4 moral dilemmas and analyze possible solutions from the different perspectives

Choose one from the following four moral dilemmas and analyze possible solutions from the perspectives of:

Altruism

Deontology

Egoism

Ethics of care

Utilitarianism

Virtue ethics.

Justify which of these moral theories provides the best solution to your chosen problem while keeping in mind the possibility that all of them may fail to do so.

Dilemma 1: Sophie’s choice

During WWII, a young Polish woman, Sophie, arrives in the Auschwitz concentration camp with her two underage children, a boy, Jan, and his younger sister Eva. The camp doctor, Jemand von Niemand, gives her the following choice: She has to choose which of her two children gets to accompany her into the camp. The other child will be gassed immediately. If she doesn’t choose, then both children will be gassed immediately. What would be the right thing to do for Sophie?

Dilemma 2: The volunteer at Auschwitz

During WWII, Father Kolbe, a priest, is imprisoned and sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp. Although he struggles with the imposed physical labor in the camp, his preaching offers hope to the other prisoners. One night, a prisoner manages to escape. Next morning, all the remaining prisoners are rounded up. The camp commander states that as collective punishment for the escape of a prisoner, ten prisoners will have to enter the starvation bunker and starve to death. Of the ten randomly chosen prisoners, one of them, a young man Kolbe has never seen before, starts lamenting that he’ll never see his wife and child again. Father Kolbe is an old man with no children or family. Should he volunteer to take the young prisoner’s place or should he keep quiet and let the young man die?

Dilemma 3: Tragedy of the commons

Suppose there is a pasture open to all who want to let their cattle graze there. Each herdsman is rational and wants to maximize his gain. For each herdsman, the positive utility of adding an additional animal to his herd is nearly +1 because he gets to keep all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal. For each herdsman. the negative utility of adding an additional animal to his herd is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. However, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen. Thus, the negative utility for any particular herdsman is only a fraction of -1. Adding up the utilities, each rational herdsman concludes that the sensible course for him is to add another animal to his herd. And another, and another, and so on. But every rational herdsman in the commons reaches the same conclusion by the same kind of reasoning. This leads to the destruction of the commons through overgrazing. What would be the right thing to do for each herdsman? (Note that this dilemma can be generalized to all common resources, such as air, drinking water, oil, fish, etc.)

Dilemma 4: The problem of posterity

Each generation and each human in each generation lives only once. Each living human being prefers to maximize his or her well-being. All this was true of past generations and will be true of future generations. The maintenance of life and the satisfaction of human desires, requires the expenditure of natural resources. These resources are finite, despite possible future scientific discoveries or technological innovations. Should currently living human beings limit their use of natural resources, thereby foregoing the maximization of their well-being, in order to leave natural resources for future generations?

please make a clear answers and stay on the subject 🙂