Case 1: Obligations
Obligations imply relationships that restrict some behaviors. It is individuals’ moral responsibility to fulfill certain behavior to achieve certain ends. In the case of Brooklyn Museum of Art, the museum had interfered with the moral values of religion by distorting the image of Virgin Mary. It is the obligation of the relevant authority to apply moral reasoning and restrict such action.
The moral viewpoint would support Mayor Guiliani for threatening to cut off funds if the museum failed to remove such piece of art. Although the museum had a constitutional guarantee to display its artwork, it failed to consider the moral values of religion. The museum should show respect to religious beliefs by removing the painting.
Case 2: Values
Values are beliefs of what is desirable and avoiding what is undesirable. Values can be prioritized depending on their merit. The case of a columnist approving the American Nazi Party for eliminating Jews, the person who notified the dean of students about the publication should be lauded for doing the desirable thing while the dean of students was quite fair when he denied the editor from publishing the article.
The dean of students could have allowed publishing of the article if it did not infringe the rights of some groups. The staff understood his/her obligations and consequences of publicizing such article, which could raise tension among students, as well as the American citizens, who do not hold the same values with the columnist.
Case 3: Consequences
Consequences can be beneficial and harmful. The case of students being ignorant of the English language is detrimental to their career progression. It would a long-term problem that would haunt them during their graduation. However, undertaking a technology program would benefit them as they can get jobs that need little writing skills.
The consequences of ignoring the composition course intentionally would force the instructor to award the students grade D instead of F. An immediate problem can create a dilemma, which could, in turn, creates a long-term problem to students who would be seeking better jobs after graduating.
It is the obligations of universities, as well as medical institutes, to carry out researches to enhance their operations. They have an obligation to save people’s lives by attending to the sick people. However, moral reasoning dictates that certain standards should be followed to maintain values, and to avoid negative and undesirable consequences. Assuming that abortion is lawful under certain circumstances, abortion clinics can sell the body parts to universities and medical institutes, so that these institutions can undertake their roles effectively.
It is against human values to practice abortion. Abortion is killing an innocent fetus either on purpose or unintentionally. On the other hand, if the life of the mother is at stake, it is morally right to terminate the life of the unborn child. When clinics have fetuses at their disposal, it is morally acceptable to strike a deal with universities and medical institutions, which can create value out the fetuses, to create value to human beings.
Every action has a cost. The abortion clinics can face legal charges for terminating lives of unborn children intentionally while several religious groups are against abortion. When such clinics possess fetuses, they can take the priority of selling bodies these bodies to universities, who require them to undertake researches. Universities could be perceived as unconcerned about human life by making fetuses objects of their operations. They could also be accused of encouraging abortions so that they have a regular flow of resources. Everybody knows that medical institutes and universities are beneficial to society for eliminating chronic illnesses and saving the lives of people, hence they are blameless.