The ethical dilemma is the moral choice between two or more options, in which the decision is in any case wrong. Such dilemmas do not have a definite solution because they are morally complex. Thus, when dealing with the ethical dilemma of Coach Rob and the suspension of two of his soccer players, it is not possible to work out one correct solution. Various philosophers have been trying for a long time to develop a universal theory that would help in solving such dilemmas. Thus, Aristotle, Mill, and Kant provide their approaches to solving ethical dilemmas. Comparing the three theories, the ethics of virtue and utilitarianism seem more abstract without giving particular instructions. In this sense, it is Kant’s approach that can provide Coach Rob with a successful solution to his ethical dilemma.
Coach Rob’s ethical dilemma is the moral choice between punishing or not punishing two players. In this sense, two students were caught cheating on the exam, for which they received unsatisfactory grades. However, the soccer championship was approaching, in which the participation of the two best players was necessary. Coach Rob understood that with these two students, the team had every chance of winning, but if they were suspended, the team would probably lose. Therefore, he was faced with a choice: to allow them to play despite the offense or teach them a lesson and ban them from participating in the championship.
In other words, Coach Rob could either help the team win or teach his students not to break the school’s rules. The problem with the ethical dilemma of this choice is that none of these options is correct. Thus, it is necessary to consider how each of the three theories and teachings will solve this ethical dilemma.
The ethics of virtue today is one of the three main approaches in normative ethics. This approach can be described as one that attaches particular importance to virtues and moral character. In the context of this approach, moral virtue is central to solving any problems and conflicts. Aristotle distinguishes between rational and moral virtues. In other words, they are virtues of mind and virtues of character. The first ones mature in a person with the help of training: wisdom, intelligence, and prudence.
The latter arise from habits-mores: a person performs actions, accumulates experience, and on this basis, the characteristics of his character are formed. The main idea in the teachings of Aristotle is that virtue acts as a boundary between two extremes: excess and lack. Thus, according to Aristotle, being too generous or, conversely, stingy is not a virtue.
In this vein, according to the ethics of virtue, Coach Rob must do as his character dictates. Virtues represent the ideals that a person has acquired as he develops. In other words, if Coach Rob is a person who values honesty and tries to be sincere himself, he will most likely punish the students. Allowing players to participate in the championship, despite their misconduct is wrong. If Coach Rob is committed to his team and wants to win the tournament, he can allow the players to participate.
Thus, the solution to this problem should be based on the character and beliefs of the Coach. According to the ethics of virtue and Aristotle, there are no wrong decisions because they are all based on the personality and character of the person himself. Such choices are mediated by the analysis of the expected result and the forecast. Any action Coach Rob performs is considered a virtue, as he acts according to his beliefs.
Thus, the moral theory of Aristotle is devoid of any specific instructions. It has neither the imperative nor the principle of utility, as in the other two approaches. In other words, the ethics of virtue is that a person should be good and strive to do good deeds. Aristotle also states that every person is born virtuous and makes the right decisions at the right time. Moreover, the philosopher introduced such a concept as the doctrine of the average, which is key in the ethics of virtue. According to this teaching, virtue is in the golden mean, not in the extremes. Thus, any decision and action can be considered a virtue if it is in the golden mean. Since any decision will be considered a virtue, Coach Rob will not be able to assess the consequences of his action sensibly. In this sense, Aristotle’s theory does not seem to apply entirely to Coach Rob’s ethical dilemma.
The theory of utilitarianism may also have a particular impact on Coach Rob’s presented ethical dilemma. Modern utilitarianism, which originated in the 18th century, was described by such a British philosopher as John Stuart Mill. The main idea of this concept is the fact that actions should be measured in the happiness and pleasure produced. In other words, any decision and action must lead to a positive result and consequences; then, the decision made is considered correct. The key point for all proponents of utilitarianism is the idea of the greatest happiness that everyone should seek. Accordingly, any decision made or action is taken should ideally lead to consequences that will bring happiness to a person. However, critics of this theory raise the question of how the importance of one person’s happiness and another is measured.
According to the theory of utilitarianism, the principle of utility is correlated with the principle of the greatest happiness. Thus, each person himself determines the happiness that will guide all his decisions and actions. However, utilitarianism goes beyond the personal happiness of a person and rather assumes its achievement for all. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible to achieve a correct result in an ethical dilemma. Ideally, acting according to the principles of this theory, a person should make a decision that will lead to the achievement of maximum happiness for everyone involved. This is because the proponents of this philosophical teaching believe that everyone’s happiness is equal and cannot be more important than the others.
Accordingly, the utilitarian theory also includes the framework of act utilitarianism, which assumes that a person’s act is morally correct if it leads to the best results. However, this framework often puts ethical dilemmas at a dead end, which is why rule utilitarianism was developed. This version assumes that people should live by the rules that are most likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. The main point of this particular approach is that when solving ethical dilemmas, people should think long-term. Thus, rule utilitarianism allows people to refrain from actions that may maximize utility in the short term and instead follow rules that will maximize utility most of the time.
Returning to Coach Rob’s presented ethical dilemma, utilitarianism suggests that his actions should have positive consequences. For Rob, as the soccer team coach, it is considered important to get a victory in the upcoming championship. Thus, by allowing players to participate in the match instead of being punished for a misdemeanor, Coach Rob will be able to achieve the best result for himself. However, applying the concept of rule utilitarianism, this solution is correct only in the short term.
Students will most likely win and be happy, but they will not learn any lesson from their misdeeds. Thus, utilitarianism does not provide a single solution to this ethical dilemma and therefore fails to give specific instructions. Coach Rob can sacrifice the long-term prospect that the students and the team will learn a lesson and get the desired win. On the other hand, Coach Rob can leave students suspended from classes, which will serve as a lesson for them in the future and allow them to avoid such situations. In turn, to correctly apply the utilitarian approach, Coach Rob must correctly determine the long-term prospects. This problem is relatively complex, which leads to difficulties in applying this theory.
Deontology, Kant, and his Categorical Imperative are also the basis for solving this ethical dilemma. Kant tried to separate his theoretical approach from the concept of the divine, saying that morality cannot depend on God. Thus, according to this theory, to make the right decision, a person must rely on reason and principles. At the same time, Kant put forward categorical imperatives, that is, commands that a person must follow. Imperatives were moral obligations that were separated from personal beliefs and principles. Thus, Kant singled out the moral law as a general law for all to follow.
In turn, the categorical imperative is divided into formulations that consist of different phrasings about a single idea. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is the universalizability principle. This formulation presupposes that a person must act according to his maxim in a way that it becomes a universal law. In other words, the correct solution to the ethical dilemma will be that it can become universal for every person.
In this sense, Coach Rob, when solving his task, should be guided by the principle of universalizability. If he decides that it is possible to allow students to play in the match even though they have committed a misdemeanor, then everyone can do so. If he decides to punish them, then all students cheating on the exam should also be suspended. Since the first option will be satisfactory specifically for Coach Rob, it cannot be universal as he wants to win the championship.
The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is the formula of the relationship between people. Thus, according to Kant, every person is valuable simply because they are human. In turn, the philosopher claims that all people have reason and dignity, which distinguish them from inanimate objects. Consequently, no one should treat people as mere means and use them for personal purposes and goals. Applying this formulation, Coach Rob should treat his students as complete human beings who possess personal dignity. If he allowed them to participate in the match, they would only become a tool to achieve victory.
Based on this, Coach Rob, having suspended the students from the game, should teach them a lesson and believe in their ability to become the best versions of themselves. In contrast to the ethics of virtue and utilitarianism, Kant presents a more specific approach that depends on the individual himself. In this sense, it is Kant’s theory that is most applicable to Coach Rob’s ethical dilemma. Both formulations of the Categorical Imperative allow the coach to make the only correct decision, which will depend solely on his principles and morals.