Case Study_ Applying an Ethical Theory Sherrif's Disobeying the Law

.docx

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 on coursehero.com

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