Ethics case scenario
Suppose that Rosa moves away her children out of town because, based on the information she has gathered, she believes the move will be the best for the children and larger family in the long run and she wants to do her duty by them. As it turns out, through no fault of her own, the children suffer greatly because of the move and the cost/benefit analysis after 2 ½ years shows that the pain outweighs the pleasure.
Suppose that, 5 years later, a re-evaluation of the act in comparison to how alternative actions would have played out shows that her action, in fact, produced much more good than the other alternatives Do you think that we should (1) evaluate Rosa’s action as having been a good one, because it ended up being good
(2) say we won’t really know whether it was good yet because something painful might still happen, or
(3) say the act was first bad, then good, but might be good or bad later, depending on how things turn out. Or would you give another evaluation? Justify.