Lessons form the Progressive Scenario:

I initially developed this as a test. Indeed, it was a final exam! Now, don't panic, I won't be doing that. But imagine that in addition to questions like "what does the law say?" and "who should decide?" or "what should be considered?" you would also have to deal with other questions. By the end of the course in any ethical dilemma you should also be able to address, "What would Kant, or Aquinas, or Bentham say?" "What would an 'act' utilitarian agree with a 'rule' utilitarian?" "What would the author of the article, 'XYZ' say about this situation?" And of course, "What are the rights, rules and responsibilities of the various parties involved?"

Without a specific 'laundry list' of items that should have been addressed by the responses to the scenarios it is still possible to summarize some of the goals of doing this exercise. By the way, I don't have any others like it planned. This is a "starter" activity; one designed to get you thinking, and "dialoging". It also forces the reader to reflect on the nature of the relationships we engage in, such as friend, a (non-professional) counselor, or simply as a respected source of information. It certainly stimulates reflection on the nature of the relationships of the participants, such as parent-child relationships, or parents-to-be relationships. Ultimately our individual responses (and those engaged in any kind of ethical conflict) are based on what values are held to be most important. My view is that many of those values are (a) presumed by the moral agent though not fully examined ahead of time, and (b) usually based on a particular way of looking at the world (a "worldview") that is like wise not articulated. Yet it is often presumed that, "Of course, doesn't everybody look at the world this way?" or, "Of course, doesn't everyone share this same basic value?" All too common a response is, "Well, these are my values, based on my worldview, and anybody who doesn't share that view can go to hell-in-a-hand-basket!"

The progression is also an introduction to some of the topics of the course. Abortion is addressed early in the course because it raises that conflict in values and worldviews that informs so many other ethical tensions. Aids is touched on, and for some people, factors such as this color the decision making process dramatically. Allocation of scarce resources, issues of termination and futility of care are raised. Underlying it all are the questions of life and death -- the stuff of philosophy and of theology.

The goal of the course is to empower the student with the tools for analysis of such questions, conflict and tensions so that when personal or professional conflicts arise they will first be equipped to clarify the questions, principles and consequences at stake. Then they will be prepared to effect a balanced critical analysis. Finally, and hopefully, a tolerance for a diversity of moral and ethical perspectives will allow the student to hold true to their own perspective without disdaining any opposing positions, as long as they too are valid, based on critical reflection, rationality, impartiality and consistency.

The problem is NOT that 'there are no right answers' -- there are 'too many right answers' and we must make our own choices, as individuals and as a society, from among conflicting right answers. "I don't know," or "I don't care," or even, "This is too hard, I'll just let somebody else decide" are indeed common responses, but you know what Socrates would say about them....