Ethics – Simulation Assignment

Q1. Describe the tensions that have arisen between your strong personal values and

your actual behaviour.

In a few circumstances while completing the simulation, I had to keep my own values aside

and take decisions as per the consensus of the whole group. I believe that the decisions were

quite convincing and up to the mark. The focus of the whole group was to take decisions that

would benefit the country at large.

In the foremost event, there was a need to take a decision regarding the ban of the pilgrimage.

The group went ahead with banning it. This was not in line with my personal values. I feel

that everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do and what they think is best

for them. However, my group members explained to me that not banning the pilgrimage

would result in massive infection among the people. It can become detrimental to health as

well as infrastructure. Many people could lose their lives as well. I understood their point of

view and decided to go ahead with the majority.

In the next event, there was a choice between being transparent or work towards reducing the

rate of infection. In spite of supporting the value of being transparent, I had to prioritise

public welfare. The group members explained to me that revealing details about the

efficiency of the drug would not be useful and create havoc in the nation. People would

refuse to co-operate and as a result, the infection rate would go up. However, the subsequent

decision taken by us upheld my values. We decided to make it compulsory for people to get

them tested twice. This would help in identifying correct number of infections.

I took away from these situations that there would be numerous times in life when our own

moral ideals could be at jeopardy. It is important to consider whether a decision will affect a
sizable or small population. The decision's consequences must also be taken into account.

Between my high personal values and my real behaviour, there was a lot of strain.

Q2. How did your team respond to losses and setbacks?

My whole group was quite delighted after getting good results at the end of the first four

events. To put it in simple words, we were successful in generating positive outcomes for the

country. However, while completing the last event, we faced losses and setbacks. We had to

decide if an assault should be ordered on the infected city or not. The whole group was

against assaulting the infected city as we believed that no matter what, we do not have the

right to take the lives of other people. The infection can also be reduced by using other

techniques. Moreover, as a part of subsequent decision, we decided to send one more medical

team to help the infected people. At the end, this decision proved to be inappropriate. It was

seen that the new medical team also experienced infection and the people in the nation were

dissatisfied. After going through this loss, we as a group decided to understand what we did

wrong and what possible alternative decisions could have been taken. We realized that the

third option was not ethical and correct. It involved leaving the medical team in the city and

not helping them. We then realized that it would have been better to increase the presence of

military and evacuating the medical team in the city by force. This might have resulted in

death of a few military people but would have been effective at large. Moreover, the public

would have not any chance to question the government on the decision. Studying these

previous possibilities was done in order to avoid making the same error again in the future

and not to prove that we might have done things better. When one is taking decisions,

failures and setbacks are unavoidable and as a team, our goals were to learn from them,

identify our mistakes, and figure out how to avoid making the same ones henceforth.
Q3. What value did the majority of your group members demonstrate?

Five different events were presented in the simulation given and every event expected us to

prioritise our values and take decisions which would be good for the public at large.

The first event was based on the decision of banning the pilgrimage or not. We decided to go

with the ban. We as a team concentrated on social values and took the decision keeping in

mind the security and health of the whole nation. As a part of the subsequent decision, we

decided to inform the public about the repercussions of visiting the pilgrimage. This decision

demonstrated our sense of responsibility towards people and being transparent. It can be

summarized that national security and responsibility are the two values which were

demonstrated by our team in the initial event.

In the next event, the group decided not to reveal about the efficiency of the drug to the

public. We would have not taken this decision, given a better choice as it was not in line with

our values. However, this decision helped in demonstrating the value of national peace and

harmony as revealing the information to the public would have resulted in higher infections

and complete chaos. Moreover, we depicted the value of competence by making it

compulsory for people to take one extra round of testing. This would help a lot in identifying

the correct number of cases.

In the last event of the simulation, the group took the decision of not ordering assault on the

infected city. There was an alternative of not allowing the public to come out of the city by

creating a fence and deploying military for the same. However, it was against the value of our

group. The decision taken by us depicted the value of expressing love and respecting the lives

of the people in the country. We refused to give up and tried our best to save as many lives as
we could. Moreover, as a subsequent decision, we sent another medical team in the city. This

once again showed the value of competence.

Q4. Which ethical theory did you base your decisions on in class?

It is difficult to identify just one ethical theory that was used to take the decisions while

finishing the given simulation. The theories used were basically a combination of

consequentialist theory and non-consequentialist theory. Being in the position of top

leadership, we as a group, made a number of efforts to follow the consequentialist theory.

However, it was not possible to follow it in some circumstances as it could have resulted in

huge losses and setbacks for the public. The fifth event depicts this in the truest sense. There

is a strong likelihood that the medical team might have become infected and not have been

able to leave the area alive, if one decides to send in additional medical support to try and

cure the infected people. The person might be of the opinion that he/she is maximising the

good by making an effort to reduce the infection rate. So, rather than attempting to make the

most of a bad situation, one can adopt a consequentialist mindset and carry out the

given responsibility efficiently.

Personal attitudes and experiences determine to a great extent either to adopt

the consequential theory or non-consequential theory. In majority of the circumstances, we

may have to make choices that conflict with our personal ideals and values, but they will

result in the best possible conclusion. It is advisable to be within the jurisdiction and avoid

further complications when we are unaware of the repercussions that will result from going

beyond the given responsibilities. In this case, non-consequentialist approach should be

applied.
Sticking with the consequentialist theory is more logical when we are totally certain that the

good exceeds the bad because we have higher control over the circumstances and maximising

the good needs to be the goal of any decision for the government. It should be ensured that

the decision proves to be beneficial for majority of the people in the country.