Criminal Justice - Assignment Example

Criminal Justice Eun Cho CRM_J 450 ASSIGNMENT I (Dr. BLOCK) Criminal Justice Every human society is governed on the principles of right reason that guide the member of the society in acting in the right way, i.e. in acting in a manner congruent with the human nature. This in essence means that every human society is governed by ethics. In some instances, however, people may not know the right course of action to take in a given situation. This is because the prevailing laws of the society are general and may not be adequate in resolving some intricate moral conflicts or dilemmas that the member of the society find themselves in. For instance, the law of the society may just forbid people form lying, but in some cases, for example in a case where one has to lie so as to save his life or the life of other people, the general law of the society forbidding lying may not provide direction of action. For this reason, therefore, people have different moral systems that give them in resolving moral dilemmas. My ethical system is the consequentialist moral system. The consequentialist ethical system is a teleological theory of ethics meaning that the morality of an action is determined by the consequence or the result of an action, i.e. an action is regarded morally right if it yields a desirable effect or consequence; on the other hand, an action is regarded morally wrong if it results in an effect or consequence that is not desirable. This essay will examine the consequentialist ethical system and how the ethical system influences my opinions of morality and ethics. The paper also will give a review of two articles on two ethical issues associated with my future career. Also, the paper gives two examples of concrete ethical dilemmas that I am likely to face in my career and explains how I would resolve the moral dilemmas. Consequentialist system of ethics as my Preferred System of Ethics The consequentialist theory of ethics is also called the Utilitarian theory of Ethics. As we have just said, the end result of an action is the determinant of the morality of an action in the utilitarian theory of ethics. What this means in essence is that the utilitarian moral theorists do not take into account the motive of the doer of an action or the means used to do an action in determining the morality of action. The utilitarian theory of ethics holds the view that that consequence or the result of an action can justify the means used to do an action (Pollock, 2012). For the utilitarian moral theorist, therefore, it is morally right to use a bad mean so as to acquire a good result. There are two types of utilitarian ethics, act utilitarian and rule utilitarian. According to act utilitarian, when faced with moral dilemma, one should choose the action that will result in at least as much happiness as any other action that could be undertaken to resolve the moral dilemma. In resolving moral dilemma, rule utilitarian, on the other hand, apply the general principle of choosing the action that will maximize happiness for the majority of all the people who will be affected by the action. The main weakness of the utilitarian theory of ethics is the fact that you cannot always guarantee that the consequences of an action will be positive. The utilitarian theory of ethics has influenced my opinion of morality and ethics a great deal. This is because I find the principle of the utilitarian ethics quite practical in real life. A comparison of the main principles of utilitarian ethics with the principles of virtue ethics and the principles of deontological ethics shows that the utilitarian ethics is the best ethical system. To begin with, the utilitarian theory of ethics criteria of determining the morality of an action is more practical than the virtue ethics criteria of determining the morality of an action. The virtue ethics criteria of determining the morality of an action is the motive of the doer of the action, i.e. an action is morally right if it is done by a moral agent with the good character formation and, therefore, good motive. Virtue ethics emphasises on the character formation of an individual. The problem with the virtue ethics system of ethics is that it does not provide clear guideline on how to resolve moral dilemmas. The utilitarian theory of ethics criteria of judging the morality of human actions on the basis of their consequences is, therefore, a far better and practical method of judging the morality of an action. This is because the utilitarian theory of ethics requires one to choose an action that will result in good and desirable consequences, the virtue ethics theory, on the other hand, requires one to reflect on how an intelligent moral agent with good character formation would act in resolving the moral dilemma that you find yourself in. The following example of my personal experience demonstrates how the utilitarian theory of ethics is more practical and a better guide in resolving moral dilemmas than the virtue ethics theory. At one point in my life, I was faced with a dilemma of whether or not to break the curfew at home in order to go out with my friends. The consequence of breaking the curfew would be that my parents would be angry with me for disobeying them, and this would mean that I would lose some of the privileges that my parents give me. On the other hand, the consequence of not breaking the curfew would be that I would not be able to go out with friends to enjoy ourselves. To resolve this moral dilemma, I applied the utilitarian principle of choosing the action that would result in desirable consequence to me. I opted not to go out because disobeying my parents would make me to lose their favour. Obeying my parents, therefore, was the action that would result in the more desirable consequences than disobeying them. In this example, the virtue ethics theory would not give me a clear guideline on how to act. This fact, therefore, shows that the utilitarian theory of ethics is more practical than the virtue ethics theory. The principles of virtue ethics are also more practical in real life than the principles of the deontological ethics. The criterion of determining the morality of human actions in deontology is our obligations or our duties. Deontology holds that human beings have the moral obligation to obey the laws that govern them and to do their duties. According to deontology, therefore, in judging the morality of an action, we should take the action that is in line with our duties or our obligations. Although deontology provides a clear guide in resolving moral conflicts, deontology, however, does can mislead in some circumstances. The following example from my personal experience will demonstrate how deontology can mislead and how the utilitarian criterion of determining the morality of human action is the better and more practical criterion of resolving moral dilemmas. One day some thugs broke into our home with the intent to steal. It was on Sunday late in the afternoon and I was the only one in the house because. The thugs had the intention of stealing from my parents’ bedroom and so they asked me to give them the keys of my parents’ bedroom. I knew where the keys were but I decided to lie to them that my parents had gone with the keys. The thieves, therefore, had to leave because they could not find the key. In this case, I applied the utilitarian principle of choosing the action that will lead to the most desirable consequence. A deontologist would in this case tell the thugs where the keys of his/her parents were because we have moral duty or obligation to tell the truth always. This fact shows that the deontological criterion of determining the morality of human actions is misleading in some cases. This therefore means that the utilitarian criterion of determining the morality of human actions is better and more practical than the deontology criteria of determining the morality of human actions. The reason, therefore, why I follow the utilitarian theory of ethics is that it is the most practical and the most reasonable theory of ethics. My current Career Plans My career of choice is medicine; I am aspiring to become a medical doctor. I have chosen this career because I am passionate about caring for the sick people. To be specific, I would like to become a gynaecologist. The main reason why I would like to become a gynaecologist is that I feel that the health problems of women are not adequately taken care of in our country. I was motivated to aspire to become a gynaecologist by an event when I was young. The mother of one of close friend died of breast cancer when I was 10 years old. My mum and I went to the burial and the burial was so emotional, my friend cried throughout the day. The death of my friend’s mother made my mother to go through a very difficult childhood, although, she was living with her father. This event made me to learn that women are the pillars of our society. Ever since that event, I resolved that I will become a gynaecologist when I grow up so as to be able to fight the disease that made my friend to suffer so much. To be able to adequately cater for the women health needs, I would like to set up a gynaecologist clinic dedicated exclusively to the health needs of women. Also, I am aspiring to set up a foundation dedicated to fighting breast cancer. Through these steps, I believe that I will be able to effectively fight health problems of women. Having looked at the theory of ethics that informs my ethical worldview and my career plans. Let me review two articles on two ethical issues that are associated with my career. The first article is on abortion and the second article is on euthanasia. “The New Ethics of Abortion” by Greenwood Joan In this article, Joan looks at abortion from the ethical and legal point of view, with the view of persuading the public to accept abortion as a legal and a morally right thing. Joan believes that Abortion is an important topic that should be publicly debated for the interests of the people. On the debate of whether or not abortion is morally permissible, Joan argues that abortion is morally right because it is good for the interests of women. Joan argues that women have the right to procure abortion because it serves their interest. In her review of literature on legalization of abortion, Joan argues that abortion has been legal in UK since 1968, when the abortion act was made into law by the British government. Joan goes on to argue in this article that the efforts of anti-abortion campaign is fruitless because whether we want it or not people who need abortion will procure it because the law permits it, albeit indirectly. Arguing from a utilitarian point of view, Joan argues that legalization of abortion actually does more good to the society than criminalization of the same. This is because with the legalization of abortion, few people will die as a result of failing to access safe abortion methods. Joan, therefore, concludes that abortion is both morally and legally right thing. In my view, judging from the utilitarian point of view, I believe that under some circumstances abortion is legally permissible. For me abortion is morally permissible in instances where it can lead to happiness for the majority of people. For example, abortion is morally right when it is done to save the life of the mother. “Active Euthanasia- Time for Decision”, by David Jeffrey In this article, Jeffrey reviews the debate on euthanasia with a view to appealing to the doctors to reject it for the interests of the patients, unless in some circumstances where euthanasia can be morally justified. Jeffrey is of the view that Euthanasia is important to study because it can be misused and lead to loss of innocent life. In this article, Jeffrey contends that with the modern advancement in medical technology, abortion can be misused by some people who are afraid of prolonged and undignified death. Jeffrey also argues that some rogue medical practitioners can persuade some patients and their relatives to accept euthanasia on economic grounds, i.e. to avoid spending a lot of money on a terminally ill patient. Jeffrey, therefore, contends that euthanasia under these circumstances and should be illegalized. Jeffrey, however, argues that euthanasia can be justified under some circumstances where it involves just letting the patient die, without taking any active part in it. Jeffrey argues that allowing abortion without taking any active part is not contrary to the sanctity and dignity of human life as the opponents of Euthanasia contends. Jeffrey, therefore, is opposed to active Euthanasia, but not to Euthanasia in general. Judging from a utilitarian point of view, I believe that abortion is morally permissible when it can lead to more good for the majority of people. On the contrary, abortion is morally wrong when it leads to making the majority of people unhappy; euthanasia is morally permissible in circumstances where it’s advantages outweighs its disadvantages. Having looked at the two ethical issues associated with my career, let us look at concrete examples of ethical dilemmas that I am likely to face in my career as a gynaecologist. As a gynaecologist, one of the ethical dilemmas that I expect to face is the dilemma of deciding on which client to serve first when there are a number of them in dire need of my help and I must serve one and exclude the other(S). For instance, as a gynaecologist I am likely to face dilemma of the following nature. Three patients come to my clinic in serious condition. One of them with the case of attempted abortion and she needs urgent medical care, otherwise she will die because she is bleeding profusely. The second patient is in labour and she has complications so needs to undergo caesarean operation urgently, otherwise, the mother and the unborn baby will die. The third patient is in comma due to breast cancer and she needs to be taken to the ICU immediately, otherwise, she will die. In these three cases I have swiftly to make decision on the patient to attend, based on my ethical worldview. In this moral dilemma, I would make decision on the patient to attend among the three patients in critical condition guided by the utilitarian theory of ethics, which is the ethical system that informs my ethical worldview. For that reason, I would attend the patient whose recovery would make the majority of people happy. For that reason, therefore, I would have to analyze each of the case and to find out which of the cases needs to be given the first priority. An analyses of these cases shows that the case of the mother in labour should be given the first priority because saving the mother’s life would also, most likely save the life of the unborn child. For that reason, therefore, saving the mother would be tantamount to saving two people. For that reason, therefore, I would attend the pregnant mother first. The second ethical dilemma that I am likely to face as a gynaecologist is the dilemma of having to decide on whether or not to fulfil the wish of some of patients who are terminally ill and who would wish to be assisted to terminate their lives. “Physician assisted suicide” as assisting the patient to terminate their lives is often called, is an ethically controversial issue as we have found in the analysis of the ethical controversy of Euthanasia. However, based on my utilitarian ethical worldview, I would make the following analysis in determining whether or not to fulfil the patient’s wish. In making this decision, I would consider both the advantages and the disadvantages, to the patient’s relatives, of fulfilling the patient’s wishes. If assisting the patient to end their life would be more advantageous to the patient’s relatives and would make the relatives happy, I would assist the patient to end their live. If assisting the patient to end their life, on the other hand would make the relatives to suffer more and to be unhappy, I would not assist the patient to end their life. In conclusion, my ethical worldview is informed by the consequentialist theory of ethics. As a consequentialist, therefore, I judge morality of human actions on their consequences. In my future career as a medical doctor, gynacologist, I will apply the consequentialist theory of ethics in resolving all the moral dilemmas that I will face. Reference Greenwood, J. (2001). Journal of Medical Ethics. “The New Ethics of Abortion”. Web. Jeffery, D. (1994). British Journal of General Practice. “Active Euthanasia- Time for Decision”. Web. Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More