wk3 Case study2 .edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
225 125
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by Trooperjoni
1
Applying an Ethical Theory
2
Part 1: Introduction, Case Study, Ethical Question
The "Sheriffs Disobeying the Law" The above case study will unravel this case study. This case study gears towards sheriffs neglecting their duty to follow the law, whether by themselves or not, purposely or not, imposing
not to follow a particular law because they do not agree with it or believe it violates constitutional rights. The reference in this case study is an article by Martin Kaste on how a particular sheriff in Klickitat County decides to challenge a new law openly and say that he will not enforce it, believing it to be unconstitutional. This sheriff's name is Bob, and the article, Songer and Kaste state, "… elected sheriffs have extraordinary freedom to pick and choose which laws to enforce", implying that they can have a say in which laws they want to uphold (Kaste, 2019, para 3).
When viewed lawfully, an influential person of the law must uphold the rules, especially if that community's role is lawfully influential. When considered morally controversial, someone elected to do a specific role, such as sheriff, should have some autonomy. Not the type of autonomy that they have nowadays.
They choose which laws they want to uphold and which they do not. The court appoints this, not the county sheriff.
Given the ethical question
: Should a sheriff not uphold a law they deem unconstitutional?
Part 2: Reading Philosophy Reflection
Case Study: The passage by Immanuel Kant's Applying an Ethical Theory “Being truthful from duty is an entirely different thing from being truthful out of fear of dire consequences, for in the former case, a law is included in the concept of the action itself, whereas in the latter, I must first
3
look outward to see what results my action may have. How can I know whether a deceitful promise is consistent with duty? The shortest way to find out is also the Sures it is ok to ask, would I be content for my maxim (of getting out of difficulty through a false promise) to hold as a universal law for myself and others?
One could ask anyone to make a false promise when he cannot get out in another way. Immediately, I realized that I could tell a lie since there is no law for lying because it is of no use
to offer stories about my future conduct towards people who would not believe me or if they carelessly did believe me and were taken in by my promise, will be my token right back, making my maxim as Kant quoted “destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law (Kant, 1785).
Essentially, the key idea in this passage is that if you were ever to believe that there is a
situation in which lying is moral, whether it be to save someone from heartache, pain, or
tribulation, it is wrong. If you deem this a universal law, It "would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law" (Kant, 1785). As Kant states, the reason is that it would result in "there being no promises at all. After all, it would be futile to offer stories about my future conduct to people who would not believe me" because everyone would be a liar, including
the person being lied to (Kant, 1785). Reading and reviewing the text, my understanding of the text evolved. At first, I understood it as him stating an example of universal law, but as time went on, it sunk in more that it explained that there is never a situation in which lying is morally acceptable.
Part 3: Explanation of Utilitarianism or Deontology
In this section, an explanation of deontology will be provided as a base and the fundamental concepts that underlay it. Whereas utilitarianism focuses on the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
consequences, deontology ignores the consequences and focuses on the nature of the action itself (Eues, 2022). Without regard to the context in which they take place, deontologists assign actions one of two moral labels: either "good" or "evil." One possible illustration of this would be the mosaic Law, which most commonly refers to the Torah and includes injunctions such as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor," amongst other things. As Thames states, deontological ethics are "ethical systems that maintain that the moral value of actions depends on some feature of the action itself" (sec 4.1, 2018). Also, "… In classical Greek (the language of the early philosophers), the word deon means "duty" or "that which is necessary." The ending -ology means "the science or study of something." Therefore, deontology is the science or study of duty and obligation" (Thames, 2018). The foundation of deontological ethics is the concept that we are bound to certain obligations or duties regardless of circumstances or levels of importance. Immanuel Kant, a notable German philosopher who lived in the 18th century, is credited with being the first to establish deontology. As an example of what a deontologist would say about the morality of lying is that it is unethical. As I stated prior, to lie is
to act immorally. There is no situation in which lying is considered good as it defeats its purpose when put to the test of ethical laws stated within deontology, like the formula of universal law. If
everyone were to lie, the truth would cease to exist, and lying altogether would cease to exist as it has no counterpart for actions to be categorized as a lie or a truth anymore.
Part 4: Application of Ethical Theory
This theory is relevant to the case study presented earlier because it addresses
whether an action is appropriate or inappropriate regardless of the surrounding
circumstances. One example would be disobeying a law you are legally obligated to
5
uphold based on your personal opinions. This sheriff disobeys a statute because he believes it violates the Constitution somehow. It is not up to him to decide whether or not it
violates the Constitution because he is not an expert on the law, and it is not his job to make that
determination. It is up to the individuals appointed to the positions that control these
different decisions, such as those in the judicial system or the courts. When an individual like a sheriff takes these judgments and matters into his own hands and begins to pick which laws, he will uphold and which laws he will not uphold, it raises many ethical questions.
If I were to consider this situation from the perspective of someone who views the world solely
in terms of deontological principles, it is unethical. If the idea above were in question, the response would most likely be as follows: Since it is the sheriff's responsibility to uphold the law, they are obligated to do so even if they believe a particular statute violates the Constitution.
References
Eues, D. (2022, October 19). Deontology. [Instructor Guidance]. https://uagc.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/PHI208+%7C+Deontology/1_mfq9yu
yb
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In J Bennett (Ed & Trans)
Early Modern Philosophy
. Retrieved from:
6
http://222.earlymoderntests.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785
, pdf (Original work published1785).
Kaste, M. (2019, February 21). When sheriffs will not enforce the law. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696400737/when-sheriffs-wont-enforce-the-law
Thames, B. (2018).
How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning
. Bridgepoint Education.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help