It is in my opinion (obviously) that there is no subject capable of sparking as much thought-provoking self-reflection as well as heated arguments than ethics; however, it should be noted that many people tend to confuse ethical dilemmas with something equally as thought-provoking, such as moral dilemmas. This is understandable considering the fact that both have to do with an individual’s personal conscience.
Here is a simple ethics bomb for you- say you are a diabetic and you can no longer afford to pay for you insulin, would you steal to acquire the money needed to pay for your insulin or just wait to DIE of diabetic shock? Self-proclaimed humanitarian Peter Singer offers a more complicated scenario involving a runaway train, a child playing on the same tracks as the runaway train, a man named bob who is close to retirement, a uninsured bugatti in to which he has invested most of his life savings parked near the end of the railway siding and (what would be to some people) a very difficult decision; the difficult decision arises when bob notices that the runaway train will most likely kill the child if he does not throw the track switch which will divert the train onto the railway siding destroying his $7million dollar nest egg.
Singer would obviously save the kid and let the bugatti get destroyed by the train, he believes the best way for us to benefit as a species is to do all we can to help one another. Now this scenario reminds me of the contradicting ideals of Adam Smith, which I believe can be represented using just two of his quotes: “Individual Ambition Serves the Common Good” which could be interpreted to mean the same as every man/woman for themselves; but Smith has also been quoted to say: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.” This...