If I was placed in the ethical dilemma described then I believe that I would vote for awarding Hamilton Craft the residency. I would do this because I consider the situation described as one which is best served by a utilitarian ethical model. By this I mean that it clearly a situation in which many more people will be harmed if Craft was not awarded the residency then if he was. Not only would his award help to bring prestige to the institution which would in turn almost certainly bring further financial and academic benefits, but also the threat of the law suit from Craft would likely lead to him dragging the institution through a lengthy legal battle. This is likely to be very costly. This cost is likely to be one which he, being a successful artist, can afford, but it is likely to cause lasting financial damage to the institution. It is also likely that were she to refuse the place to Craft on the grounds stated then she would receive fewer applications in the future. It is likely that many successful artists are not tremendously over qualified, and would be hesitant about applying were the case to be made public. The interests of the students must also be taken into account. It seems true that the failure to complete a PHD will have no serious effect on the Craft’s ability to teach the students whom he would be required to teach, and it also seems obvious that they would benefit greatly from learning from an experienced and successful artist. One must also take into account the fact that Craft may be being honest about the mistake on his CV and as such it would seem to be unnecessary adherence to the letter of the law to deny him the opportunity of the residency.
It is likely that Kant, Hume and Hobbes would have different reactions to the situation. Kant wrote of a firm belief in both duty and in a moral law. As such, if one were to follow his ethics then it would be impossible to consider to one’s own personal feelings or the projected consequences that one’s actions would have on others. In this framework it is likely that Kant would claim that it was Connie’s duty to appeal to the law. As such he would likely believe that the morally right action would be vote no as it would not be a correct moral situation if Connie took her own interests into account and she must abide by the rules of her institution. Kant may also say that the suspicion that Craft has lied on his CV would mean that he already committed an immoral act by breaking a categorical imperative not to lie and, as such, a legal process should be trusted in order to arrive at a moral outcome.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Utilitarian Ethical Model Example".
Thomas Hobbes is likely to have more mixed response to the situation. He famously stated that ‘man is wolf to man.’ This is to say that society is made up of inherently self-interested individuals who must be beholden to the law, embodied in the figure of a sovereign, if social cohesion was to be possible. Although he is unlikely to condemn as immoral either the actions of Connie or Craft, it is likely that he would once again, like Kant, appeal to the law in order to solve the problem. As such it is likely that he demand that Connie vote no in the situation. This would be both because she is bound by convention and law to abide by the rules which her institution has set out for her and also because he would trust that the legal outcome of any projected lawsuit would be the only one could be considered moral.
David Hume is likely to respond that Connie should trust her emotional and personal reaction to the situation. He is unlikely to appeal to reason or a strict moral law as he insisted that emotions play a large part in determining ethical reactions and judgements. As such, it seems that he would insist that Connie consider whether voting yes or no would bring more satisfaction to her and encourage her to respond with a more utilitarian framework in mind.
