Would you call Chesley Sullenberger III a “hero”?
Yes, his skill in landing that plane under phenomenal pressure saved dozens of lives.
Not really. He did great, but there was no moral choice or self-sacrifice involved: He was saving his own life, too.
I'm not sure.
Would you call the civilian victims of 9/11 "heroes"?
The firefighters and police who died trying to save others were heroes. The others were innocent crime victims, but not heroes.
None were really heroes; the firefighters and police were doing their jobs, under orders.
I'm not sure.
Is a poor single parent who sacrifices his or her own material wants, and works tirelessly to raise three children in dignity and with strong values, a "hero"?
I'm not sure.
You learn that your doctor's license to practice medicine has been suspended for three months because she had an affair with a patient whose wife was also a patient. This is your primary care doctor, and you have found her to be competent, caring and accessible. What do you do?
Continue in her care.
Talk to her about what happened and continue in her care if and only if you are satisfied she is contrite, or that there were significant mitigating circumstances.
Find another doctor.
Here is a public service ad filmed in Australia (and aired in the U.S. as well) for a public-service anti-smoking campaign.

(For those without the Web: A four-year-old boy actor is taken to a train station and briefly abandoned by his mother, who is also an actor. When the boy realizes he is alone, he bursts into tears. (The ad message is: "If this is a child's reaction when he loses you for one minute, imagine if he loses you for life.") The situation was manipulated and child's anxiety is real. Though the ordeal seems to last about 30 seconds, the producers of the commercial say that effect was produced through multiple camera angles, and that the boy was only crying for five seconds or so before his mom showed up again.

Was this commercial produced in an ethical manner?
Yes. The trauma to the child was brief, would cause no permanent damage, and the purpose of the ad is noble.
No. This is heartless.
I'm not sure.
Here is the first paragraph of a story in Sunday's Washington Post:

LOS ANGELES -- With little notice and even less controversy, marijuana is now available as a medical treatment in California to almost anyone who tells a willing physician he would feel better if he smoked.

If the laws allowed this in your state or community, would you tell your doctor that you would feel better if you smoked, in order to get legal recreational weed?
I might enjoy the weed, but I’d feel odd or sleazy about it and wouldn't do it.
I have no need to do this; I have my own connection.
No. I'm not interested in trying / using marijuana.
Okay, and finally, inevitably: Is Capt. Phillips a "hero"?
I'm not sure.
Survey Software Powered by QuestionPro Survey Software