Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Author
Institution
THE LOTTERY TICKET DILEMMA
2
Introduction
Decision-making has been a fundamental aspect of human beings for a long time. Every
day, an individual has to make varied decisions, each of which come with conflicting aspects,
benefits and limitations. In most cases, it is not difficult to make a choice as one alternative with
undoubtedly be clearly better than the others. However, this does not in any way undermine or
negate the difficulty that comes with decision-making. Different individuals use different thought
patterns in coming up with the appropriate decision or course of action. These thought patterns
have been coherently devised and summarized into theories that would inform decision-making
In this case, a neighbor has given clear instructions stating that his dollar should not be
mixed in buying a lottery ticket just in case his lottery ticket wins. However, the individual buys
two tickets one with his own money and the other with the neighbors money but does not mix the
lottery tickets. Indeed, the neighbors lottery ticket wins $1.8 million, money which the
individual desperately needs to cover up the financial quagmire in which he is. The individual is,
therefore, in a dilemma as to whether he should give up the ticket and inform the neighbor that
his ticket won the money or he should keep the ticket and tell the neighbor that his ticket was
unlucky. Varied theories would provide different explanations for any course of action that the
Ethical egotist
As an ethical egotist, I would undoubtedly keep the ticket to myself and inform my
neighbor that his ticket did not win. Ethical egoism underlines the notion that it is imperative and
sufficient for a course of action to be morally appropriate as long as it optimizes the interests of
THE LOTTERY TICKET DILEMMA
3
an individual. Ethical egoism is primarily divided into three categories including individual,
personal and universal ethical egoism. Personal ethical egoism underlined the belief that my
actions should only be motivated by self interests but is silent on the motivations for other
peoples actions. Individual ethical egoism underlines the belief that the actions of all individuals
should be geared towards benefiting me (Garsten & Hernes, 2009). Universal ethical egoism, on
the other hand, underlines the notion that all individuals should pursue their own self interests
and seek to benefit themselves. Needless to say, all of them point at taking the course of action
that would be beneficial to me (Garsten & Hernes, 2009). With deficits in my rent and car
payments and needing the money to pay for my college education, it goes without saying that I
could do with some extra money. The action that would be most beneficial to me (or rather one
that comes closest to self interest) is keeping the ticket to myself so I can have the money. As a
personal ethical egotist, the action that comes closest to self interest is keeping the ticket just as
is the case for Universal ethical egoism. For individual ethical egoism, the actions of my
neighbor should be pointing towards benefiting me, which is only attainable if I keep the
winning ticket.
One of the key weaknesses pertaining to the application of this theory is the founded on
the fact that it makes no consideration for moral duties of even prima facie good or benefit
beyond self interests and personal happiness (Moore, 1998). Failure to consider the moral duties
that an individual has would give a leeway for individuals to undertake atrocities in the name of
self interest. In the case study provided, I would undoubtedly not consider my moral duty to give
my neighbor the winning ticket, which was bought with the dollars that he had instructed me to
set aside and not mix with mine just in case his money got the winning lottery ticket.
THE LOTTERY TICKET DILEMMA
4
Nevertheless, this theory comes as extremely easy to apply. All that I would have to worry about
or consider is which of the options would be most beneficial to me. It gives me the capacity to do
what I want in this case and almost affords me personal relativism with regard to freedom of
choice.
relativism. Cultural relativism underlines the prescriptive perspective that different societies or
groups of people should have varying ethical standards for assessing acts as wrong or right
(Moore, 1998). In addition, it holds the notion that these varying beliefs are true and valid in the
respective societies (Garsten & Hernes, 2009). On the same note, the different beliefs should not
For the case provided, I would have to give my neighbor the ticket that won. This is
because I live in a society that values honesty and would detest any action that tends to go
against this moral action. Considering that the neighbor had, in fact, told me to keep his money
aside just in case it wins, it, therefore, follows that the ticket that I bought with his money was in
all respects his. This is especially considering that I had actually set it aside in which case I know
that the ticket is his. In essence, keeping it to myself and giving him the ticket that I bought with
my money would go against the societal values, norms and guidelines pertaining to what is
considered morally and ethically right. In this regard, I would have to give the winning ticket to
him.
However, following this theory comes with certain weaknesses. This is especially
considering that there is an element of uncertainty, with what is considered morally right being a
THE LOTTERY TICKET DILEMMA
5
matter of opinion (Pollock, 2012). In essence, different people in the society would give different
answers to exactly what I should do depending on their motives. This is all in line with
respective personal opinion. The society in its entirety holds the opinion that being honest is the
right thing to do, yet every case would have to be treated differently depending on personal
opinion.
Nevertheless, the fact that there is no absolute right as far as following this theory is
concerned makes is easy for decision making as all I would have to consider are the values and
However, my personal decision would not be restricted within these theories. In fact,
their application may be a bit difficult, thanks to balancing act that I have to do pertaining to the
interests of the society (my neighbor) and meeting my bills. Needless to say, the money would go
a long way in eliminating the financial problems that I have. This means that I would have to
balance between assuaging my conscience and giving the neighbor what is due to him.
Considering that a lottery ticket comes with the probability of winning or losing, I would divide
the money with my neighbor. This is especially considering that he was simply joking when he
stated that I separate his money from mine when buying. In any case, there is no guarantee that
he would have gotten the winning lottery ticket had he gone to buy it himself. In essence, I
would divide the money with him as a recognition of the fact that winning came as a result of our
combined effort. I had played an immense (and crucial role) of buying the ticket and he had
provided the all-important money with which I had bought the winning ticket. In this way, I
would be assured of calming my heart and conscience in the knowledge that I have not robbed
the individual of his money and my effort has not gone to waste as well. On the same note, I
would have been at liberty to mix up his money with mine and probably still gotten the winning
THE LOTTERY TICKET DILEMMA
6
lottery ticket. This underlines the fact that the winning lottery ticket was not solely assigned to
my neighbors money rather in simply happened to be the lucky buyer, a factor that is
independent of the fact that I was using his money. The winning lottery ticket is not a function of
the money used rather it was of the action of buying itself, in which case even sharing the money
References
Moore, J. (1998). Moral search: Humanitarian intervention in internal conflicts. Boulder, Colo:
Garsten, C., & Hernes, T. (2009). Ethical dilemmas in management. London: Routledge.
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: