ABSTRACT
At the next meeting, one of the students stands up and reads out a prepared statement which accuses the professor of flouting a fundamental duty – to save the life of a sentient being. This, the student says, cuts across any considerations of convenience or other people’s requirements. The professor tries to justify his action to the students, who all seem to hold him responsible. He explains that if he had been a highly skilled surgeon, rushing to hospital to perform an emergency operation, when he came across a similar situation, people would have thought him highly irresponsible for stopping to rescue the dog. This, he says, shows that there is an element of weighing up competing interests and, the fact is, the class had agreed with him that the risk of the dog drowning was not enough to justify making 100 students miss their lecture. In moral decisions, the professor says sententiously, we need to have a system for weighing up rival elements.
