This is a fun little dilemma I did a few months back... see what you think:

Suzanne and Craigwell loved each other very much, but lived on separate islands. These islands were surrounded by crocodile infested seas. After they had not seen each other for a long time Suzanne decided that she had to see Craigwell because she was missing him so much. She went round asking people on the island to take her to Craigwell’s island by boat. First she met Penrod who said he was very busy and could not help. Then she went a bit further and met Prospero who said he would take her over if she slept with him beforehand. She was desperate so she agreed.

The next day Prospero kept his part of the bargain and took her across on his boat. When Suzanne arrived she threw herself into Craigwell’s arms and told him what she ahd done in order to see him. Craigwell was shocked, slapper her and walked away. James happened to be walking past and saw what happened. He walked up and hit Craigwell who overbalanced and fell into the crocodile infested sea. Suzanne watched with half a smile on her face.

List the five characters in order of ‘badness’ (the worst first) and give reason.

Enjoy

Suzanne--I can't see that anything she did was right.
James--He assaulted Craigwell and Craigwell died.
Prospero--I think offering the ride in exchange for sex is wrong.
Craigwell-His only error was to slap Suzanne.
Penrod--He was busy and wasn't taking her to see her boyfriend. I don't have a problem with that.

1 Prospera was the "baddest" because he was the only one who had evil intent, and started the chain reaction of events.

2 Suzanne compromised her values by accepting his offer, she could have waited for the first boat owner to be available. Smiling at Craigwell's death insinuates she may have had an ulterior motive for wanting to see him in the first place.

3 Craigwell should not have acted with violence after hearing the news about his
true love defiling herself as part of her travel arrangements. However he was shocked.

4 James acted for the right reason but should have used restraint without violence, so he is the least bad.

I had:

1. James- he killed someone
2. Craigwell- he hit someone
3. Suzanne- she cheated someone
4. Prospero- he had sex with someone in exchange for capital (he used sex as a means of exchange. is that 'wrong'?)
5. Penrod- he didn't do anything wrong, he was just busy.

Interesting. I think your answer is partly determined by how you evaluate people's actions; by their consequences, by their intent/motive, by their morality etc.

Also, it's interesting to note that the only two who broke the law were James and Craigwell, so in the eyes of the law, those two are the worst...

Prospero was the most bad, because he acted out of premeditated self interest, under no duress.

Suzanne was the next most bad. She acted out of self interest but was under duress.

Next is Craigwell. His actions were impulsive rather than premeditated, but he did not have the right to slap Suzanne.

Next, James. Some would argue that his actions were justified. It was just bad luck that Craigwell fell into the sea.

Finally, Penrod. He was busy and was unable to help.

This reminds me strongly of the (real life) situation in the Pitcairn Islands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

I don't think any of them were bad. All were just acting like humans.

They weren't bad. Its all about their behaviour and the choices they made.
Without such choices, there would be need for any ethics would there?

1 - James - He's guilty of homicide; he didn't inquire into the facts and reacted entirely inappropriately and excessively. Craigwell is dead and in all likleihood Suzanne will be both devastated and racked with guilt for the rest of her life.
2 - Suzanne - She cheated on Craigwell without talking to him about her dilemma or waiting until Penrod or someone else would take her to the island when they had free time.
3 - Prospero - He used a sexual favour as a bargaining tool and slept with someone who, I assume, he knew to be involved with someone else. However, he didn't cheat and he might rightly be able to assume that if Suzanne accepted then the relationship she was in was not that valuable. BUT if he knew how desparate she was then he might go in at number 2 for taking advantage of a desparate person, and in a sexual way.
4 - Craigwell - Generally one shouldn't hit people; perhaps was an over-simplistic gut reaction, but generally was an understandable reaction to emotionally confusing and upsetting news.
5 - Penrod - If he was genuinely busy then he didn't do anything wrong.

Seriously?! You don't think any of their actions or choices were immoral? Can 'acting like humans' excuse any behaviour? If so then how can there be right and wrong?




Surely behaviour and choices are some of the only things that can possibly make one 'bad'. I.e. badness, beahviour and choices are one and the same. If my behaviour and choices don't make me bad, what does?

Surely behaviour and choices are some of the only things that can possibly make one 'bad'. I.e. badness, beahviour and choices are one and the same. If my behaviour and choices don't make me bad, what does?[/quote]

Obviously I worked in the child care industry too long and am talking the talk in my own time without realising it.
In that politically correct world its not permitted to call someone "bad", lest they become stigmatised
That said, I think its probably best to avoid labelling people good or bad unless their is behaviour is extreme.

With children it's different. They are still developing and cannot be labelled as 'bad people' at that age.

"All were just acting like humans."

Humans can do some incredibly horrible things and a few go beyond what is human.

We must have some rights and wrongs otherwise how do we lead a moral life without rationalising our behaviour which is nearly always governed by self interest?
Like the moral value of acting honestly even when unobserved by others.
How can you say that is not always right?

"A simple non-controversial example."

A man robbed a convenience store of $35, told the clerk, a college student working nights, to get on his knees and shot him in the back of the head. Of course, he didn't know the clerk. When asked why he shot him he looked confused and said, "Why not?"

A man hit an 18-month old baby with a bottle and fractured the baby's skull. Then man then went to sleep. The mother came home, took the baby to the hospital and in examining the baby they discovered that all four limbs had been broken in the past and healed without being set. That meant they'd have to be broken again and set if the baby survived.

An 18-year old man entered a home of a 19-year old woman whom he'd never met and knew nothing about and without saying a word attacked her and stabbed her a minimum of 49 times.

Spin away.

i agree with patrickt, some things are objective. Some things are right or wrong. Not everything is relative.

[quote="Airzone"

Generally I do not behave differently if I am observed or not. But if I pick my nose, I do so hopefully unobserved.

I am not sure about self interest governing our behaviour. Yes, it is strong part of our actions but on a day to day level I certainly do things which could be argued as not in my self interest. I use stairs instead of escalators, I am vegetarian ... I actually believe these are in my self interest and the interest of others. Many would not believe such actions are in their own self interest. [/quote]

I haven't seen nose picking mentioned in any religious teachings, which is just as well as we'd all be sinners!
I don't think I do behave differently when I am alone either but experiments have been carried out that test peoples responses with a secret camera and quite a few people sneek looks at things they have been asked not to when they think they are unobserved.

I was thinking of important moral values like fidelity in marriage which I believe benefits families and society, but can be difficult to live by especially nowadays.
Now we have a hotch potch of value systems. Creating one's own value system is like re inventing the wheel, but I think traditional religious morals were created by far greater minds than mine and have stood the test of time.