Jackie, a 13-year-old, is the class monitor. In the school where he attends there is a rule that no student can play in the classroom. Some of Jackie's classmates who also are his friends start playing in the classroom which disturbs the principal in his office directly below the classroom.
On being asked by the principal for the names of the students who were playing, Jackie declines to give the names; his motive - which he doesn't reveal to the principsal, is protection of friends.
The principal gives Jackie two choices: either give the names or get punished, which inccludes loss of the monitor job, and the privileges which go with it. What should Jackie do?
IMHO. My considered opinion is this: Jackie should stand by his friends, calmly take the punishment - and yield up his monitor badge - since he fouled up on the job - and go on with his life. (He may likely recall the trauma of the incident in his dream states or his meditations during the rest of his life, and attempt to learn all he can from the experience, to understand why a school system would act that way. I would not phrase it that "he refused to answer the principal's request" but rather that "he declined to betray his friends -- which is ethical conduct, or even 'noble behavior.'
In his 12-year-old discretionary judgment, his friends did nothing immoral, and there is not need to expose them to harm. However, he is wrong about that - as I'll explain later on, below, for they did disturb another person - the principal and perhaps several others.
Jackie's own mentors, and/or counselors (perhaps his close relatives) ought to commend his protecting of his friends, and counsel him that it is no big deal that he is no longer a monitor {or a prefect.} Let him engage in other hbbies or activities; let him forget, if he can, about the dyssystemic mind of a principal who believes in punishment as a way of managing a school.
Jackie was though remiss in his role as a monitor, in not suggesting to his friends that they make no noise lest they disturb persons studying in adjoining rooms, or in the room below. He should work out a program so as not to make that same mistake again but he should feel no guilt, nor should the other kids, who - along with him - in their ignorance were insensitive, and thus immoral. He did err; but guilt rarely, if ever, helps solve a problem. In contrast, pangs of conscience are fine, and ethical individuals will have them. Yet there is no place for guilt in a healthy mind. By "guilt" here I mean "a continual berating and debasing of oneself."
In a world where Ethics education has advanced sufficiently Jackie and his playful friends will get sensitivity training and learn to be more considerate of others.
Let's hear your views on this moral dilemma? Where do you stand?