Case Study of SAUL'S ETHICAL DILEMMA (solved paper part 1)

 

What was Saul's ethical dilemma? Describe Saul's ethical dilemma. 

 

What is the background of  Saul's Ethical Dilemma? 

SAUL'S ETHICAL DILEMMA BACKGROUND: 

Saul is the younger brother of Dr. Robert Smith whose dream is to become a heart surgeon, He was on his way when his father got ill Smith decided to return to his hometown of Zoar, Ohio, to take care of his father as his father needed someone to be with him at all times. Dr. Smith chose to stay in Zoar and take care of his dad. He set up a family practice in the area, putting his goal of being a heart surgeon on hold forever, and began working as an area doctor. Smith decided to stay in Zoar to take care of his father. He opened up a family practice in the town, thus putting his dream of becoming a heart surgeon on hold indefinitely, He started a job as the town doctor.

Saul's Ethical Dilemma Saul knows very well about his brother's dream of becoming a heart surgeon, now Saul is working with Dr. Smith When Saul organized the paperwork and examined the files, he noticed there were charges to Medicaid that must be a mistake. While most of the population of Zoar, Ohio, was considered low-level income and qualified for Medicaid free of cost, this was not the case for all patients. The charges against Medicaid appeared to be declining and increasing in at least five years. He also receives receipt papers as evidence and thus begins the moral dilemma.  

Saul has to face an ethical dilemma in the midst of an ethical issue posed by the fact that he has evidence with him when he came to know about the his brother Dr. Robert Smith’s Medicare fraud.

This is a morally questionable case where he would know the right thing from the wrong side to make a decision. That being said, he must choose what he considers to be rights even though the reality hurts his brother too as ethical dilemma demand the result to send his brother into jail. He faces the dilemma of weather to shield his brother from the law by making him an accomplice or reporting to the authorities. As a professional, he’s caught between his family and his career, where he realizes his brother could lose his license and probably go to prison. By the end of the day, he convinces himself that his brother is more important than the thousands of people who will be involved and cheated on what his brother was doing with this way he tried to be escape with his ethical dilemma and gave more preference to his brother over the righteous and ethical dilemma.  

 

Question 2:. Using traditional moral reasoning approaches / ethical theories discuss how Saul should approach the situation. 

Ethically speaking, Saul should take an ethical action that is founded on justice that does more good for the sake of majority number of people.

The Utilitarian Approach

Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help people decide which rules are socially best. Both Bentham and Mill have indicated that ethical acts are those that deliver the best balance between justices against injustice. (Thomas Shanks, 2015).

To examine the problem using the utilitarian approach, we first define the different of action open to us. As for the Saul case, Like blew are given.

• Saul should have considered the majority of the people who are being affected by his brother's fraud.  
• Saul took the decision because he analyzed all the benefits and harms of his decision. 

 And then we inquire who will be impacted by action of Saul and what advantages or disadvantages will be gained by decision. And thirdly, we choose the action that will offer the most rewards and the least harm. Ethical behavior is the one that brings the most value to the largest number of individuals so now it’s easy to decide by the theory of Utilitarianism that if Saul made the decision on the base of rules and rights socially the majority of people could be in benefit. So According to the Utilitarian Ethical Theory, an action is deemed to be right if it is more valuable to a larger majority of people. Accordingly, similar to Utilitarian philosophy, Saul should report the fraudulent act to the Federal authorities to avoid more fraudulent activity. This will do greater benefit for greater number of individuals in society, especially the elderly.

Reason. 

Saul could challenge his brother with the truth again. Perhaps Dr. Saul was in a poor mood earlier and did not pay attention to understand the severity of the situation that he and his brother had put in. Saul can consult a decent lawyer to advise him, and maybe he can refer his brother to one, too, if he truly cares for the self-interests of his brother. Third, Saul should still give up on Dr. Smith's clinical practice.

The Rights Approach:

The second essential approach to ethics is rooted in the philosophy of 18th-century theorist Immanuel Kant and those like him, who concentrated on the freedom of the person to choose for himself or herself. According to these thinkers, what makes human beings different from simple objects is that people have a freedom dependent on their willingness to freely choose what they can do for their lives, and that they have a basic moral right to honor these decisions. Humans are not objects to be manipulated; it is a breach of human freedom to exploit people in ways they do not chose freely.

In determining whether an action is morally right or unethical in the sense of this second method, we may inquire, does the action value the moral rights of all? Acts are unethical to the degree that they infringe the rights of individuals; the more extreme the breach, the more unlawful the conduct. Right to the facts, we have the right to tell the facts and to be notified about issues that have a big effect on our decisions.  

Reason. 

According to these statements, Saul should have approached the decision with truth as his decision could have been based on dignity and Impact positively on the majority of the people's lives. In addition, His decision should have the respect from the townspeople who have the right to be known and as his brother had breached their fundamentals rights. 

The Equity or Justice Approach: 

The equity or justice approach to ethics is embedded in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be viewed fairly and unequally." The fundamental philosophical question in this approach is: how fair is the action? Does it treat all of us in the same way, or does it demonstrate favoritism and discrimination? 

Reason. 

In the light of the ethical theory of fairness or justice approach, Saul should treat his brother Dr.Smith As equal and fairly as other people are, But he showed favoritism for his brother over the others. As favoritism provides him advantages, In this case of Saul, favoritism provides advantages to other people without a justifiable excuse to sing them; inequality puts burdens on those who are no different from others who are not subject to burdens. Both favoritism and injustice are false and incorrect and Saul should have taken a decision with the justice and equality rights. (Broome, 2009.) 

 

The Common-Good Approach 

This approach to ethics requires a society of people whose own benefit is inextricably connected to the good of the world. Members of the Society shall be united by the promotion of shared principles and aims. The popular good is a term that emerged more than 2,000 years ago in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist John Rawls has described the common good as "those general circumstances that are similarly to everyone's benefit. This approach focuses on ensuring that the social strategies, institutional structures, organizations and environments in which we count are beneficial to everyone. Examples common to everyone include affordable health insurance, efficient public protection, harmony between countries, a just justice framework and an unpolluted climate.

Reason.

 According to the common good approach, Saul should have made a comparison between what’s good for just for him and his brother and what good for the community of the town and what’s are the common values and ethics demand with the comparison he must-have approach to the best and fair honest result as community social rights have more value than his brother Dr. Smith. Appeals for the common good encourage us to see ourselves as members of the same culture, focusing on the broad problems of the kind of world that we want to create. And how we are going to build the cultural environment and the society. Although acknowledging and evaluating the right of people to achieve their own interests, the common good approach nevertheless challenges us to identify and follow those priorities that we have in common.

The Virtue Approach 

The Interactive Approach to Ethics suggests that there are such values to which we all aspire to ensure the full growth of our society and humanity. These values are discovered by reflective reflection about what kind of people we have the ability to be. Virtues are behaviors or characteristics of character that encourage us to live and function in ways that improve our highest potential. They encourage us to follow the values we have embraced. Honesty, bravery, kindness, kindness, loyalty, honesty, fairness, self-control and prudence are also manifestations of virtue. Virtues are like habits; that is, they become a person's trait after they have been acquired. In addition, a person who has learned morals would naturally be able to behave in a manner compatible with moral values. The virtuoso person is an ethical person. 

Reason. 

In grappling with an ethical question using a virtue strategy, we could ask, what kind of person should I be? What is going to encourage the growth of character within myself and my community? By using the Virtue approach, Saul's decision was so unfair and demoralized the honesty, and ethical values as he made no efforts for the sake of humanity. He could make out his brother about the honesty and humanity and value of the others people social and living rights that not to increase the charges of Medicaid’s, and could approach to the authorities and could inform them about the fraud of his brother.

Ethical Problem Solving. 

These five considerations assume that, once we have ascertained the realities, we should ask ourselves five questions in an effort to correct some sort of moral issue: 

• What are the advantages and harms that each course of action will offer, and which solution will contribute to the best overall consequences? 
• What legal rights do the parties involved have and which course of action best protects such rights? 
• What course of action does everybody consider the same, except where there is a legally justifiable purpose not to which does not demonstrate favoritism or discrimination? 
• Which course of action advances the common good? 
• Which course of action develops moral virtues?

 

 References 

 Broome, J. (2009.). “The unity of reasoning? in Spheres of reason, S. Robertson,. 

 Cara Biasucci. (2020). Moral Reasoning. Ethics Unwrapped.

 Edward N. Zalta. (2003, September 15). Moral Reasoning.

 Felipe De Brigard, P. a. (2018, July 17). Moral Reasoning. American Psychological Association. 

 Jennings, B. (2010). ETHICAL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABILITY. Centre of Human nature. 

 John, M. P. (2012). Sustainability Science: Ethical Foundations and Emerging Challenges.