In addition, the public and the school are also involved because they do not support abortion. Jane has a moral stake of admitting that she has been eavesdropping on the conversation of her best friend, and act that is ethically wrong. She should be a loyal friend to Sue, who does not invade her privacy without her knowledge. In addition, Jane has a moral stake of revealing that Sue and her younger brother have been sexually active and that Sue is considering an abortion. The school has a moral stake because it needs to maintain high levels of morality and a remarkable reputation. Without a doubt, the moral stakes of Jane and Sue are conflicting. If Jane decides to admit that she has been eavesdropping on Sue, their friendship will be compromised due to the invasion of privacy. In addition, if Jane decides to tell the truth about Sue’s plan of carrying out an abortion, she will also be putting the interests of her brother at risk. On the other hand, Sue’s moral stake involves telling the truth that she has been sexually active and taking responsibility of her actions by keeping the baby. Sue also needs to identify the real father of her unborn child. It is Sue’s right to expect her phone call conversations to be entirely private (Fink, 2008).
Assuming you are a deontologist like W.D. Ross, how would you weigh the different moral stakes, interests, or duties against each other? That is, are some moral stakes “weightier” than others? Are some moral considerations or interests or stakes more important than others? Can you rank them?
From the case study, it is evident that Sue’s right to privacy is not as important as a violation of a moral law and taking one’s life through an abortion. In addition, Sue’s right to privacy appears to be less important than her indulgence in irresponsible sexual activity and secretly considering an abortion. In the case of Jane, invasion of privacy appears to be a less important issue than exposing the truth,