There is no proof of any crime, so there should not have been a guilty verdict. The Ewells could have been lying because most likely Mayella tempted Tom. Back then if you were involved with a colored person you were disgraced by the whole town. Mayella could have been trying to cover this up and get Tom arrested so he wouldn't be able to tell anyone. The jury convicted Tom Robinson because he was colored and back then white people believed they had to stick together against the colored people.
In Fitzgerald v Kennard , the court was asked to consider whether it is necessary to prove that an accused adverted to the issue of whether or not the complaint was consenting, in order to establish an offence under s 61L. In the same case, Cole JA made a reference to Kirby P’s judgment in R v Kitchener . He agreed to what Kirby P said: “Every individual has a right to the human dignity of his or her own person. Having sexual intercourse with another, without the consent of that other, amounts to an affront to that other’s human dignity and an invasion of the privacy of that person’s body and personality.” Fault elements of these
To explain this further, he walks her through what the request would have resulted in. The situation, in his eyes, is that he was asked to “solicit a great man, to whom [he] never spoke, for a young person whom [he] had never seen, upon a supposition which [he] had no means of knowing true.” He does this to show that he is willing to share his perspective and that he respects her enough to walk her through it, instead of blatantly saying no without any reason. The mother’s request is logically reasoned inductively to be irrational, leaving him no possible reason or possible procedure to accomplish the task at hand. While it may not have been this extreme, Johnson effectively and logically convinces the mother that she made a mistake in drafting such a letter. On top of this, the response’s wording makes Johnson seem generous but helpless.
He could choose to compensate Boris to stay back and meet the client which illustrates a utilitarian approach (Eggleston, 2012). The manager could also take an ethical approach of right and justice (Crane & Matten, 2010) due to employment entitlement of leave, he has to let Boris makes his own decision or having another replacement to meet the client. The manager identified to be Maxim 2 of human dignity (Kant, 1997). Swee Lan’s ethical dilemma discussed concerns her response to Boris dilemma. Firstly, using her egoistic approach (Longenecker, McKinney & Moore, 1989) and utilitarianism (Eggleston, 2012), she could make her decision for Boris to go for the holiday with her, meeting her parents which results in everyone to be happy.
In Peter Satori Co. the Board found that there was intent to avoid the reaching of an agreement because the employer "coupled a determination to yield nothing of substance to the Union with an attitude of offering its proposals on a take it-or-leave-it basis." In both cases the Board's reasoning was consistent in that it centred on whether the employer's firmness was intended to frustrate agreement. However, what constituted bad faith in the Satori case seems to be the very attitude which was condoned in the American Sanitary Wipers case and one is still unsure of the status given an adamant employer. Thus, while the Board seems to have no problem in reconciling the conflict in the Act in the reasoning it uses, it most certainly has encountered
The beginning of the article discusses the ethical dilemmas during client support. It argues about two situations in which ethics needs to be considered. Some people argue that ethics is required in every case, while others disagree. However, the article says that value based decisions are needed in a social worker’s decision other than simply considering knowledge. A missed balance between value and knowledge can create a certain problem while making a decision.
In the experience, the command that required me to admit I was guilty and evil since birth surely could not be considered justified, not mentioning in my eyes their source of power was not legitimate as well. Some people would contend that both sides in that room still had a kind of consensus, which is that a person should not offense the party. However, when facing an authority with his unforeseeable possible punitive resorts, the only way to avoid them is not to explicitly arguing against him. A seemly agreeable attitude did not represent a shared consensus in this case. Without just reasons and the existence of a consensus, finally, it will lead to the use of coercion or inducement (Scott, 2001, p. 21), as Durkheim argued.
Distinguish on ethical grounds between ‘doing what you think is right’ and ‘doing the right thing’. Explain with examples. Every human being (by ricochet business, institution or government) has to bear the good and bad consequences of his acts. The bottom line is always to derive pleasure and happiness from a work well done or feel disgusted or aggrieved if things turn wrong. So there is always some kind of social, economic or professional pressure in the decision making process since the decided course of action greatly influence the end-result.
They possess two or more competing solutions that are morally correct, but acting on one would mean transgressing the others. Potential solutions of ethical dilemmas are guided by societal, cultural and personal ethical guidelines. In the public relations industry, public relations practitioners often find themselves tied up in complex ethical dilemmas as they strive to confront the pressures of twisting the truth to suit the client’s interest (Bowen,
It doesn’t matter whether somebody has the decision willingly or under somebody else’s pressure. Not taking any decision is also a decision. It is ultimately the cumulative effect of one’s decisions that somebody has taken at various stages