An ethical trilemma for you.

First up, I don't intend this to have a right answer.

Suppose you are the sole witness of an old lady getting mugged.  If you help the old lady the perp will escape.

Do you

a) help the old lady (who does not appear very badly hurt)

b) chase the perp (who you could easily overpower)

c) fudge the issue and give a complicated answer.

So c, then.

No, A. Read the first four words. If you thought that was complicated God help ya. 

We dont know what we will do. 

We can at best,  presuppose the correct actions, based on presupposed set of options we could take, and that is what your attempting to do.

Medical, ethical, moral actions are always being revised as new information comes in and a revaluations of correct actions and options becomes available via consideration of lines-of-relationhsip and those factors associated with each integrally considered, resultant set.

I started thi thread because tejretic asked about care ethics.

A 'care ethicist' would prioritise assisting the victim; 'tradtional' ethics might prioritise 'justice' and prioritise catching the criminal.

Some people see 'care ethics' as more natural to/for women, which is why feminism enters into debates about care ethics.

The correct answer is c.

b.

Catching the perp would likely prevent future muggings. Also, getting the old lady's purse back would be a way of helping her.

As a general rule, material possessions are less important than people, and I am not necessarily equipped to handle a hot headed individual with a mental disorder off the cuff so initially its sensible to prioritize the actual people I assume under my care (the perp is currently uncooperative, acting ably in their self interest, and strains my capacity) rather than their material possessions and allow the perp to continue their course of de-escalation which seems to be the best option available for taking control and ensuring safety among other priorities, and try to maintain situational awareness.  In this case, the old lady does not appear to badly hurt, but that is not yet confirmed, and she would know what she needs, or at least her immediate concerns, better than I do at this point. 

in a real sense probably b (tbh idk how i would overpower anyone)

Yeah, this mugger really needs to find a new line of work apparently.

If its a goomba, just take some shrooms and jump on it

On a less random Side Note

Upon reading the answers here it looks like my sentence with "taking" was poorly edited, as it should read something akin to **gaining for what it was intended to convey.  

Keith, I think that what you are referring to as "traditional" is still in need of an appropriate reference in the context from which the ethics are being handed from.

the only reason you would think that robber is a gomba is because you did take shrooms

btw the reason i chose b is simaler to stronn's reasons just add that she did not appear to be badly hurt

i guess it mostly depends on how much i see and what i see

Oh, you are right.  By that point you should already be twice as big, makes sense now