In a case of ethical dilemma, "The Alligator River Story," states the following scenario:
“There lived a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river. Abigail lived on the opposite shore of the same river. The river that separated the two lovers was teeming with dangerous alligators.
Recommended for you
Abigail wanted to cross the river to be with Gregory. Unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out by a heavy flood. So she went to see Sinbad, the riverboat captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would consent to go to bed with him prior to her voyage.
She promptly refused and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want to get involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad’s terms. She did and Sinbad fulfilled his promise to take Abigail to Gregory.
When Abigail told Gregory about what she did in order to see him, he cast her aside with disdain. She then turned to another friend, Slug, and told him what happened. Slug, feeling compassion for Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was pleased.”
I was asked by my professor, to rank the five characters on a scale of one to five, with one being the most disagreeable and five being the least blameworthy.
It is a tough task, I admit. However, within a few seconds of embracing the task, I initially thought of Sinbad as the worst character, as he took advantage of the dire Abigail, and Ivan as the least evil one, because at least he did no harm.
We then got involved in discussion, and individuals, as well as the group, stated their ideas. True, everything is not that simple, and because different people had different sets of value, their answers thus differed.
I don’t know what your initial impression is. Is it by any chance similar to mine? Consider the following about the five characters:
Abigail, who went to bed with another man, Sinbad, in exchange for a chance to be with her lover, Gregory, only to be shunned by him. Afterwards, she was pleased when Gregory was brutally beaten by Slug, whom she informed of the situation:
- Did she really have no choice but to do what she did?
- Is it justifiable that, in the name of love, anyone can do anything?
- Was she an honest victim, or a trouble-maker?
- If everything went wrong, would she blame others instead of herself?
- Did she really love Gregory that dearly, to the point of going to bed with another man just to see him? Consider the fact that she was pleased when Gregory was beaten.
Gregory, the one who shunned Abigail because she went to bed with another man just for a chance to reconvene with him:
- Would you, as a man, act understandingly if you know your lover went to bed with another man in order to meet you? (No offense, but I think Asian men should carefully consider that.
Sinbad, the one who asked Abigail to go to bed with him in exchange for a boat trip to Gregory’s place:
- Was he really taking advantage of Abigail when he only offered her a choice (which she made) and afterwards he fulfilled his promise?
Slug, the one who brutally beat Gregory because he dumped Abigail:
- Was he really doing justice?
- He chose violence as a solution, is it the best course of action?
- Is it even lawful to assault others?
Ivan, the one who Abigail initially told about the situation, but chose not to get involved whatsoever:
- Was he doing it ethically, considering Abigail trusted him with her dilemma?
- Or, granted that he’s a coward and self-centered, was he justified because he did no harm?
- Or, was he wise for opting out of trouble?
I am not going to say my take on this, after careful consideration of these factors, not yet. First, I want to go over the question that is the reason I started this post: We usually judge people for what they did, and justify ourselves for what we did. On what basis do we do that?
The answer is: personal values
And where do personal values come from? Well, moral reasoning. For clarity, ethicists define “moral reasoning” as “a thinking process with the objective of determining whether an idea is right or wrong.” For categorization, they divide them into four different views:
- Individualism view: Does a decision or behavior promote one’s long-term self interest
- Moral rights view: Does a decision or behavior maintain the fundamental rights of all human being?
- Justice view: Does a decision or behavior show fairness and impartiality?
- Utilitarian view: Does a decision or behavior do the greatest good for the most people?
Depending on circumstances, these views may conflict, or overlap, or even be irrelevant, because we need to take into account that people are not always rational.
Well, I’m just putting the views out there for your enjoyment, but what I’m trying to say is: between stimulus and response is an important step: moral reasoning. And what is moral reasoning built on? Personal values. And what are personal values built on? Experience.
If you ask a random person what they think of Abigail, it can be hard to foresee the answer, but if we look into the background of the person and their past behavior, we can, to some degree, predict their answer:
- If the person is madly in love, he/she will probably say what Abigail did is true love.
- If the person has been hurt and lied to before, he/she will probably say Abigail is being too childish.
- If the person is very religious, or strictly patriarchal, it’s highly likely that Abigail’s behavior is unacceptable.
So, it’s all about experience that shapes personal values, which in turn determine the actions that people take. Since I’m a big supporter of Behaviorism, I’d like to think of behavior as being driven by past behavior, and personal values as being shaped by past experience.
That being said, I’m not a fan of unconditional romance, so I don’t think, in the name of love, anything is justifiable. Especially because people always have choices. Abigail chose to sleep with Sinbad, so she can’t just blame anyone for the choice she made. Sure, we always feel obliged to do something, but we can always choose to do differently, in exchange or an unfavorable outcome, yes?
Gregory: I think he’s just immature. Sure, I agree that your initial reaction when you learn that your love slept with another man, for whatever reason, can be disdain, but what is moral reasoning for? You can choose to contain your emotions and act altruistically, yeah? The fact that Gregory explicitly expressed his disdain towards the woman who was ready to go to great lengths for him says it all about his self-centered personal values and the immature manifestation of such values.
Ivan: I personally think his action is unblameworthy. If you don’t think you can help someone, at least do no harm.
Slug: I’m confident he broke the law when he assaulted Gregory. And absolutely, I think it’s a great deed when we intervene in a situation if we feel like we could improve it, but I don’t think Slug improved the situation by any means. Yes, Abigail was pleased, and thought it’s justice, but if violence is the answer to everything, will anything improve at all? Politics escalate into wars, people die, children get hurt, etc. Let’s not talk about justice and fairness, because they’re so abstract, but I don’t think violence is a solution to be encouraged.
Finally, Sinbad: the person whom I initially deemed the worst. He’s actually the fairest of them all. He offered Abigail a choice, and fulfilled his promise. Hmm, again, depending on personal values, people may still find him unacceptable.
So, on an irrelevant note, if you ask me what I could have done if I were the characters. I would say they all act on their raw emotions and instincts. They’re far from objective and rational. They limited themselves into seeing the choices they make as the only choices available. Abigail could have find other means to cross the river. Ivan could have helped her cross the river, or offered some advice, or negotiated with Sinbad. Gregory could choose to act less selfish, or he himself should have found a means to cross the river to meet Abigail. Slug could have realized that Abigail was dramatic and Gregory was self-centered, etc. If they, like people, are indeed rational.
What I’m trying to say is that, behavior very often comes in pattern, and if we trace back the origins of individual behavior, we’ll find personal values based on moral reasoning and past experience. Thus, having identified what dictates our behavior, we can choose to maintain those personal values, or train ourselves to change them.
When facing a dilemma, always look back at your personal values, your inner ethicist, and try to be rational about your options. Don’t keep falling into the trap of feeling confined to and eventually succumbing to options that are readily available and most convenient, but not likely to be the optimal one.
“Well, at the end of the day, tragically, Ms. Dang cannot afford a personal ethicist…but what you can do is send a check to her personal therapist!” (jk)
