The lawyer can act morally by giving up on a case because he knows for a fact that murder is immoral. We also know that ethics is something that is imposed by the society, meaning subjective and particular. These are standards of what to do and what we should not do. The lawyer can act ethically by doing his job and defend his client. With the help of this analogy, we can say that we act morally if we stand on something that what we think is morally right regardless of the situation.
This is the reason why Rawls referred to the original position also as the “veil of ignorance”. Furthermore, from this idea of original position, Rawls developed the idea of “justice as fairness”. According to the author it is fair to decide the meaning of justice in the original position where men are ignorant, therefore they are not influenced by their proper envy. No one is jealous of the other, no one tries to steal other men’s properties for his own seek or the one of the whole society. Rawls’ aim was to not violate human rights, and with his theory, the violation of human rights is not possible due to the existence of the original position and the veil of ignorance.
The chapter about law and legal professionals by Joycelyn Pollock focuses on the legal aspect of the criminal justice system and the ethicality of legal professionals. The first half of the chapter sets up how the law relates to ethics, and what its purpose is. The law is a good way to see a written form of society’s ethics, because laws are tools of behavior meant to prevent harm to individuals and the community as a whole. However, the law is not comprehensive in defining moral behavior, as we can see in the way certain actions become legal or illegal as society changes. There are different views of how the law works, and we see these through paradigms, or models of what the system is.
A murder or a rapist causes a direct harm to an individual and could possibly incite an omnipresent sense of fear within a community, so from a utilitarian standpoint it is clear that these actions should be deemed morally impermissible. However, Devlin and his beliefs on human action fall short in situations in which a person’s behavior causes no harm. From a utilitarian standpoint no individual’s happiness is diminished and the potential for a society’s moral principles to crumble based off of this one action is unjustified. It is also presumptuous to assume that the behavior of one individual will eventually influence others. This concern of widespread adoption is simply one of an infinite number of realities that may develop for this society.
Kantians believe that to act from duty is to try and do therefore as a result of it's the correct issue to try and do and not for the other reason. The duty of the peace officer would be shield|to guard|to shield|to safeguard} the suspect man till he was found guilty and sentenced to a penalization and then he ought to protect him and not offer him up to the mob despite what the implications as Kantianism appearance at the motives and then the peace officer ought to follow and adjust his duties. However, if the person was guilty and particularly if the peace officer might be positive of this it may arguably be a distinct
Hence, a rule utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to individual moral actions. The good point of Rule Utilitarianism is it follows “moral rules” in which there are exceptions. In case of debate on the right to remain silent in Vietnam, like Act Utilitarianism, it will support the measure because we cannot sacrifice the right of some people to protect the interests of another group, but in case of that sacrifice is necessary for the whole society, we can do it as
Although the existence of moral obligation cannot be denied, the question as to whether we have moral obligation to legal norms is controversial. It seems quite true that there is no moral obligation to obey a law simply because it is a law. However, I agree that laws have an important function of social stability and order, in determining what is just and moral. This also brings cases where certain action is not immoral in itself, but laws could make it so. I was especially persuaded by the Raz's claim that the reasons for obeying the law must come from the reasons for having that law.
What is basic to morality is the inclination for benevolence—an integral part of moral evaluations. Hutcheson set out to prove the existence of natural feelings, like benevolence, in order to show that not every action was performed out of self-interest. One of Hutcheson’s concerns were that one’s natural benevolence could get caught up with one’s selfish nature, although he hoped people could realize that natural benevolence will allow one to see the higher character and thus one could understand and encourage what is best for everyone. Hutcheson’s moral sense theory helped to conceptually evade the problems that stem from a stringent doctrine of egoism. He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others.
Plato would apply his critique of the conventional life by stating the claim that following social rituals could have bad consequences. Mencius would respond to this claim by explaining that in the social life, consequences do not matter. What does matter is following the social ritual. Following any ritual is about following one’s moral senses and knowing right from wrong. This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame.
Just like active personality jurisdiction, this jurisdiction is based on state’s feel of obligation to protect their nation from external disturbance. Other than that, this jurisdiction focused more on the impact rather than location . There are three arguments that criticizing Passive Personality Principle . 1) Passive personality jurisdiction interferes on other state’s sovereignty. 2) Passive personality jurisdiction could be seen as unjust, for crime perpetrator possibly do not recognize that they already violated certain law and regulations of another states, which is different from his home state.