Is Morality Relative?
Read the article titled “Legal Enforcement of Morality”, located in the online course shell. You may also view the article at http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6826&context=jclc. Next, express the necessity of moral judgment in determining what counts as relevant harm, and then identify the appropriate basis for legal sanctions to prevent incidents of relevant harm.
Morality is relative if it is a consequence or action that is viewed as acceptable based on cultural beliefs, customs, subculture or based on certain time frames. Based upon this the moralistic viewpoint is accessible to the act of confirming a stage of morality as it varies and changes in differing culture.
Due to the nature of determining whether morality is a factor in consideration then comes the conclusionary concept based on situational scenarios that concedes and affirms that it should be applicable or not.
Involved in the analysis and conclusionary affirmation are the two factors Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Universalism that assist in determining whether an act of morality is relative. Ethical Objectivism helps with the view of knowledge and the acknowledgment that differing perceptions are factual determinants in the weighing and consideration. Because of this the argument begins to be applied for testing of morality and its perceived conceptions with thoughts and feelings utilized to explore the situation and gauge the levels of affectism that is perceived as correct.
Whereas Ethical Universalism is supportive of the level of knowledge with the view of all should be judged in consequential universality and applied to all changing variables and all circumstantial situations and actions. Therefore morality is ethical and relative with the concepts of differing decisions based upon universalism.
The necessity of moral judgment in determining what counts as relevant harm is used in relation to the idea of what action taken or not could become a determiner to judge whether a situation can be seen as a stage of intentional harm and is collective.
As a result of this, the consideration of the act allows the weighing of legal repercussions and legal reprisals that can be assigned or attributed to the act of criminality. Therefore, these restraints are utilized to constrain or restrict these acts (murder, theft, fraud and assault) that cause harm and enforce morality.
As legality continues to evolve the rationality exists to expound on the appropriate basis to construct legal sanctions or laws to prevent acts of relevant harm. These legal sanctions are utilized as designated by the court system and law enforcement to discourage, foil and acts as a deterrent for criminal behavior.
Describe one or two (1 or 2) circumstances in which conscience, guilt, or both serve as motivators resulting in moral actions.
Two circumstances in which conscience or guilt acts as a facilitator and motivator that results in moral actions is that one or both acts are an internal inhibitor and preventer to participate in immoral acts as follows:
Example 1
A policeman who is trusted to turn in all evidential evidence decides to take something from the raided site. Due to the nature of his conscience flaring up he puts the item back into the collection of evidence. As such this is a demonstration of his regular conscience acting as a restrictor and inhibitor and his “bad” conscience flaring up as well because he became fearful of being caught.
Example 2
A person arrives at a scene of criminality and finds a dead body and decides to take as much of the person’s property that he can carry and then calls 911. Feeling guilty he puts everything back and then leaves the scene. This is an act of conscience flaring up and guilt thereby causing moralistic behavior.
The acts of immorality are viewed as detrimental factors that affects the self and thereby a compromise to integrity and because of this the conscience or guilt becomes a red flag to proceed with caution and be a determinator to do the right thing.
Thank you.
Felicia
Question by Professor
Many immoral acts are not criminal. There seems to be a trend towards trying to criminalize many acts. In many police excessive force cases, people are upset because there are no criminal charges brought. The tradition has always been to bring civil suits, in part because the standards and burdens are much less. In administrative law, the government can bring civil or criminal penalties. In environmental and in other regulatory cases (think banking cases like the London Whale) substantial civil penalties, sometimes in the billions, are imposed, but no criminal charges are brought. Is this approach a vindication of the "moral condemnation" of the act?
Response to Professor
London Whale
As far as levying charges, the impositions of fines of this large amount is or was done in lieu of criminal charges because the scenario of lost or misplay was not his (Bruno Iksil) fault as he claimed. The dual book of accounts is what they are being penalized for therefore it is not a vindication or a moral condemnation ... it is a preventer and check and acquiring of funds. It is just a level of negative reinforcement.
Excessive Police Force
These are acts that are criminal because they (police) are the criminal with a badge and as such there is no protection for the average citizen if brute force is done or recourse. Legal reprisals should be done...no civil suit is satisfactory. Correct policing and procedures should be followed always. The act of being moral or being correct is bypassed by the rage exhibited towards the citizen.
Thank you.
Felicia
Reply to Co-student
I agree that morality is supposed to be a supportive and guide to assist law enforcement in their duties and decisions when the act of apprehension is being done or protecting the community.
Corruption is corruption and it is prevalent throughout every agency and country on this planet and because of this the act of fighting and challenging kicks into gear.
Further, I agree who wants to look over their shoulder forever?
Thank you.
Felicia
Response to Professor
The question is whether the police should be held accountable as citizens or civilians. Firstly, yes they should be held in strict accountability because we have entrusted trust and the position exemplifies corrective ability to rid the populace of criminal acts and gives a lot of power when dealing with the average citizen. Also, their position acts as a negative reinforcement and correction.
Further, because they have deviated and soiled their honor, word, oath and used deadly force and did not gauge the situation correctly or followed protocols then yes...remove those police who cannot facilitate a judgment call...please forgive me...these are people not animals they propose to shoot down in Florida.
In my opinion, they need to screw their head on tighter and think it through then act.
The police are held to higher standards but so is temptation to commit wrong. As such, the "blue code" is reflective of the cloak and hide and disguise and forget it ever happened.
Thank you.
Felicia
Response to Professor
The first thing that I did on my agenda to enable myself to give an opinion was to peruse the particulars attached to this case and decide whether Probable Cause is there. "Probable Cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal." Based on this definition then Probable Cause is not there since neither of the culprits are criminals the only person who had a record of criminality is Freddie Gray.
I would agree that based on my brief scrutiny that the procedure of securing the suspect was the cause of a majority of the injuries sustained and not a simple ride in a police van. Usual procedure is not to do an outright chase for other suspects to be arrested, booked, processed and placed in jail. As indicated the match of head injury matches a bolt in the van and caused severe trauma to head, neck and spine and this brings forth the questioning of why when all the police are capable drivers and even without being securely harnessed this person should have made it to the police station without these injuries. Further, I am sure that if reckless driving was done then it would have been reported and as such there should be punitive measures dealt to the person driving this van and the person who did not secure the prisoner correctly.
Further, I feel that this is a clear case of involuntary manslaughter and the question of who or not who does not matter...the lack of disregard for their position as a police officer shows and supports the claim they are not ethical or moralistically concerned with his death only the circumstances they are in.
A knife or switchblade is still not effective against armed police and the suspect was of slim build and surely not a threat against several officers. Also, the other option that could have ensued was the taking of the knife from the suspect with warning and releasing him back into the community and there would not be this situation now.
Consequently, Probable Cause, Intent and Involuntary Manslaughter is the charges that should have been levied and stuck to all of them and the "shield" that concealed their acts of terrorism and execution of this person. All witnessed accounts discarded, removal of video of entire scene of arrest from bystander by force and intimidation, overtly hostile securing of suspect and the pitiful attempt in performing duty where one suspect could not be delivered to the police department without injury after injury inflicted on his person. This all shows a lack of objectivity, control and who the true criminal is. The question comes to mind were they or not in a vehicle accident to cause the severity of injuries...and if severely injured why was he not delivered to the hospital and given medical treatment with a guard posted.
As far as Defense Attorney Marilyn Mosby breaking the rule of discussion ... any case can be discussed there are no gag rules for defense or prosecuting attorneys ... both have absolute immunity. This is all part of the job not a personal vendetta....She did the right act and by her assessment of the situation she attempted to have the charges levied and fulfilled and performed.
Irregardless of the level of the attorney any scenario that shows police acting overly aggressive and over zealous with the harm coming to a citizen will be looked, scrutinized and examined.
I feel that ethics did not play a part in this scenario but that intimidation was a factor and the comments were and are not an attack but a complaint that showed that justice could not be truly facilitated because of the "blue code" halting any more information to be given. As far as ethical conduct charges being levied against Defense Attorney Mosby...I seriously doubt they could make this stick or any lawsuit for money stick either....this reeks of retaliation.
Thank you.
Felicia
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/us/baltimore-marilyn-mosby-officer-lawsuits-freddie-gray/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-officers-return-20160730-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment