Ethical Dilemma

ETHICAL DILEMMA

RESOLUTION

Nicoletta, has the obligation to the society and to herself to convince her friend, who was the driver of the car that hit the boy, to admit his wrong and to understand the crime that he committed. Nicoletta was in the same car with her friend, which in that case make her as equally responsible for this crime. Nicoletta must put herself behind the vail of ignorance and then ask herself, if she wants to live in a world that all recklessness drivers must be unpunished. She has to wonder herself if this wants to become a universal rule!

So first of all, she must convince her friend with strong arguments (using the golden rule: what if you had a son that hit to go to that kid’s family and tell them the truth, second make a public apology in behalf of all reckless drivers to the families that had to deal with this kind of situations, third go to the police and make a written testimony about his recklessness driving.

Following this kind of a scenario, Nicoletta and all stakeholders (the boy, his family, other families, the police, court, etc.) will be satisfied:

* Nicoletta will be satisfied because she will be able to convince her friend to admit his crime and also save all the future kids from accidents that would be occurred,

* The family because will understand how their boy ended in a hospital

* The police that will arrest the suspect and

* Finally the driver that will be free from any guilt and insecurities.

Summing up, admitting of someone’s crime is indeed a very rare situation, but the state and the court must strongly punish these kind of situations. Also, giving this rare of situation, a credit must be given to the driver, who admit his crime and make an example out of this to all drivers that hit little children with their cars and run away.

Third option

| Do nothing | Her friend | The boy | The police | The society | Third option |

Nicoletta | + - | - | - | - | - | + |

Her friend | + | + | + | + |...