In "Stop Them, or Let Them Go?: A Captain's Dilemma," Chuck, a Coast Guard Captain, maintains his "constitutional duty" is clear; "enforce the law" (Stop 1). Chuck is not so certain about his moral duty. He believes if he launches the inflatable, some of the passengers on the overcrowded boat will leap for shore though they are still dangerously far from it. He also knows his constitutional duty is to intercept the boat and return the would-be illegal aliens to the Dominican Republic. However, his dilemma stems from his concern over the potential loss of life and what he believes is the guiding principle of the Coast Guard, "above all save life, not endanger it" (Stop 1).
In measuring the "right" or "wrong" aspect of an action, the theory of utilitarianism maintains various consequences need considered, leading utilitarianism to also be known as "consequentialism" (Utilitarian 12). An ends-based thinker looks at the potential consequences of an action and measures its moral "rightness" or "wrongness" based on whether the action achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this instance, seeing no large consequences of permitting the immigrants to land on shore, Chuck should abort the mission and cite the sand bar as the final impediment to capture.
Chuck should adopt this course because few individuals will be hurt by this action. Some productivity and revenues will be lost to the Dominican Republic from the loss of workers, while some costs for public services will be accrued by Puerto Rico for the illegal immigrants. However, the illegal immigrants will work in Puerto Rico and add to its economy and productivity, so these costs will be offset. The only other person to face potential harm from the action is Chuck, since he may face ramifications of his choice with his superiors. However, this is unlikely since he will cite the sand bar as an insurmountable obstacle to appre...