Case Study_ Applying an Ethical Theory Sherrif's Disobeying the Law
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
208
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by ariannemachgan
1
Case Study: Applying an Ethical Theory
Arianne Machgan
The University of Arizona Global Campus
PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Larry Baker
March 4, 2024
2
Part 1: Introduction, Case Study, Ethical Question
The case I picked from week 3’s case studies to do my essay on is “Sheriffs Disobeying the Law.” In the provided articles, the Sheriff has not followed the law and chose which law they want to enforce. Some police officers feel that some laws are taking our human rights away,
and they disagree with it. The credible source for this study was Peter Charalambos, the instructor provided. Charalambos (2023) stated, "In Illinois, 74 Sheriff’s departments have publicly vowed to deftly elements of a recent gun control law signed by gov. J.B. Parker, which banned assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and switches. The offices have vowed not to check if weapons are registered with the state or house individuals arrested only for not complying with the law.” When a peace officer doesn’t follow that law, the community will not follow those laws.
The moral side is to follow the law that is in place. When an officer is sworn in, they promise to obey the law. When the local community knows the officer well, rules must be followed. The central moral controversy is that the officer, no matter the job level title, is hired by the city to have self-determination, self-government, and independence and has the willpower
to put the law first. Officers should not have the power to choose what laws they believe in and will ignore. There is a level of order in the peace office. The level that decides on what laws to follow is not the sheriffs and police it is the court's direction. The ethical question based on the central moral controversy is; should a sheriff should be allowed to disobey the unlawful law. Part 2: Reading Philosophy Reflection
The philosophical text I picked from Immanuel Kant (1785). Being truthful from duty is an entirely different thing from being truthful out of fear of bad consequences; for in the former case, a law is included in the concept of the action itself, whereas in the latter, I must first look
3
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 go about finding out is also the surest. It is to ask myself: Would I be content for my maxim (of getting out of difficulty through a false promise) to
hold as a universal law for myself as well as for others? That is tantamount to asking: Could I say to myself that anyone may make a false promise when he is in a difficulty that he can’t get out of in any other way? Immediately, I realized that I could will the lie, but there is not a universal law to lie, for a law would result in there being no promises at all because it would be futile to offer stories about my future conduct to people who wouldn’t believe me; or if they carelessly did believe me and were taken in ·by my promise·, would pay me back in my own coin. Thus, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law. Kant, I. (1785)
The key ideas in the text are if you believe lying is moral even if it is wrong, bad, tribulation, and false promises. If you allow this universal law, “It would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law” (Kant, 1785). In Kant's text, the world would result
in “there being no promises at all because it would be futile to offer stories about the future conduct to people who wouldn't believe me because everyone would be a liar including the people being lied to” (Kant, 1785). After reading it three times, I understood that Kant stated the universal law of bad promise, but as I reread it, it was clear that the text explains that lying is immoral and that we should not lie. Part 3: Explanation of Utilitarianism or Deontology
For this section, I have picked to focus on the explanation of deontology and the core principles. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences, whereas deontology ignores the consequences and
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
focuses only on the actions (Thames, 2018)—deontologists label actions as good or bad. Deontological ethics are ethical systems that maintain that moral value depends on the action. 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 intention is that we are held to certain obligations or duties no matter the extent of the situation or the emergence of the foundation of deontological ethics. The first established credited philosopher is Immanuel Kant. He was an outstanding German philosopher from the 18th century. Deontologists say that the morality of lying is that it is unethical. Lying is an act of immorality. There is no scenario where lying is considered good. When put to the test of ethical laws, it defeats the purpose of ethical laws within deontology, like universal law. If we all lied, then there would be no truth. Part 4: Application of Ethical Theory
This theory is appropriate to the study researched by credible sources because it supports whether the action is appropriate or not, regardless of the actions. One case would be Disobeying
the law you are obligated to follow based on your beliefs. The police disobey a certain law because of their own beliefs that violate the constitution. The peace officer has to decide whether
or not it violates the Constitution. They are the expert on the law, and it is their job to make that choice. The individual in that position can control different decisions, which are people in the system of the courts. When an individual is a sheriff, they take the law into their values and decide which law they want to enforce, which raises many ethical concerns. When I consider a situation from a person who sees the world from the perspective of deontological principles, I see
it as unethical. If someone agrees with this idea and they would respond to the ethical question in
5
the beginning of the assignment, their response would be. The sheriff’s responsibility is to uphold the law, and they should follow every law, even if they think it is a statute that violates their constitution.
6
References
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In J Bennett (Ed & Trans) Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://222.earlymoderntests.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785,pdf
(Original work
published 1785)
Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning.
Bridgepoint Education. https://content.uagc.edu/books/Thames.5057.18.2
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