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

TO SPARE OR NOT TO SPARE: THAT IS THE ETHICAL QUESTION A twenty-something year old Caucasian male engineering student travels from Prescott, Arizona to Friendsville, Tennessee during his summer and winter breaks from school. The length of distance covered in one trip is about 1800 miles. He drives a 1968 Ford Mustang. This car is in need of restoration, but is all-original. Because he is alone, this student cannot stop 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-way point of the trip, the middle of the Texas pan-handle on Interstate 40 East. This area has few gas stops and almost no rural or suburban areas. The student passes a car on the side of the road. This car is driving on a flat tire. Unfortunately the only safe option for this student is to continue down the road and pray 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 stand s 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 leave, 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 Mustang’s spare will 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 guilt 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 ethical 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 ethics â€Å"lacks universality†, â€Å"leads to rules that violate our ordinary moral sensibility†, and â€Å"reverses the proper relationship between ethics and happiness.†(Symposia. 2005.