Facts:
Staff Sergeant Betty Jones (“Betty”) is stationed at Fort Generic, a large U.S. Army installation in the Southeast. She is 33-years old and has been in the Army for 10-years. As a staff sergeant, Betty is a non-commissioned officer and directly supervises eight soldiers. Until the last six months, Betty’s plan was to stay in the Army for another 10 years (to obtain a lifetime military pension and benefits). This changed when – six months ago – Cpt. Joe Smith (“Joe”) took command of Betty’s company (“Company A”).
Within a month after Joe assumed command of Company A, he began to issue letters of reprimand (“LORs”) to Betty. Also, he placed each of these LORs in her official military personnel file (“OMPF”), thus making it all but certain that Betty will not be able to re-enlist (her reenlistment application is due on July 1, 2022). The Army (as all other branches of the U.S. military) gives their service members the option of refusing to accept LORs and demanding trial by court-martial. Additionally, it (again, just like all other military branches) provides a free military attorney to advise and represent any such soldier.
Betty’s military attorney is Cpt. Jim Jensen (“Jim”), a member of the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General Corps (“JAGC”). Jim works for the “Trial Defense Service,” a JAGC department that is devoted exclusively to representing soldiers facing administrative and criminal penalties. Betty has been consulting Jim for the last few weeks to decide whether to demand a trial by court-martial: It is not an easy decision, as the penalties if found guilty at a court – martial are much more severe than LORs: The former can result in jail time, immediate discharge from the Army (under less than honorable circumstances), and a federal conviction.
Earlier today, during their most recent conference, Betty told Jim that she was dreaming every night about killing Joe, and that she was scared she would – before too long – actually murder him. Jim implored her not to “think such thoughts.” He explained that all soldiers would – one day – return to civilian life and that most soldiers do not complete 20-years of service. Thus he stressed that even if Betty could not re-enlist, her situation would not be remarkable.
He also said, “Betty, I am going to get out after my term of service ends. I will have served only six years. I will receive no pension or benefits, either. So, it is not that big a deal. You and I may be able to get pensions as civilians. The military is not the only employer in the country that offers retirement benefits. But, of course, much more importantly, no pension is worth killing Joe and ruining the lives of his family members – not to mention your life and your mother’s life (Betty was unmarried, childless, with no siblings, and Betty’s father died when she was a little girl).
And then he added: “Betty, promise me that you will not think these thoughts anymore. Also, I want you to commit to calling me – you have my office and cell telephone numbers – every time these thoughts enter into your head. I don’t care what time of day or night.” However, Betty adamantly refused to make any such promise/commitment.
When Betty finally left his office, Jim was, understandably, distressed. Also, assume that the applicable ethical rule governing attorneys strictly forbids attorneys from revealing client communications/anything related to client communications – without exception. This was truly a horrible scenario – a very knotty ethical dilemma for Jim.
Jim thought about his options for 20-minutes. Then, he took the long walk to Company A’s headquarters, where he asked to speak to Joe. Joe came out of his office a few moments later and Jim introduced himself as Betty’s defense attorney. He then asked to speak with Joe privately. Joe them escorted him to his office, and then asked Jim to “have a seat.” Jim responded as follows:
“Thank you, Cpt. Smith, but what I am about to tell you is so serious that I want to stand up – I also want you look me right in the eyes and take in every word. I will be very brief and then I must leave. I cannot answer any questions or provide any explanations. By talking with you, by telling you what I am about to tell you, I am breaking a very important ethical rule that governs the legal profession.
Now, here is what I want to tell you: You need to be very careful with Sergeant Jones – do you get my drift?”
Joe said nothing in response, but Jim thought his facial expression indicated that he was dazed (confused and scared).
So, Jim said: “I will repeat what I just said. I should not be here. I just broke the most sacrosanct rule of the legal profession. However, I am going to do it again, right now. Again, please look directly at me: You must be very careful with Sergeant Jones. Do you get my drift?” [Jim raised his voice when he asked this question.]
This time, Joe replied: “Yes, yes. I get it. I understand. Thank you, thank you.” Then, Jim immediately left Joe’s office (without shaking hands or saying good-bye).
Lastly, assume Jim reasonably believed that he was risking his license to practice law by providing this warning (though it was vague) to Joe.

[By the way, in real-life (as opposed to this hypothetical), the applicable professional code – finally (about 20-years ago) – changed. Now, attorneys are allowed to provide minimal but sufficient information to put a third party on notice if they reasonably believe their client might imminently try to kill the third party.]
Seven-Part Question
1. How would an egoist in Jim’s shoes have responded? Please explain. .

2. How would a social group relativist in Jim’s situation have responded?

3. How would a cultural relativist in Jim’s situation have responded?

4. How would a utilitarian in Jim’s situation have responded?

5. How would a deontologist in Jim’s situation have responded? Explain.

6. How would a virtue ethicist in Jim’s situation have responded? Explain.

7 How did Jim respond (what ethical theory of the six listed above) did he use? Explain. Also, would you have responded as Jim? Why/why not? Also, what ethical theory would you have used? Again, explain.