ETCC

DB 4

In the discussion board, you will choose one of the  Inquiries from Ruggiero (pp  107-110) # 4 a-p, briefly describe the Inquiry , identify the consequences of the action taken, and decide whether the actions represent the greater good. (Be sure to incorporate this week’s readings Chapter 8)

chapter eight

Considering ConsequenCes

How do we deal with cases in which the consequences are not neatly separable into good and bad but are mixed?

The relationship between actions and consequences is a cause-and-effect rela- tionship, but not the kind we associate with the motion of physical objects, such as a row of dominoes tumbling down in predictable response to the falling of the first one. In human affairs the responses are never completely predictable. If Lucy curses Pauline, Pauline might well respond in kind, but then again she might bless Lucy instead. If Clyde strikes Hector, chances are Hector will strike back, but it is possible that he will turn the other cheek. Similarly, some people who grow up in crime-ridden, drug-infested neigh- borhoods become criminals or drug users, but others remain honest and drug-free.* And though children who have been neglected or abused by their parents often harbor anger and resentment throughout their lives, in some cases, animosity gives way to forgiveness and love.

The main difference between the laws of cause and effect in the physical universe and cause and effect in human affairs is that humans have the capac- ity to choose how they respond to events. To be sure, natural endowment and social conditioning exert a powerful influence and make some patterns of response more likely than others. (In Chapter 4 we discussed how these forces influence the development of conscience.) But in the vast majority of cases, these forces only diminish, rather than eradicate, one’s freedom to choose. Free will enables people to resist outside influences, defy psychological and sociological axioms, and behave unpredictably.

*For a fascinating and highly readable study that debunks media stereotypes of inner-city neighborhoods, see Mitchell Duneier’s award-winning Slim’s Table: Race, Respectability, and Masculinity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

Let’s be clear that free will doesn’t suspend the laws of nature. If a woman jumps out a fiftieth-floor window, she is not likely to get up and walk away, no matter how robust her will to survive. If a man sprinkles his mashed pota- toes with cyanide, we can safely bet that he won’t report for work tomorrow. (Chances are, he won’t even make it through dessert!)

dealing with Probability

The fact that people can and do behave unpredictably makes consideration of consequences more difficult than it might otherwise be. Often as not, we are unable to arrive at certainty but must be content with probability. A case introduced earlier (Chapter 1, inquiry 11) will illustrate. That case recounted the poignant situation of a young girl who was raised by foster parents from infancy and then, at age 9, returned by court order to the former drug addicts who had neglected her. The effects that must be considered in this situation include those on the real parents, the foster parents, and the girl herself. The effects on the real parents, of course, are beneficial. They gain a purpose for living and for remaining off drugs. They can overcome the terrible sense of loss and of failure that must have plagued them ever since their child was taken from them. Unfortunately, the foster parents experience almost the opposite effect: a feeling of helplessness, a profound sense of loss, and per- haps a bitterness about the seeming unfairness of the court decision.

The obvious effect on the little girl is sadness and confusion at being sep- arated from the only parents she has ever known and at being given, like some inanimate object, to two strangers. But a deeper, delayed effect is also possible. Such an experience could leave an emotional scar on her. Will she be made bitter and cynical about human relationships? Will she be driven inward, avoiding the sharing of love and affection with others because of the subconscious fear that they, too, may be taken from her? Will she be filled with resentment toward her real parents and turn against them and all they try to do for her?

Each of these possibilities is very real. Although there is always the chance that none of them may happen, and instead her suffering may enrich her life and her trauma may lead her to become deeply sensitive to the sufferings of others, such a happy ending seems rather unlikely. The effect of lasting emo- tional damage is more probable and thus is the best measure of the morality of the court’s action.

Making the analysis thorough

For moral judgment to be reliable, all significant consequences must be identified—the indirect as well as the direct, the subtle as well as the obvious, the unintended as well as the intended, the delayed as well as the immediate, the emotional and intellectual as well as the physical. The temptation to judge quickly and/or self-servingly poses a serious obstacle to thorough analysis.

Chapter 4, inquiry 9f, for example, presented the case of Fred, the son of a widow with six other children, who pays his way through college by stealing and selling automobile tires, radios, and stereotape decks. He has decided that his behavior is justified because it helps him without hurting others; the owners are a bit inconvenienced, he reasons, but the insurance companies replace the stolen property.

Fred’s examination of the consequences of his action is shallow. He has recognized only one dimension of one effect. There are other dimensions of that effect—and other effects—to consider. There is the effect on the insurance companies and their stockholders—making them pay for the stolen items. There is the effect on all the people who take out insurance policies with those companies—making them pay higher premiums. There is the effect on every citizen’s attitudes—contributing to fear and anger and suspicion. Not least, there are the effects on Fred himself—reinforcing the habit of solving problems the easy way, blurring his sense of right and wrong, stilling his con- science with excuses and rationalizations.

A particularly pointed example of unintended consequences occurred fol- lowing the December 2012 mass shooting of twenty-six students and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. After that event, the editors of the White Plains, New York, Journal News decided that a partial solution to the problem of such violence would be to publicize information on gun ownership. Taking advantage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), they searched public records for the names and addresses of legal gun owners in two area counties and published their findings, 33,614 in all, with an interactive map.

The newspaper’s action immediately triggered strong reactions. The county clerk of a third area county refused to provide the gun ownership information to the newspaper, claiming it would create a danger for law-abiding citizens. New York State Senator Greg Ball agreed and went so far as to call the editors “asinine.” Commentators from around the country offered a variety of criticisms of the Journal News. Many pointed out that criminals would use the information on gun ownership to plan their robberies, entering the homes of gun owners while they are away and stealing their guns, or targeting the homes of people not on the list because, without guns, they would be more vulnerable.

Publishing the list had a number of unintended consequences. Prison guards reported receiving threats from inmates saying “we now know where you and your family live.” A woman who had previously been stalked for years started receiving disturbing phone calls again. A battered wife who had left her husband and started a new life was terrified that her published address would enable him to find her. Retired judges and police officers became fearful that criminals they had dealt with over the years would use the pub- lished information to find them and exact revenge.

Perhaps the most ironic unintended consequence concerned the editors of the Journal News themselves. Their own personal information was posted online. They and their staff received threatening phone calls, some so serious they were forced to hire armed guards for protection. Gun owners and their supporters published a list of the newspaper’s advertisers and urged people to boycott them.

To ensure that you account for all significant consequences, develop the habit of using your imagination: Visualize the action taking place at a partic- ular time and place, and ask probing questions. Take special care to consider the worst possible consequences that could occur. If the newspaper editors had done this, they would no doubt have decided against publishing the names of legal gun owners.

three difficult questions

The basic rule of ethics is to do good and avoid doing evil. But real-life situa- tions are often messy and raise difficult questions, notably the following ones.

Is it justifiable to perform an evil act in order to achieve good consequences?

Many ethicists answer no, arguing that an evil act remains evil and therefore unacceptable even when done with good intentions or with good effects. This reasoning—that “the end does not justify the means”—becomes clearer in the context of actual cases.

During the period from 1940 to 1970, more than four thousand radia- tion experiments were performed on tens of thousands of Americans, many of them poor and uneducated, without their informed consent. Examples of alleged incidents: Children in a Massachusetts orphanage were fed radioiso- topes; 829 pregnant Tennessee women were fed radioactive iron; patients in Rochester, New York, were injected with plutonium; cancer patients in Cincinnati received heavy doses of gamma rays. In many of these cases, the researchers understood the harmful effects of radiation but performed the experiments anyway in order to obtain valuable scientific knowledge.1

A similar case occurred during the early days of World War II. In order to determine how the enemy’s use of chemical warfare would affect U.S. sol- diers, U.S. military commanders secretly subjected thousands of troops to mustard gas and other chemicals without their approval. The troops were ordered to enter a gas chamber as many as six times. The poisonous effects of the gas proved to be harmful and, in many cases, long lasting. Decades later, the health of many individuals continued to decline. However, when they applied for medical benefits, they found that their records had disappeared.2

In these cases, the end was ethically acceptable and even noble—gaining scientific insights that could spare thousands, perhaps even millions, of people pain and suffering. However, the action taken to achieve the end— subjecting innocent individuals to immediate and potentially long-term pain and suffering without their permission—was morally unacceptable. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the action is unethical. The good end did not justify the evil means.

· Is it justifiable to perform an act that is not in itself evil but produces mixed consequences, some of them beneficial and others harmful?

· Most ethicists would say yes, provided three conditions are met: that the good consequences are inseparable from the bad, that the good consequences outweigh the bad, and that the bad consequences are not directly intended. These conditions form what is called the “principle of the double effect.”

This principle is neither new nor radical. In fact, it is a conservative ethi- cal approach that has traditionally been applied by Roman Catholic ethicists in cases of fallopian pregnancy. In such abnormal pregnancies, the fetus fails to move down the fallopian tube and lodge in the uterus. Instead, it remains in the tube. If it cannot be dislodged and made to continue its course to the uterus, it will develop in the tube and cause the woman to hemorrhage and die. Despite the well-known Catholic opposition to induced abortion, Catholic ethicists approve surgical removal of the fetus in such cases because the three conditions specified above are met.

The principle of the double effect has application in other situations as well. Consider this one. Sophie has been kidnapped. For three days she has been held captive in a shack in the mountains, hoping that the ransom will be paid and she will be released. But now her captor is planning to kill her. “I’m really sorry, but I can’t take the chance that you’ll identify me,” he says as he unties her legs and orders her to walk out of the cabin. Just then, hearing a noise outside, he turns to look out the window. Sophie, her hands still tied, grabs the bread knife lying on the counter and stabs him in the back. He falls dead at her feet.

In Sophie’s case, and other self-defense cases, many ethicists would say the action was permitted because the good effect—escaping—was insepara- ble from and outweighed the evil one—stabbing—and the evil effect was not directly intended. (Some ethicists take a different view. Although they, too, would approve of Sophie’s action, they would classify it as an exception to the principle that “the end does not justify the means.”)

When only two actions are possible and both produce good conse- quences, which should be chosen?

In such situations, the morally preferable action is the one that produces the greater good. Similarly, in cases where two actions are possible and both produce harmful effects, the morally preferable action is the one that pro- duces the lesser evil. (Note: This is discussed further in Chapter 10.)

Two examples from World War II will further illustrate this principle. In the North African theater of operations, many hospitalized soldiers awaited the arrival of the first large shipment of the new wonder drug penicillin. When it arrived, high military medical officials had to decide which of two groups of patients to use it on, those with infected battle wounds or those with sulfa-resistant gonorrhea. Those with gonorrhea got the penicillin. The decision may at first seem absurdly wrong. But consider the reasoning that led to it. Large numbers of patients with gonorrhea were crowding hospitals and posing the threat of infection to others. Within a week these men could be returned to the battle lines where, because there was a shortage of manpower and because victory was not yet assured, they were badly needed.3

The dilemma the medical officials faced was certainly unfortunate, and the choice they made unquestionably caused harm. But it was undoubtedly the right choice in that situation because the alternative choice would have caused more harm. Giving the penicillin to the patients with gonorrhea served the greater good.

The second example is the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time the war was still raging in the Pacific theater, and even though the Japanese offensive had been rolled back, sur- render was not expected. One option considered by the United States was an invasion of mainland Japan; this idea was rejected because the invasion would likely have been followed by a protracted military campaign, and the combined cost in Japanese and American lives that would have resulted was con- servatively estimated at several hundred thousand. The atomic bomb option was chosen because it would shorten the war by many months and would result in less death and destruction. Given just this information, we might conclude that the decision to use the atomic bomb represented, at the very least, the lesser evil. But the consequences were considerably more complex.

Whereas most of the individuals who would have been killed in an inva- sion would have been combatants, the overwhelming majority of the victims of the bombing were noncombatants. Nor was this an accidental matter— Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected precisely because they were not mili- tary targets and their destruction would therefore have a greater demoralizing effect on the Japanese people. (Incidentally, the bombing of civilian population centers violated a centuries-old prohibition.) The combined total killed in the two cities was more than 200,000; tens of thousands of others suffered harmful exposure to radiation that caused them searing pain and disfigure- ment and could affect their children and grandchildren. Other options existed that would have diminished the harmful effects. A single bomb could have been dropped on an uninhabited island as a demon- stration of the destructive force of the bomb; the United States then could have demanded that the Japanese surrender or face similar devastation. (Because the number of bombs was limited and an extended period of time was necessary to create more, this plan was rejected.) Or the first bomb could have been dropped on an exclusively military target and more time allowed for surrender terms to be met, in the hope that a second bombing would not be necessary. That this option was available suggests that the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not represent the lesser evil.

The question of the greater good/lesser evil arises, of course, not just in dra- matic situations but also in many everyday situations like the following one: For the first time in his twenty years as a high school football coach, Barney Bloom is looking forward with confidence to a winning season. His running back, Phil Blaster, is an athletic phenomenon. He has speed, power, and cunning. Then, with practice scheduled to begin in three days, Bloom’s bubble bursts. In exam- ining Phil, the team doctor has detected a serious knee condition. His report, backed by a specialist who has studied the X-rays, is that there will be great risk in Phil’s playing this season. If the knee sustains a hard jolt from a certain angle, Phil may never be able to play football again. Both doctors advise Phil to undergo surgery at once, but they leave the decision to him and his parents. Coach Bloom, determined to have Phil in his lineup, attempts to persuade Phil to wait until the football season is over to have the operation. Is Coach Bloom behaving morally? Let’s examine the consequences and decide.

If Phil plays football without further injury to his knee, the team will undoubtedly have a winning season, the coach and all the players will achieve satisfaction, and the student body will experience the feeling of pride that accompanies having a winning team. Phil himself may benefit greatly by arousing the interest of college coaches and paving the way for an athletic scholarship to college. On the other hand, if Phil plays and gets injured, he may have no chance at a college career. Thus the possible good effects to the coach, the team, the school, and even to Phil himself must be weighed against the possible harmful effect to Phil.

The balance certainly seems to tip in favor of the coach’s attempting to persuade Phil to postpone the operation. A greater number of people will benefit if Phil plays. But does benefiting the greater number constitute serv- ing the greater good in this case? Further reflection raises serious questions about whether it does. Both the team doctor and a specialist decided that there was great risk in Phil’s playing. One hard jolt from the right angle might finish Phil’s career. If the sport were tennis or baseball, such a jolt might be considered unlikely to occur. But in football it is more than likely.

The fact that further injury to Phil’s knee is probable if he decides to play, the fact that such an injury would end a promising career, and the fact that both doctors have recommended immediate surgery suggest that Coach Bloom’s attempt to persuade Phil to play does not serve the greater good and is therefore immoral.

As difficult as it is to deal with the observable good and evil consequences of already completed actions, it is even more difficult to consider the consequences of contemplated or hypothetical actions. Therefore, in dealing with such actions, it is wise to keep this caution in mind: However clear and logical our determination of consequences may be, it is a prediction of future events and not a certainty. The particular responses that occur and the changes in the thoughts, attitudes, and behavior of everyone affected by the action are intricate and sometimes, in some ways, unpredictable. Thus we are dealing with probabilities at best. For this reason, we must be thorough in accounting for all possible consequences and willing to modify our earlier judgments as actual consequences become available for our examination.

dealing with dilemmas

Many of the cases we have considered in this and previous chapters have been frustrating to deal with. No solution seemed completely satisfying. No matter which we chose, we were left with the feeling that somehow there ought to be a better solution, even though we couldn’t imagine what it might be. There is a formal name for this disquieting situation. It is called a moral dilemma and is defined as any predicament that arises from the impossibility of honoring all the moral values that deserve honoring. A moral dilemma exists whenever the conflicting obligations, ideals, and consequences are so very nearly equal in their importance that we feel we cannot choose among them, even though we must. Moral dilemmas do not exist only in textbooks. They confront us in every- day life and thus are a reality we must be prepared to deal with. We can never be completely comfortable in dealing with such dilemmas, but it is a consola- tion and source of confidence to remind ourselves from time to time that the frustration we experience with them is not a sign of incapacity on our part but rather is a reflection of the complex nature of moral discourse.

In evaluating a moral dilemma, consider first whether it can be avoided altogether; in other words, whether it is a true dilemma or only an apparent one. In a true moral dilemma, of course, you must choose between two alter- natives; there is no third. Once you determine that you are dealing with a true dilemma, look for an indication that one of the two goods is (however slightly) greater than the other or that one of the evils is less evil.

Here is an example of a true (and horrible) dilemma: On October 13, 1972, a plane crashed high in the Andes mountains, killing almost two- thirds of its forty-five passengers and crew and leaving the others exposed to below-zero temperatures and the threat of starvation. More than three months passed before they were found. After their rescue, it was revealed that the survivors had resorted to eating the flesh of their dead companions as a means of survival.4 In almost any other circumstance, eating human flesh would be consid- ered unethical. In this case, however, the only alternative was to starve to death. The action the survivors chose was therefore the lesser of two evils. In Chapter 2, you considered the timely issues of How We Vote and Defunding the Police. Look back at the details of those issues and the judgments you made. Then consider what you have learned in Chapter 7 and in this chapter about respect for persons and the criteria for moral judgment: consequences, obligations, and moral ideals. Finally, in light of those lessons, decide what changes you should make to your earlier judgments. Explain your thinking.

1. In 2013, it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had singled out conservative groups for special targeting since before 2010. More specifically, when groups with conservative sounding names, such as “Patriot” and “Tea Party,” applied for tax-exempt status, they were made to undergo a lengthy process not used with other groups. One of the requirements was that the groups submit lists of their donors. According to some of the donors, they were subsequently audited by the IRS. Moreover, ProPublica, a progressive group, acknowledged that the IRS shared the confidential applications of the conservative groups, including information about donors, with them. As a result of this special targeting by the IRS, conservative groups had to wait as long as three years for approval, a fact that prevented them from participating in the 2010 and 2012 elections. When called to testify before Congress, the IRS official in charge of the IRS office in question invoked her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. After doing an Internet search to learn more information about this issue, discuss the relevant consequences, obligations, and moral ideals.

2. There has been considerable discussion of “global consciousness” in recent years. It is generally viewed as a positive goal, one that is associated with the pro- motion of universal brotherhood, love, and solidarity among nations. Many people from around the world believe that the best way to achieve this goal is to expand the powers of the United Nations to investigate human rights violations, control international arms trade, and monitor elections in countries where there are reports of voting fraud. Consider the probable consequences, both good and bad, in this country and internationally, of such an expansion of UN powers. Consider, too, relevant obligations and moral ideals and decide whether the expansion of powers would be ethical.

3. What are the probable consequences of each of the following actions? (Try to identify all the consequences: direct and indirect; immediate and delayed; physical and emotional. If you are uncertain what the consequences are, consult knowledgeable people.) In each case, decide whether the favorable consequences outweigh the unfavorable ones.

a. A rap music group creates song lyrics that recommend assaulting women. b. A comedian specializes in material that ridicules blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals. c. A parents’ group announces it will boycott companies that sponsor televi- sion programming that offends their moral values. d. A movie studio produces pornographic films. e. A school district uses a merit pay system; in other words, it awards salary increases based on the quality of teaching performance, as measured by student and administrative evaluation. f. Beer and liquor companies sponsor athletic contests. For example, Anheuser-Busch sponsors women’s beach volleyball, Miller Brewing Company sponsors men’s, and Southern Comfort sponsors a national “Finger Flick” tournament.

4. In each of the following cases, identify the consequences of the action taken and decide whether the action represented the greater good.

· a. The mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclu- sive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the city but might in the future. (The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.)

· b. A college instructor is pursuing her doctorate in night school. To gain extra time for her own studies, she gives her students the same lectures, the same assignments, and the same examinations semester after semester, without the slightest effort to improve them.

· c. A physician on the staff of an urban medical center is approached by a lawyer from a remote part of the state and asked to testify on behalf of his client, a rural doctor charged with criminal negligence in the care of a patient. The lawyer admits that his client is guilty of the charge. He goes on to explain that although the doctor is old and not well versed in the latest medical knowledge, she is nevertheless competent; the negligence she is charged with resulted from the strain of being the only doctor in a large mountain area with a number of tiny towns and a total population of two thousand people. The lawyer pleads with the medical center physician to testify that the negligent act was proper treatment. The physician does so.

· d. John and Martha, both married and the parents of several children, are having an adulterous affair. One night, when they are meeting secretly, they witness a murder. They agree that they cannot report it without exposing their affair. The next day the body is found, and within a week a suspect is apprehended and charged with first-degree murder. When John and Martha see his picture in the newspaper, they realize that he is not the murderer. They meet again, discuss their dilemma, and decide that despite the new, dreadful development, they will not step forward as witnesses.

· e. An English teacher in a two-year technical college has several students in his composition course whose ignorance of the English language has proved invincible. He has given them extra work and extra counseling from the first week of the semester. They have been diligent in their efforts to improve. Though they are in a construction technology program and will undoubt- edly be employed in jobs that require little writing skill, the composition course is required for graduation. In the instructor’s judgment, the students would not be able to pass the course legitimately if they took it three times, so he raises their F grades to Ds.

· f. Regina is chairperson of her city’s United Fund campaign. In her annual meeting with her staff of canvassers, she gives this advice: “Hit the business places first. Don’t approach anyone who is walking alone in a hall or work- ing alone in a closed office. Look for two or more people standing together or working side by side. Try to make them compete with each other in giv- ing. Capitalize on their desire to show off and outdo the other person.”

· g. A senator has a bill before the Senate that promises to correct tax ineq- uities that affect thousands of workers. However, the bill is being held up in committee. The committee chairperson is responsible. The senator, how- ever, has learned of a secret scandal in the chairperson’s personal life. He visits the chairperson and tells him that unless the bill is released from com- mittee, he will divulge the scandal to the press.

· h. By day Sylvester is a high-ranking executive in a leading lingerie com- pany. By night he is a modern Robin Hood. He scales walls and creeps over rooftops to enter the homes of the wealthy and steal cash and valuables. Everything he takes he gives to the poor.

· i. Jake runs a delicatessen in a high-crime section of a large city. After being robbed at gunpoint eight times in the past two years, Jake obtained a pistol permit and bought a pistol. Yesterday a man entered the store brandishing a knife and demanded all the money in the cash register. Jake moved to the cash register as if planning to open it. Then he quickly grabbed the gun hanging under it and, without warning, shot the man six times in the chest.

· j. After a young college instructor submits her final grades, she receives a music CD from two students with whom she has become quite friendly outside of class. The note accompanying the gift explains that it is a token of their gratitude for the instructor’s presenting such an interesting and meaningful course. She keeps the compact disc.

· k. Todd and Edna have been married for three years. They have had serious personal problems: Edna is a heavy drinker, and Todd cannot keep a job. Also, they have bickered and fought constantly since their marriage. Deciding that the way to overcome their problems is to have a child, they stop practicing birth control, and Edna becomes pregnant.

·

·

· l. A member of the House of Representatives is encouraged by a big-business lobbyist to vote for a bill that is against the interests of her constituents. The lobbyist implies that if the representative supports the bill, big business will support her campaign for reelection. The representative knows that she faces a tough campaign against an unprincipled opponent. Without the sup- port or at least the neutrality of big business, she has virtually no chance of reelection. She decides to support the bill.

· m. A company has a policy of strongly encouraging all workers over the age of 55 to retire in order to allow younger workers to be hired and to advance within the company. The company pension is modest, but a retiree can survive on it.

· n. A fiberglass firm is the only major employer in a small community. Local governmental officials are aware that the firm’s safety practices are lax and that assembly workers suffer a variety of respiratory problems due to fumes and exposure to toxic materials. However, no action is ever taken against the company.

· o. A major aircraft manufacturer is dependent on government and private contracts. In good times it offers bonuses and recruits technical employees throughout the United States. In lean times the company engages in mass layoffs. Employees and technicians may be laid off within a year of moving their families across the country for a job.

· p. A college receives reduced operating funds. It closes its on-campus day-care center to save money for funding academic and technical instruc- tion. The center previously served many low-income families.

· 5. Compare the consequences of cheating in a class in which the professor grades on a curve with the consequences of cheating in a class in which the professor does not grade on a curve. Is one instance of cheating a greater moral offense, or are both equal? Explain.

· 6. Stock experts appearing on financial talk shows have on occasion engaged in the practice known as “pumping and dumping,” which consists of giving favor- able recommendations to stocks they personally hold, waiting until the show’s listeners buy the stock, and then selling their shares at a profit. Some networks require guests to disclose their personal holdings in any stock they recommend on the air; other networks do not. Consider the obligations, moral ideals, and consequences involved in cases of pumping and dumping and decide whether broadcasters have a moral obligation to institute a disclosure requirement.

· 7. Reportedly, at least two companies specialize in buying the body parts of fetuses from abortion clinics and selling them to universities and medical insti- tutes for use in research. One of these companies reportedly charges $999 for a human brain under eight weeks’ gestation, $50 to $100 for eyes and ears, and $400 for an intact limbless trunk. Evaluate the morality of (a) abortionists selling fetal body parts to the companies, (b) the companies selling such parts to research institutions, and (c) the use of fetal body parts in research. In your evaluation dis- cuss the relevant obligations, moral ideals, and consequences.

·