Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice and the rest of the Imperial Radch series touch on many of these ethical tropes. Being a trilogy instead of a short story it can go into much more depth, and wrap lots more plot around the ethical dilemmas, so none if it is just-so stories.
Working from memory, some of the one’s I can think of are (many already mentioned in this thread): AI rights, meat suit rights, colonialism, self sacrifice, immortality, governance, alien ethical equivalence, etc.
Then it is topped off with a device that makes almost zero difference in the plot, but a big difference to the reader. The POV character doesn’t have a good grasp of gender or pronouns, so everybody else in the story is “she/her”. Not straight up an ethical issue, except for the meta aspect of, does gender even matter?
Even on Earth, there are some languages that lack gendered pronouns (though I assume that those cultures still have gender), and so speakers of those languages, when they learn English, tend to default to the same pronouns for everyone.
Not SF, but the movie Abandon Ship/Seven Waves Away shows a similar dilemma. A ship sinks and the only lifeboat that gets away can’t hold all the survivors without swamping. The executive officer (the Captain is dead) has to decide who can hold on to the gunwales, who can stay on the boat, and who have to be abandoned. It’s actually based on a real case; the Executive Officer was charged with murder, reduced to manslaughter, and sentenced to a year in prison.
Larry Niven’s “Assimilating Our Culture, that’s What They’re Doing” brings up the ethical question: if you clone a human being’s muscle tissue only for meat, is it cannibalism?
Yes! this is the first ethical dilemma I thought off and I was hoping there’d be a story about it. I always thought teleportation HAD to work like a fax machine that destroys the original, it is the only thing that makes sense.
GRRM has a collection of sci-fi stories titled Tuf Voyaging that’s mostly ethical conundrums, with a recurring story line about a planet with a worsening over-population problem because any sort of birth control is anathema.
One of Jasper Fforde’s “Thursday Next” books (“The Woman Who Died A Lot”, IIRC) places the character on a literal version of a metaphorical ship (trust me - it makes sense in context) where she’s faced with one moral dilemma after another. Ironically, in order for her to escape the situation an ethics professor has to die.
Also - not SF but the film Eye in the Sky is a spectacular version of the trolley problem: a military team needs to perform a drone strike on a terrorist cell before the cell leaves its house and commits a suicide bombing in a crowded market - but if they call the strike, a young girl selling bread outside will die too. Highly recommended.
Caught Up in the Organ Draft by Robert Silverberg. How much autonomy do you have over your body? A decade ago that would be a ridiculous premise but in the last 5 years with mandatory covid vax and abortions being outlawed it is now a valid question.
Slipping in a casual bit of vaccine misinformation? There is a long history, in the U.S. and elsewhere, of limiting the right of stupid people to put everyone else’s health at risk.
In 1902, Massachusetts was once again at the forefront of the vaccine charge and once again, the focus was smallpox. As an outbreak spread across the state, the Board of Health in Cambridge issued a regulation ordering the vaccination of all residents… In 1905, the [Supreme] Court declared that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Constitution and affirmed that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint.” They also determined that mandatory vaccinations were neither arbitrary nor oppressive if they do not exceed what is “reasonably required for the safety of the public.”
Not at all but you cannot argue that a certain significantly-sized subset of the population argued that required covid vaccinations violated their right to choose a la “my body my choice”. I’m not arguing right or wrong, I’m just arguing that it happened and was an ethical choice. Even your last line “the right of stupid people to put everyone else’s health at risk.” shows you view the choice of getting the jab as an ethical issue.
To claim that it was a “ridiculous premise” and not a “valid question” a decade ago prior to mandatory COVID vaccination can only mean that you think it was a settled ethical issue a decade ago, and one settled in favor of the right to refuse vaccination without consequences.
Oh ok now I get it. My post might have been a little bit of “I know what I meant.” The ridiculous premise I referred to was the idea that people could be drafted to have to donate their organs. The way things are going, not I’m not so sure that it is completely ridiculous.
