The problem with discussing what the right thing to do is that moral dilemmas have baffled society since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Philosophers worldwide are still puzzled by the moral dilemmas that appear in our everyday lives as there is often no clear answer to these issues. Ethical theories often have conflicting values, which makes analyzing the morality of a situation difficult. A utilitarian is almost certainly going to disagree with a deontologist about the topics of motivation and consequences of an action, for example.
Sometimes, it may also be difficult for someone to figure out what they believe, as it can be overwhelming to consider so many contrasting theories in order to decide what is truly the right thing to do. Consider this situation: the district field hockey tournament is coming up and the entire team is motivated to stay undefeated for as long as possible in order to stay in the tournament. The coach tells the team they must attend all practices in the upcoming week on time, and be punctual to all of the games. Any players who arrive late won’t be able to play in the first game of the tournament. The entire team is relying on Kendall and Bianca, two star senior players, to attend all practices and games, and lead their team through the tournament. Chances are, if they don’t play, the team will lose the tournament and their season will be over. On the day before the first tournament game, both Kendall and Bianca show up 45 minutes late to practice.
The coach is furious, and knows she should suspend them from playing in the tournament the next day. However, if she does, her whole team will likely lose the tournament, and their season will be over. The coach now faces a moral dilemma; she must decide whether to put Kendall and Bianca in the game to lead their team to victory, despite going against her previous rules and thus being “unfair” to the other players, or to suspend them, but putting their entire team at risk for failure? There are many potential considerations one must take into account, and multiple moral theories to consult, in order to properly evaluate the situation. For instance, deontology would advocate for suspending both Kendall and Bianca, regardless of the almost certain outcome that their team will lose and not advance to the next game. The coach knows that if she does not suspend Kendall and Bianca, she will be going against her word by making an exception to the rule that she clearly stated would be enforced. Furthermore, the coach’s desire is for her team to make it as far as possible in the tournament so they have a chance to win the state championship, which would, in turn, make her look admirable.
However, if the coach were to allow Kendall and Bianca to play and the team ends up winning, that good consequence would have been the result of an immoral action because, according to Kant, the coach allowed her will to be controlled by her desires. She wanted the team to win, so she made an exception to her own rule. Therefore, in this situation, the coach’s will would not have been autonomous because it would have been controlled by her desire to win. Her overpowering desire to win would lead her to make the decision to make an exception. Playing Kendall and Bianca in the game for the sole purpose of making herself and the school look good will have been using Kendall and Bianca as a means to her own end, which deontology doesn’t permit. The divine command theory can also be tied in to support deontology. Supporters of divine command theory say that an action is morally right if God’s commands say that action is right. The main source people turn to for God’s commands is the Bible, and Proverbs 10:9 states, “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out”.
This implies that whoever possesses the virtue of being honest, and values doing what is right over what may be simple or easy will be a faithful and just person. In this case, the coach was being dishonest and changing her word to accommodate for the most efficient solution. It is beneficial to consider the feelings of the other players on the team in order to decide if sitting Kendall and Bianca is moral. Most of the players on the team will be upset if they don’t advance further into the tournament. According to utilitarianism, happiness is the ultimate moral good, and decisions should be based on the consequences of an action, and if the action will promote the highest net happiness of everyone affected. Since it would not matter to a utilitarian what the motives of an action were, a utilitarian would say that the coach should not suspend Kendall and Bianca, as them playing in the game would likely result in a win for the team, therefore providing the most net happiness for the team and the coach. However, the happiness of the players on the opposing team should be considered. If Kendall and Bianca’s team wins, that would cause sadness to the opposing team.
Therefore, it can be said that the sum net happiness of both teams would be the same, regardless who won or lost. Therefore, using the concept of net happiness in utilitarianism wouldn’t successfully reach a solution to this moral issue, as no matter who wins the game, total net happiness would be the same. Thus, the ideals of deontology would be the best approach to solving this dilemma. One thing I am still stuck on with this issue is how the other players on Kendall and Bianca’s team would feel about the coach changing her own rule and not staying true to her word. They would feel differently depending on what moral theories they identify with the most. They may feel differently about the concept of fairness, and what virtues are truly valuable for a coach to posses. The players’ feelings towards the coach benching or not benching Kendall and Biana drastically alters net happiness, and thus the morality of her action. In general, when it comes to teams and a tournament, almost nobody says “I want to lose this game”, or “I do not want to try and win this tournament”.
Most players are going to try their absolute best to win the game so their team can advance. However, depending on what the players value (motives vs. consequences, for example), they could feel differently about what the coach chooses to do. If a large number of the players value honestly over winning the game, then the team’s total net happiness would be lower than the net happiness of the opposing team. But, if all the players want the girls to play to increase the whole team’s chances of advancing, then the net happiness of both teams would likely be almost the same. Therefore, how the players on the team feel about Kendall and Bianca being played or benched is the main unresolvable issue concerning the morality of playing them. At the beginning of the unit when the first “What is the Right Thing to Do?” essay was written, I stated the right thing was whatever promoted the most happiness and whatever made you the happiest. That is an example of how previously, I had a utilitarian way of thinking. I also identified with some aspects of deontology and ethical subjectivism, as well as some divine command theory principles.
I believed that everybody is going to believe that they choose, and everybody will have different moral values. Presently, I lean more to deontology, but with some divine command and utilitarian ideals. I now believe there are certain moral principles all human beings must follow, but the virtues that are necessary for each of us are going to be dependent on our occupation and lifestyle. Deontology binds people together and is based on rationality. It also implies that all human beings have moral duties to fulfill, which is necessary for a functioning society, and deontology states that all humans have fundamental moral rights. After weighing the ideologies of utilitarianism, divine command theory, and deontology, it is clear that all the aspects of this moral issue point to using deontology to conclude the coach should bench Kendall and Bianca.The coach should suspend Kendall and Bianca from playing in the tournament game, as that is the right thing to do.
