The Moral Conflicts Of Choices
Do you choose the quick solution or the long drawn out one that requires more effort?
We are living in an era where we expect quick results and actions in all that we do, but that isn’t necessarily good because swift action without knowing the full facts can lead to errors that may come back and haunt us. There is also the dilemma of choosing a quick solution that is convenient but requires compromise, versus an alternative which would be long term but would take up time and energy.
When making personal decisions we always have choices—do you choose what is right for you alone, or do what is right for everyone/the greater good? There is no right or wrong when we choose, but when we have a choice, how do we arrive at it and what do we take into consideration?
Do we choose a ‘selfish’ option over the ethical and moral one, and what do we take into account when arriving at that choice?
Will the choice be a short-term fix that might resurface at some point? Can you take that chance?
Life is so hectic and you don’t have time to pursue the moral option which costs time, effort, stress, and money. Therefore, is it worth it?
Short-sighted perceptions. It only affects me, and if others get conned/suffer then that’s not my responsibility.
If I choose to ignore it, then no one will know and I won’t look like a fool. Only the party who took advantage of me will know.
If I decide to pursue this properly, then it could stop others from having to go through my bad experience, and the result will be conclusive.
Why should I think about others? I want a quick and a quiet result with no embarrassment.
Take for example, you have an agent who manages your flat and they bill you for everything as per the agreement, but upon examining the invoices you discover that some of them are fake (no one ever saw a gardener, but the invoices claimed there were weekly visits), and basically the agent has taken you for a ride. What do you do? Take them to court and fight to get your money back, or do you write it off as a bad mistake and fire them? The latter is the easy and quick option as you swallow your pride in being ripped off. However, you have a choice to hold them accountable in order to get some of your money back (because it was fraud that you didn’t notice or were unaware of), and will also help prevent them conning other people.
What do you do? Writing it off means that you are allowing them to get away with fraud, and they may or may not continue to do the same to others. Swallow your pride and learn your lesson, and it’s over. On the other hand, if you choose to challenge the issue in court, it will take time, money, and is stressful. The endgame is that you may get back some of your money, and the fraudulent actions of the agent will be made public which may prevent others from being victims.
Many actually choose the former option out of embarrassment or shame in that they were duped, or mentally they do not have the energy to challenge the issue in a court.
This is a real story, and when the party chose to challenge the agent (after I put forward the pros and cons), it came as no surprise that they had been conning people for years, changing the name of the company every few years when they got caught. If this had been happening for years, then why were they still operating? It boiled down to people choosing to write it off as a bad mistake. As a result, that meant the agent was able to continue their fraudulent activities because people were not mentally strong enough to take them to court, or could not be bothered to report them to the authorities. Due to people choosing not report the fraud when they found out they had been conned, that has led to multiple counts of fraud where some people have had nervous breakdowns, and even tried to take their own lives.
While people may think that what happens to others isn’t their responsibility, didn’t they have a moral duty to warn others? That’s why there are reviews, but the agent may get them flagged or removed so that doesn’t always work either. I helped an elderly neighbour who I thought was being conned, and looking into a solar energy company they had signed up for, and saw that they targeted the elderly and had a series of negative reviews. I managed to cancel the agreement within 14 days for my neighbour and wrote a genuine review on their behalf online. The company saw it, rang my neighbour and threatened to withhold the refund of the deposit if I didn’t remove the review. I didn’t use any names, but they guessed it was me. I had no choice but to do so, but they wanted to install solar panels and the like when the neighbour already had them. It was a clear con, and they just didn’t expect anyone to call them out on it. The other friends and relatives of those who had been conned had written reviews which supported my suspicions, and as it turns out this company had changed their name several times to bury the negative reviews.
Therefore, the choices we make even if we think it is for ourselves and won’t affect others, could affect others. On the other hand, if someone who had been a victim had reported it properly, then it would have prevented others from potential harm. The same goes for crimes such as rape and robbery, by not reporting it, those responsible continue to carry out their crimes and harm more people. Often, the criminal becomes more arrogant and these crimes can lead to murder. However, the moral responsibility option is something we must choose to act on, and in an era where it is all me-me-me, people are choosing to look after their own interests.
In the above real-life case, upon discovering the agent had a history of fraud for more than a decade, how did they get away with it for so long? There were out of court settlements, NDAs, and they covered themselves as agents claiming they carried out the directions of the client, usually one who had a kickback and if they went down so did the client. There had also been some close misses where two former employers discovered the fraud, but the culprit resigned before it all came out and it was too late to do anything but to pick up the pieces afterwards to save themselves. If they had reported the agent to the authorities for fraud, then thousands of people would not have been conned and harmed, but to this day they are still mentally scarred.
When we look at the Ukraine and Russia situation, many knew that Russia did not voluntarily give up the USSR in 1990, and there were always fears that Russia may try and reclaim the former states. That fear was realised shortly afterwards with the war in Chechnya (1994), and 23 years later when Russia annexed Crimea in Ukraine (2014). It was a new generation who had not lived through the era of the USSR, and everyone felt safe with the existence of the United Nations and NATO. Should there be any problems, they could theoretically wade in and restore peace. That was the idea behind these alliances and organisations, but when push came to shove, the world can see that they are essentially window dressing, and a little like the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz, who said and did the right things to keep the public happy, but when faced with an actual issue to resolve was useless and hopeless.
The war in Ukraine has been raging for eight weeks now, and it has forced other countries to state their position on the matter. Several have admitted that they ignored the Ukrainian issue because of trade deals with Russia, and now accept that they should have done more to prevent the Russians invading Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. Had it not been for Covid-19, the invasion may have begun sooner. With this in mind, some are still taking a cautious approach when they know what the consequences are if they don’t take a proactive role in assisting Ukraine in defending themselves (World War III and nuclear weapons).
The West must begin to make moral and ethical decisions for humanity, and the stability of democracy on an international scale. Too many are worried about what the electorate might think, or how the business community (who are donors to their political parties) will act? There are fears of food shortages, and energy supplies being cut, but these should be weighed against the deaths, and other crimes that Ukrainians are facing by fighting for their right to live in a democratic state.
There are talks of peace deals, but Russia doesn’t want peace because they believe they are not at war and are on a peacekeeping mission. The UN wants a speedy resolution so they can file it away and look at other issues, but that was the mistake in 2014, and prior to that when the West could have acted to support Ukraine, but the media had painted it as a domestic issue, and no one wanted to get involved. The world no longer has a choice, and they must choose a side and they also know they will be judged but this choice. The time has come for people and countries to either support democracy, or an autocratic system with a dictator who has no regard for the international laws.
The world chose a short-term solution in 2014, with some monitoring and finger wagging at Russia and that was about it, and look at the consequences. A peace deal would just be a repeat of the illegal annexation of Crimea, with the annexation of the Donbas region, Mariupol, and Kherson. The West cannot afford to be complacent with a peace deal, nor will the Ukrainians feel safe with a Russian treaty either. Quick and convenient solutions do not work here, and the moral conflicts that the West must face are not only personal ones, but ones that represent the nations that the leaders act on behalf of.
Someone has to have the courage to take action when it comes to holding those who are guilty of crimes to account—it is not easy, and is mentally draining and scary, but is necessary for the greater good. When we are faced with such decisions, we might not be in the position to take the long-term solution, but it should always be considered, for principles, and morals matter. We learn from our mistakes, but also from the mistakes recorded in history. There is no quick-fix for a long-term solution, but we have the choice to choose that option, or the short-term quick fix, and take a chance that the issue won’t arise again. More than often the issue resurfaces, and eventually someone must pursue the long-term option for the greater good.
The moral compass acts with the need for justice, but how many will follow the correct path or opt for a short cut? Even when this war ends, the scars will remain with the numerous war crimes waiting to be processed.
Evening all, and thank you EL for submitting this knotty and eternal problem: the intersection of morality and self-interest.
And then there is "enlightened" self-interest, which rarely presents as the fast and easy fix.
I think that Britain and America, at least, have come round to where many of us initially began: allowing Putin to get away with this may have initially seemed like self-interest, but only in the shorter-term. In the longer-term, it is in the West's enlightened self-interest to see that Putin fails, both for moral AND geopolitical reasons. If Biden's comments at his last press conference are anything to go by, it seems that morality and opportunity are aligned enough. Those stars do not often enough align.
As for Britain - it is to be hoped that whatever happens with the government, looking toward the national council elections on 5 May that IF the Tories have their hind-ends handed to them, which is likely, it is to be hoped that Johnson's vocal support for stopping Putin by any means is continued. For Americans, please note that these are not Parliamentary elections in which MPs are selected and whichever party achieves a majority with enough MPs becomes the party in power - these are national/local elections, with only a handful of Parliamentary by-elections involved. Nevertheless, if a party loses 800 council seats, the fallout could certainly lead to a snap Parliamentary election (snap elections: the graveyard of political ambition), which the Tories would almost certainly lose, although Labour may still not achieve a majority. OR Johnson could be ousted with a No Confidence vote, and a leadership contest despite there being scant compelling candidates in the ranks to replace him. We will only have a better bead on that after 5 May.
So a change in government in Britain quite soon isn't impossible, and it is to be hoped that even if this does occur within a short time, the policy toward stopping Putin will not change. It is mostly Britain and America carrying this flag.
TC