The Ethics of Chicago Fire

Source: nbc.com

I have a favorite show, and anyone who knows me in person knows what it is. NBC’s Chicago Fire is a drama that follows the lives of the firemen and paramedics of fictional firehouse fifty-one in Chicago. Although the show is fictional, many of the stories and themes explored in the episodes are based on real stories. Having watched every episode of the show multiple times, I’ve seen many of the very real ethical dilemmas that the show decides to retell, and this week I’ve decided to examine one of them.

On the fourth episode of the first season, the firemen are called to attend to a massive warehouse fire. They enter the warehouse and fight through the flames to rescue several homeless people and carry them to safety. The fire chief, who is in charge of the rescue operation, sees that the fire is about to flare up, and orders the firemen to exit the warehouse immediately. However, the last man to leave, Peter Mills, notices a body in the far corner of the warehouse. He follows orders and escapes the warehouse seconds before the fire flares and fills the whole building, but the unconscious homeless man dies in the explosion.

This episode highlighted the difficult position that fire chiefs are often put in: having to decide between saving more victims and putting his men at extreme risk.

This is a great ethical dilemma to examine, because its premised on the fact that fire fighters are already performing a noble deed by trying to rescue people and put out fires. In this case, it is not good vs. evil, but rather which decision yields the most positive result. 

The Ethics of Pollution

Source: thehindu.com

One of the most critical issues of the 21st century has been (and will continue to be) environmental awareness and resource conservation, and one of the most critical areas to address these issues will be in the developing world. There is an extremely controversial argument raging between developed and developing nations regarding international pollution rights. Historically, developing countries have no done so in an environmentally friendly way. The United States is a poster child for this, especially considering the environmental impacts of the Industrial Revolution. Now, as new countries begin to expand and develop themselves, they feel restricted by outside parties which argue that they cannot afford to be as environmentally careless as past development arcs have been.

From an ethical standpoint, it seems extremely unethical to hold currently-developing countries to a different standard than already-developed nations--its almost like class-warfare on an international scale. Industrializing while also maintaining environmental diligence may not be impossible but it is certainly more difficult and expensive. Developing nations argue that they are wasting resources on trying to be environmentally friendly, which by default slows their economic growth. Therefore, many people in developing nations believe that they should be able to pollute just as much as past developed nations already have and should not be held to a stricter international standard for pollution.

However, many also claim that newly-developing nations simply cannot afford to be as environmentally careless as past nations, and that the greater good would be to preserve the environment of the world which we all live in. Also, developing nations may have external incentives to be environmentally-friendly in their development, as it will help them to thrive in a world which is almost certainly heading in a sustainable direction.

Hopefully, these two groups will be able to come to an agreement that will allow for individual nation growth and the conservation of the environment, because such an agreement is the only viable, sustainable solution going forward.