the method: never do bad and use Prudence to decide for good acts

Analizing prohibitions and apparent exceptions

In case of a moral implication, then you already have your answer:

you have to look at the moral implications.

Then, while an immoral act should never be done, one should ask for Prudence to decide which good and moral action should better do.

Gemini-Bard's reply:

That's a helpful clarification. When faced with a moral dilemma, it's essential to carefully consider the potential moral implications of each choice.

Here's a summary of your key points:

Moral Implications: When making decisions, it's important to consider the potential moral consequences of each option.
Prudence: Prudence can help us make informed and responsible choices that align with our moral principles.
Avoiding Immoral Actions: We should strive to avoid immoral actions, even if they might lead to short-term benefits.

Your perspective highlights the importance of moral reasoning and the need to balance competing moral principles.

Would you like to discuss any specific examples of moral dilemmas where the principles of morality, prudence, and avoiding immoral actions can be applied?

Do you know about a different case study not yet solvable by these considerations?

A Complex Ethical Dilemma: The Trolley Problem Revisited

While the Trolley Problem is a classic example of an ethical dilemma, it's not always solvable using simple moral principles. Here's a revised version that introduces additional complexities:

The Revised Trolley Problem:

Imagine you're standing at a railroad switch, controlling the direction of a runaway trolley. Ahead, five people are tied to the tracks. However, there's a sixth person tied to a side track. You can divert the trolley onto the side track, saving the five but killing the one.

Now, consider these additional factors:

Personal Connection: The person on the side track is your close friend or family member.
Responsibility: You were responsible for hiring the person on the side track, and they were assigned to that location due to your decision.
Uncertainty: There's a small chance that the trolley could derail on the side track, potentially killing both the person on the side track and the five on the main track.

This revised version raises several new ethical questions:

Emotional Bias: How does your personal connection to the person on the side track influence your decision?
Responsibility: Does your responsibility for hiring the person on the side track create a moral obligation to protect them?
Uncertainty and Risk: How do you weigh the certainty of one death against the uncertainty of potential multiple deaths?

This revised Trolley Problem highlights the complexities of moral decision-making and the challenges of applying simple principles to real-world situations. It demonstrates that even seemingly straightforward ethical dilemmas can involve multiple factors and conflicting moral considerations.

my reply:

As earlier discussed, this poor controller is coherced to a decision.

So, he is not free to avoid bad consequences, whichever decision is taken is not wished.

Is there another case to examine?

Gemini-Bard's reply:

A Case Study Without Coercion: The Doctor's Dilemma Revisited

Let's revisit the doctor's dilemma, but with a twist:

Imagine a doctor who has developed a new experimental treatment for a rare, incurable disease. The treatment has shown promising results in clinical trials, but it also carries significant risks, including potential side effects that could be fatal.

The doctor has a patient who is suffering from the disease and is nearing the end of their life. The patient is aware of the risks of the experimental treatment but is willing to try it as a last resort.

Ethical Considerations:

Beneficence: The doctor has a duty to promote the well-being of their patients. This includes providing effective treatment and alleviating suffering.
Non-Maleficence: The doctor also has a duty to avoid harming their patients. This includes weighing the potential benefits of the treatment against the risks of adverse side effects.
Autonomy: The patient has the right to make informed decisions about their own healthcare. This includes the right to consent to or refuse experimental treatments.

In this case, the doctor is not under immediate coercion or duress. They have time to consider the options, weigh the risks and benefits, and discuss the situation with the patient. However, the decision is still fraught with ethical complexities:

Uncertainty: The effectiveness and safety of the experimental treatment are uncertain.
Patient's Best Interests: The doctor must consider what is in the patient's best interest, balancing the potential benefits against the risks.
Moral Responsibility: The doctor may feel a sense of moral responsibility to provide the patient with the best possible care, even if it involves taking risks.

This case study illustrates that ethical dilemmas can arise even in the absence of immediate coercion or urgency. The decision-making process often involves weighing competing moral principles and considering the potential consequences of different choices.

my reply:

In this case the doctors presents opportunity, facts, and information.

He decides nothing.

The patient has a hard choice about himself and I see no immorality neither in trying the last chance nor in letting himself go following the natural course of things.

Another case?

Gemini-Bard's reply:

Your analysis is insightful. In this case, the doctor's role is to provide information and support, allowing the patient to make an informed decision.

Here's a breakdown of your key points:

Informed Consent: The doctor's role is to provide information and options, ensuring the patient can make an informed decision.
Patient Autonomy: The ultimate decision rests with the patient, who has the right to choose their own course of treatment.
No Moral Implications: Neither choosing the experimental treatment nor opting for palliative care is inherently immoral. Both options involve weighing risks and benefits.

A Case Study: The Whistleblower

Consider a situation where a scientist discovers evidence of unethical practices or illegal activities within their organization. The scientist faces a difficult choice:

Report the misconduct: This could lead to consequences for the scientist, such as losing their job or facing retaliation.
Keep silent: This could allow the unethical practices to continue, potentially harming others.

Ethical Considerations:

Whistleblower Protection: In many jurisdictions, there are laws protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.
Duty to Report: Some argue that individuals have a moral duty to report unethical or illegal behavior, even if it comes at a personal cost.
Self-Preservation: The individual must also consider their own safety and well-being.

This case study illustrates a situation where an individual must weigh the potential consequences of their actions and decide whether to prioritize personal gain or the greater good.