Crjs420 u1ip

Research paper: Law Moral or ethical dilemma My maternal uncle happens to be a police officer. One night during his usual patrols, he saw a car weaving back as well as forth across various lanes of traffic. He turned on his siren and went after the culprit who tried to escape. After chasing the vehicle for about quarter of an hour, the driver finally pulled over. By this time my uncle was really angry with the driver of the car. After identifying himself as the officer on duty, and holding out his gun, the driver stumbled out of the car, obviously too drunk to support himself. There was no doubt that the driver was over and above meeting the legal definition for driving while under the influence of alcohol. To his biggest surprise, my uncle found out that the driver of the vehicle was none other than his beloved father. For a moment he stood there dumbfounded as he contemplated what to do.
This clearly is a situation that requires a lot of sobriety, honesty, integrity and morality while handling it. It is such a big dilemma and after my uncle narrated it to me I took myself in his boots. Going by the facts as they stood, I would have not hesitated to arrest my father. It is evidently clear in our legal justice system that a drunk driver is a threat not only to himself/herself but also to other road users. In addition to that, the oath of duty taken by police officers clearly stipulates service to all, and that a police officer should always act with courtesy, honesty as well as with regard for the welfare of other people.
Clearly his father was on the wrong side of the law and needed to be apprehended, for the sake of justice. Some of the positive consequences of this decision would be maintenance of safety for other road users, prevention of potential deaths through road accidents and upholding of my morals as well as oath of office as a police office. Creation of bad blood between my father and I would be one of the negative consequences for my action of apprehending him.
Based on my decision, the ethical theory that best describes this approach is deontology which basically argues that individuals ought to stick to their duties and obligations while doing an analysis touching on ethical dilemma. This basically implies that an individual will pursue his/her commitments to another person or society since upholding one’s obligation is what is regarded as being ethically correct. A deontologist will, for instance, always maintain the law (Douglas, 2014).
Ethics mostly involves principles that are used to determine what behaviors are good, proper as well as right. Such principles therefore do not always state a singular “ moral” route of action; however it offers a way of deciding and evaluating amongst competing choices. Morality on the other hand is different from ethics and it comprises of generally accepted values of behavior within a given society at a specific point in time. Ethics encompasses rules for determining proper conduct, though not completely timeless, ethical principles do not change much through ages.
Morality on the other hand is the standards for behavior existing at some specific point in time and frequently undergoes changes. Thus, due to the fact that ethical principles are more stable and fundamental, ethics generally is larger than morality. Both phrases are similar in that ethics are an idea based on what one knows is right or wrong. Morality is mostly on the basis of distinction between evil and good or wrong and right. Thus, both terms are related in meaning and can be substituted in a sentence or word of mouth (Amy, 2011).
Beneficence basically connotes acts of kindness, charity and mercy and is understood more broadly to comprise effectively of all kinds of action whose intention is benefiting or promoting the good of fellow human beings. Least harm principle is close to beneficence. However it applies in circumstances in which neither alternative is favorable. Thus an individual in this situation ought to choose to inflict the least harm possible as well as doing harm to the least people (Zoe, 2011). Respect for autonomy states that ethical theories ought to permit individuals to control themselves and be capable of making decisions that do apply in their lives. In other words, individuals should reign over their lives in the manner that they want, since they are the only ones who absolutely understand their choice of lifestyle. Finally, justice principle generally states that an ethical theory ought to stipulate dealings that are deemed to be fair to all the parties involved (Michael, 2001).
Metaethics primarily focuses on the nature of moral reasoning and ethics. Metaethical discussions comprise of whether people always react from self-interest or whether ethics is usually relative. Normative ethics on the other hand, is based on determination of our moral behavior’s content and theories of normative ethical nature seek to offer action-guides processes for responding to what one ought to do. Finally applied ethics seeks to handle particular realms of human behavior to create criteria for responding to issues that may crop up within such realms.
Deontology theory argues that individuals ought to stick to their duties and obligations while doing an analysis touching on ethical dilemma. This basically implies that an individual will pursue his/her commitments to another person or society since upholding one’s obligation is what is regarded as being ethically correct. A deontologist will, for instance, always maintain the law as well as keep assurances to a friend. An individual who adheres to deontology will always produce extremely consistent decisions because they will be on basis of the person’s set duties. This theory offers a basis for unique obligations and duties to particular people, for example, those within a person’s family. Thus, an older sibling has a duty to offer protection to his little sister or brother while crossing a busy street together. Deontology particularly praises deontologists who often exceed their obligations and duties, a process known as “ supererogation”
Several moral dilemmas are actually dilemmas due to a particular type of conflict between the wrongness or rightness of the actions as well as the badness or goodness of the outcomes of the actions. For instance in a lifeboat, some people may be thrown overboard so as to save others or the fat man stuck at the entrance of the cave, ought to be killed so as to save the rest. This clearly is a conflict of good versus right. We are obligated to do what is right, and so the dilemma: If being right results in what is bad, or if being wrong results in something good, the moral obligation force may look reasonable by the realism of the good ending. This therefore gives the satisfaction of doing right, irrespective of the harm done, or else we can endeavor for what looks to be the most excellent result, irrespective of what wrong has been committed (Joycelyn, 2010).
References
Amy, S. (2011). Law, Ethics and the Biopolitical. New York, NY: Routledge.
Douglas, B. (2014). Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach. New York, NY: Waveland Press, Inc.
Joycelyn, P. (2010). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Volume 0, Issues 495-60034. New York, NY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Michael, F. (2001). Bringing Life to Ethics: Global Bioethics for a Humane Society. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Zoe, W. (2011). Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life. New York, NY: Beyond Words Publishing, Inc.