The moral dilemma presented asks whether or not Mr. Allen was morally right in stealing a car in order to get his seriously injured son to the hospital. Although Mr. Allen asked the individual if he could borrow his car, the individual’s inability to comply with these demands directly influenced Mr. Allen’s decision. The ethicality of these decisions made by the individual and Mr. Allen will be explored in determining whether or not Mr. Allen was morally correct in his actions.

Multiple factors need to be considered in determining whether or not Mr. Allen’s decision was ethical. On a basic level, it could be argued that Mr. Allen’s decision was ethical as he was trying to help his critically injured son. From this standpoint, the ability to save his life justifies stealing the individual’s car. In this situation, Mr. Allen had no transportation and could not reach emergency officials in order to receive emergency care for his son. If Mr. Allen did not steal the car, it could be argued that his son may have died from his injuries.

The decision making process employed by Mr. Allen demonstrates he is in Kohlberg’s second stage of moral development: individualism vs. exchange. This stage is characterized by the individual doing what he believes is right to “meet his own self interests” (Crain, n.d., para. 7). However, it could also be argued that Mr. Allen was in a different stage of Kohlberg’s model. For example, if Mr. Allen’s son was the doctor that had the cure for cancer it could be argued that Mr. Allen was thinking more about society and less about himself in deciding to steal the car. From this standpoint, Mr. Allen could be placed in Kohlberg’s fifth stage (social contract and individual rights). In this stage, the individual is more focused on what is good for society rather than what is good for himself. However, this argument can be made even if Mr. Allen’s son was not a doctor, but simply a member of the community. The people who love Mr. Allen’s son would have mourned his death. Furthermore, the community would have been impacted by this sudden, untimely loss.

It may further be argued that Mr. Allen’s decision to steal the car was impacted by his own experiences. Taeush (1932) further expands on this in noting that every profession has an individual set of ethics. In applying this to this situation, Mr. Allen’s profession and the ethics surrounding it may have impacted his decision. For example, if Mr. Allen is in a helping profession (doctor, counselor, etc.) he may have felt that his act does not constitute maleficence as stealing the car is ensuring his son’s survival. Furthermore, it could be argued that Mr. Allen’s action (stealing the car) provides the least amount of harm as it helps to save a life (Rainbow, 2011).

Although Mr. Allen broke the law by stealing the stranger’s car, it could be argued that the law was not meant to be applied to this situation. Under this standpoint, it could be argued that the law was developed under utilitarian principles (Rawls, 1985). From this standpoint, it would be argued that the creation of the law was meant to ensure people would not steal from others. However, in this situation, the ends justify the means and utilitarian principles would not be applied. In his theory, Rawe further expands on this in stating, “justice as fairness is intended as a political conception of justice” (p. 224). From this perspective, Mr. Allen could be justified in being less concerned with the legal principles being broken and more concerned with the prospect of justice (saving his son) in stealing the man’s car.

The stranger does not know this man that is asking him to borrow his car. Lending your car to a stranger can be problematic both ethicality and legally. The stranger does not know if Mr. Allen will return his car or why he needs the car. Furthermore, Mr. Allen has not asked the stranger to help him in any other way (such as giving him a ride or calling 9-1-1). Instead, Mr. Allen is primarily focused on borrowing this man’s car. From an outsider’s perspective, the man has no obligation (legally, ethically or morally) to lend this stranger his car.

Mr. Allen’s request would seem odd for any stranger. There is no way of determining how Mr. Allen picked this particular stranger. There may be other strangers driving around the neighborhood that could have been selected. From the stranger’s perspective, this begs the question, why was I selected? The stranger must question whether or not Mr. Allen’s intentions are good, or whether or not Mr. Allen is up to something that could inevitably harm the stranger. Although the stranger says he has a meeting, this may be a way of getting out of an odd request and ensuring his own safety. However, missing an important meeting could also be problematic for the stranger. Even though the stranger provided no details as to what the meeting was about, it could be something that changes his life. Therefore, the meeting could be seen as extremely important to the stranger and not something worth missing for an individual he has never met who is requesting to borrow his car. In relaying this point back to the individual’s safety, Mr. Allen’s actions in stealing the car would further demonstrate his need to deviate from laws. This may serve as conformation for the stranger that letting this man borrow his car was a dangerous idea.

This situation presents multiple ethical problems. Mr. Allen needs to get his son help. However, his inability to access transportation may impact his son’s life. Although Mr. Allen asked a stranger to borrow his car, he is not being clear in his request as to why this is necessitated. Furthermore, the stranger may feel apprehensive about this entire situation. However, it is likely that given the severity of the situation, Mr. Allen is not thinking clearly to realize that his request is odd. Instead, Mr. Allen is primarily concerned with his son’s welfare.