we need to ask: do we have the right to interfere with the planet on this scale?

The answer might seem obvious: we’ve already done it. By chucking billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humanity has put the planet’s thermostat on turbo-boost, melted the Arctic, and altered the seasons, large-scale weather systems and the ocean’s acidity. Why should reversing that be any different?

§31 Should we abandon privacy online?

The battle between online privacy and national security is reaching fever pitch. Where we end up depends on which Faustian bargains we are willing to strike

“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety,” Benjamin Franklin once said, “deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” But if Franklin were alive today, where would he draw the line? Is the freedom to send an encrypted text message essential? How about the right to keep our browsing history private? What is the sweet spot between our need to be left alone and our desire to keep potential criminals from communicating in secret?

In an age where fear of terrorism is high in the public consciousness, governments are likely to err on the side of safety. Over the past decade, the authorities have been pushing for – and getting – greater powers of surveillance than they have ever had, all in the name of national security.

The downsides are not immediately obvious. After all, you might think you have nothing to hide. But most of us have perfectly legal secrets we’d rather someone else didn’t see. And although the chances of the authorities turning up to take you away in a black SUV on the basis of your WhatsApp messages are small in free societies, the chances of insurance companies raising your premiums are not.

§32 Should we edit our children's genomes?

Tweaking genes to prevent your child dying early from a genetic disorder would be acceptable to most people, but we need to ask how far we should go

The thought of shaping future generations to fit some pre-imagined ideal of strength and beauty is one that should make us uncomfortable. Once a fashionable field of enquiry, the study of eugenics remains associated with some of the worst excesses of the 20th century, from forced sterilisation to genocide. The lesson we might be tempted to draw from this is to let nature proceed unchecked, free from human meddling, and embrace the diversity it engenders.

But as ethically comforting as that sounds, deciding to do nothing is a decision in itself. We may like to think of humans as perfect, finished natural products that should not be interfered with, but nature’s creations are botch jobs, full of mindless mistakes. And evolution’s way of getting rid of the worst mistakes is to let children suffer horribly and die young.

In the interests of human well-being, then, should we head back down the slippery slope?

Actually, we already have. In most countries, it is already legal to shape the genomes of our children in various ways, from the abortion of foetuses with Down’s syndrome to the screening of embryos during IVF.