Consider a case in which the United States government, with the approval of the majority of Americans, decides to round up all Arab-Americans and relocate them into internment camps. Imagine that you have a friend who is an American citizen of Arab descent. She asks you to protect her from the authorities. You have known this person all of your life, and you are convinced that she is a loyal American. You agree to hide her in the third floor of your house. A United States federal agent knocks on your door and asks if you know the whereabouts of the person you are hiding. How would you respond to that agent? You now face a genuine moral dilemma because you cannot both keep your promise to your friend and tell the truth to the federal agent. Initially, your gut reaction might suggest that the solution to your dilemma is really quite simple. For example, you might believe that a far greater good will be served by lying to the federal agent than by breaking your promise to your friend. However, to embrace the moral principle inherent in that line of reasoning is to fall back into utilitarianism. We have already seen some of the difficulties that can result from trying to be a consistent and thoroughgoing utilitarian. Could you consistently universalize a moral principle that states: “Whenever you must choose between telling the truth to authorities and breaking a promise to a friend, always honor your promise”? Will that principle work in every case? Will Ross’s theory help in this situation? Explain your answer. Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (comprehension)
Sample Solution