Case #5 in the 2020 Nationals case pool concerns a newlywed Indian named Nandi. Nandi and his wife get some big news: #1 they’re pregnant. #2 Nandi “has received a scholarship to pursue a college education at a prestigious university in the United States.” They decide to move, but promise their families they will return once Nandi has earned his Bachelor’s.
Nandi not only earns his Bachelor’s, but is offered entry into an impressive Ph.D. program “with the promise of full funding and the prospect of a successful and lucrative career.” He accepts, and after 7 years away from home, receives word that his father has died.
Per Indian tradition, since Nandi is the eldest son, he is expected to welcome his widowed mother into his home and care for her for the duration of her life. However, his mother is unwilling to move to the U.S. (which would require her to leave Nandi’s four sisters), and reminds Nandi of his promise to return to India after earning his Bachelor’s.
At its core, this case pits personal ambition and family betterment against broader familial obligations and the binding power of promise. Can a win-win compromise be achieved? And if one can’t, which decision is all-things-considered most ethical?
The second study question is a good one, asking, “What are the relevant factors Nandi should consider when making his decision?” Factors to entertain would include:
The impact on Nandi’s mother. Depending on his choice, how emotionally harmed is she likely to be? How severely would finishing his Ph.D. before returning to India damage their relationship? (With transparent discussion, could she respect his decision and be reassured, or would anything short of immediate and permanent return be perceived as an unforgivable betrayal?) Would she be able to live comfortably without him short-term? (For example, if she’d become immediately homeless and starve, this would be reason to return now. If she’d be materially secure and emotionally supported by her daughters while Nandi completed his schooling, this would lighten the moral scales on that side.)
The impact on Nandi’s wife. The case doesn’t mention Nandi’s wife’s preferences or interests. Would she prefer to live in the U.S. or India? Is she pursuing her own education or career? Does she miss or have additional obligations to her own family? Is her delayed return to India causing grief with her own parents?
The impact on Nandi’s child. Nandi’s child currently isn’t able to visit aunts, uncles, cousins or grandparents. The child is also growing up immersed in American rather than Indian culture (maybe a bad thing, maybe a good thing – those who know more about Indian culture than I do will have to decide). What’s the general quality of life – safety, educational opportunities, recreation – where they’ve been living in the U.S. vs. where they would be living in India? Does the child have strong friendships?
The time remaining in his Ph.D. studies. If only a few months, this would mitigate some of the negative impacts of continuing his studies in the U.S.
The nature and potential impact of his studies. The case details don’t clarify what Nandi’s Ph.D. is in. Nuclear medicine or basket weaving? Sustainable tech or bowling? To the extent that Nandi’s studies have a real potential to substantially better mankind, this would weight the scales in favor of continuing his studies.
Possible win-win solutions. Might Nandi be able to complete the remainder of his doctorate long-distance with a handful of quick trips to the U.S., or possibly transfer to a school in India? Depending on her age and health, might Nandi return to India, focus on caring for his mother for now, and then return to the U.S. and finish his studies upon her death?
Win-wins are definitely a good thing in the real world. However, as any team advancing to the nationals knows, ethics bowl cases are intentionally written to pit conflicting considerations against one another, to force teams to make and explain principled decisions. So while it doesn’t hurt to have a few dilemma-resolving solutions in your back pocket, know that judges expect teams to be able to make tough calls, and are likely to change the details to force teams to make a principled decision. For example, “That’s great, but assume Nandi can’t pursue his doctorate long-distance? Which considerations would win in that case and why?”
What are the relevant factors Nandi should consider when making his decision? Help me answer this question
Lott, thanks so much for your question. Please check out the first five bolded items above. Nandi should at the very least consider 1) his decision’s impact on his mother, 2) the impact on is wife, 3) the impact on his child, 4) the time remaining in his PhD studies, which would have bearing on the impact on other parties, and 5) the nature of his studies — whether he’s training to do something that could cause some social good, and how completing, postponing or abandoning them might impact society at large. Cheers, Matt