Here we have the classic dilemma between the spirit and the letter of the law, or, as Vere frames it, the conflict between conscience and law. Because laws exist to support the integrity of a society and because laws receive their strength from those who enforce them, logic calls for the equal and firm application of those laws. Traditionally, people think of justice as being blind, and for good reason: once the adjudicator begins to base his judgments on mitigating, particular, or personal circumstances and considerations, he threatens the very fabric of the law and, by extension, the very fabric of society. However, the firm application of the law means little if that law itself is unjust. Despite the logic of Captain Vere’s arguments, especially
But this shows the book’s central conflict between personal codes of ethics. It makes us question if society’s laws must always be followed and what circumstances garner breaking the rules. I personally believe that when you do not agree that the laws pay respect to everyone’s equal opportunity to live out their own good life, you have the responsibility to change it. Just as Martin Luther King once wrote, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (Letter).
Developing from the reasoning of (Russ Shafer-Landau, p.p 13), it is clear that there is a difference between normative ethics and metaethics. Normative ethics are those values that develop from within a personality and are always employed whenever ethics are breached. On the other hand the metaethics is basically the diverse elements that are considered crucial for building positive ethical believes. (Shafer-Landau, p.p 29), also brings forward other moral ethical elements such as the moral error theory, the desire-satisfaction theory, ethical particularism and the doctrine of double effects. All the above elements are crucial for shaping ones ethical perspectives and inclinations leave alone resolving ethical issues within a society.
Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility..
Rational choice theory is the most useful for understanding white collar crime. These are crimes that often require specialized knowledge, or access. They are often committed by individuals with advanced educations. This theory is vital to contemporary political science in addition to other chastisements for instance sociology and philosophy. The core of the rational choice theory can often be challenged amongst several courses of encounters, people typically do according to what they consider to result in the best inclusive outcome.
You can do one thing or you can do another, kill a man or take a tire off his car, because sooner or later you’re going to...be punished for it” (O’Connor, 620). In the eyes of the Misfit, all crimes are held to the same degree, because no one is better than anyone else or
In every day life, we face many situations that require a moral decision. We have to decide what is right and what is wrong? Not always is this an easy task thus, it seems important to analyze how we make our moral decisions. I will start with an analysis of how we make decisions in general
The question of morality in a criminal case has always been a topic of concern. A question arises when considering the following; does a good cause justify a serious crime? In John Brown’s case, he uses the abolitionist’s cause to justify the murder of several men. Though his intentions were good, and his cause was mighty, it’s not morally sound to murder people. Many would argue that he was a hero, that fighting for the end of slavery in the manner he did was an act of bravery.
Every moment in our life we must make decisions – some of lesser or of greater importance. For many of these decisions, personal ethics and our moral code are involved. However, sometimes what distinguishes something to be moral or not is subjective, or not clear-cut. A good example of this is the hypothetical trolley scenarios. The Switch and Footbridge versions of the trolley problem are different but both present the choice to save five people and kill one, or kill five people and save one.
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that
The chapter about law and legal professionals by Joycelyn Pollock focuses on the legal aspect of the criminal justice system and the ethicality of legal professionals. The first half of the chapter sets up how the law relates to ethics, and what its purpose is. The law is a good way to see a written form of society’s ethics, because laws are tools of behavior meant to prevent harm to individuals and the community as a whole. However, the law is not comprehensive in defining moral behavior, as we can see in the way certain actions become legal or illegal as society changes. There are different views of how the law works, and we see these through paradigms, or models of what the system is.
A few moral problem hypotheses are condensed as takes after. Deontology relies on upon the expectations of a man settling on the choice or performing the demonstration. Hypotheses of equity clarify moral choices on the premise of reasonableness and fairness. Speculations of rights as from the name show that the most moral choice will be in view of ensuring people groups' correct that may conceivably be influenced by the choice. Social contract hypotheses hold that when people turn into a piece of a greater group, for example, an association of a neighborhood group then they consent to share the estimations of that gathering furthermore consents to the method for coming to the settled upon objectives.
While we have established that Robin Hood has a moral standing to take action against corruption and that he has a respect for the law when rulers are just, we have not yet eased Lincoln’s concerns that these lawbreakers are actually setting a dangerous precedent. Robin Hood’s actions can only be considered compatible with the law if they do not perpetuate a strenuous relationship between citizens and civic
What’s the Right Thing to do? by Michael J. Sandel discusses how there are three different approaches to justice: welfare, virtue, and freedom. The theme of the book is on how and what is considered moral. He introduces several perspectives on morality and we as readers are given insight into what people of different groups consider the rights and wrongs of morality. Some of these different beliefs are utilitarianism, libertarianism, and different philosophers views.
Ross’s moral theory can be thought of as a compromise between utilitarianism and Kantianiasm. Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of: 1.
