An Explanation Of Charging Samantha

Under a consequential perspective, Commissioner Walker opines that as an official of the city he is ethically obligated to make decisions that promote good consequences for the greatest number. As he begins to deliberate on the case he starts to reflect on the two schools of thought. He first starts to ponder the meaning of consequentialism. He knows that consequentialism is the view that morality produces the right kinds of overall consequences.

Here we have the classic dilemma between the spirit and the letter of the law, or, as Vere frames it, the conflict between conscience and law. Because laws exist to support the integrity of a society and because laws receive their strength from those who enforce them, logic calls for the equal and firm application of those laws. Traditionally, people think of justice as being blind, and for good reason: once the adjudicator begins to base his judgments on mitigating, particular, or personal circumstances and considerations, he threatens the very fabric of the law and, by extension, the very fabric of society. However, the firm application of the law means little if that law itself is unjust. Despite the logic of Captain Vere’s arguments, especially

Let's say like in previous years, Legal Aid Ontario is underfunded. In this instance, society undervalues the significance of legal aid services and considers them to be less important than other areas where the government should be investing money. It can also hint that there needs to be more political will to allocate funds to help disadvantaged and vulnerable people access justice. On the other hand, if Legal Aid receives a significant amount of financial assistance, society will understand the value of these services and the necessity to guarantee that everyone, regardless of wealth or social standing, has access to justice. Absolutely, society gains from Legal Aid Ontario because it gives low-income people and disadvantaged groups a chance at justice, helps to lighten the load on the judicial system, averts injustices, and advances the law.

Social justice is often strived for by society. It is a necessary force in allowing humankind to coexist. However, the individual also has to play a role in maintaining social justice. The role of the individual is stated in the texts Fahrenheit 451 and “The Pedestrian” by Ray Bradbury and “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. by illustrating the consequences of not participating in the monitoring of justice.

The utilitarian approach suggests that one choose the outcome that would do less overall harm and, therefore, do more good (Meyer et al. 276). When applying this particular method of approach to this situation, the ethical decision to be made would be

Repent, Harlequin: Utilitarianism This is the story about a world where people behave like machines, and are expected to do their assigned duty on time. People in this world face the basic idea of what Utilitarianism is, which is consequences. Everyone is being supervised by time keeper, and if for every time someone is late for their work, the Ticktockman takes out that time from their life. At some point, a person’s heart can be stopped based on Ticktockman order for being late.

One of the criminal thinking errors is the stance of “uniqueness”. This thinking error occurs when the person in question believes that they are different from everyone else, which leads to a sense of entitlement. Because of their supposed “uniqueness” they believe that the rules don’t apply to them, and they are entitled to have certain rights and actions that others wouldn’t have. A potential problem with this thinking errors is it can lead the person to suspect different treatment within the judicial system.

Introduction Can a rotten egg make a good Omelet? The end/means dilemma is an old and popular scenario. The answer to this question depends on what the type of goals or ends are and what means are being used to achieve them. Moreover, Gandhi, pioneer and a theorist of satyagraha said, “I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means”.

In my essay, I will decide whether an Act or Rule utilitarian would provide better guidance for the above scenario, analysing how and why they would react in the ways they possibly would, as well as mention all the other points I will consider in my judgement of whom would provide better guidance. From my viewpoint I believe a Rule utilitarian would provide better judgement of the situation, as it would be the most moral to follow the rules in this situation in particular, rather that act on an unmoral choice to save yourself. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that is based on the belief that the moral rightness of an action is determined by the consequences it has rather that solely basing it on the notion of duty; motives do not matter

The short story called “Life Isn’t Fair - Deal With It” written by Mike Myatt, is about his own opinion on why life isn’t fair, what the term “fair” is and if life itself should be fair or not be fair. Mike explained that the term “Fairness” is a individual idea and is not a natural characteristic of life. So, in this argument, Mike has told us about why everyone thinks the way they do when it comes to fairness. Some people have their own decisions and it is largely based on the decisions they congregate, and the attitude that they start to take. Some of these decisions that are being made by the people come with terrible and ghastly outcomes.

Supposed someone name Alice enjoys street racing with the thrill of winning big prizes and competing against other street racers in their fancy cars. But Alice also enjoys the danger of this illegal activity. As a street racer, she enjoys trespassing on private properties, carjacking, vandalism, and the possible contact with law enforcement. She understands all these risks can lead to her in jail or be killed, but she doesn’t regret her decision in participating in street racing. This is one of the examples of a rational choice theory.

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that

In the constitution,it’s about equality and all of our Amendments are about equality, but not everybody thinks that our Amendments have anything to do with equality. Our Amendments give everyone their rights. The substance is that everyone is shown with equality and fairness,but some of our people don’t think that were shown with kindness or equality. Everyone is shown with equality and gracefulness with all of the Amendments that we have like Amendment 4 it states that the government can’t go into our homes without a search warrant and they can’t go through our things. Amendment 4 is a good law because it gives our people our rights, Amendment 2 is a good law too,but if someone just killed someone else for their pleasure then it won’t be a good Amendment,but it still allows people to defend themselves.

Some actions, like journeys, have value regardless of the outcomes they produce. Williams brings this point about to show how the utilitarian’s focus on consequences might not be the best way to assign value to actions, since it has no way of accounting for the intrinsic values actions may have. Here I have to agree with Williams. The manner in which consequentialist judge actions does not seem to allow any room for considering a person’s intent behind choosing to commit that act. Williams seems to be more open to such considerations than Smart ever was in his

(p.94) Thus the power to punish rested on semio-techniques consisting of five-six major rules. The rule of minimum quantity: which limits the advantages and desirability of committing crime. (p.94) Rule of sufficient ideality: e.g. pain at the heart of committing a crime is not actual pain but an act of inconvenience brought on by imprisonment for committing a crime, thus deterring people from committing future crimes. (p.94) The rule of lateral effects: implies the criminal penalties must have the most intense effect on those who have not committed crimes in order to impose a judgment of the crime as well as prove the criminal was punished in proportion to the offense (p.95) The rule of perfect certainty: e.g. precise measures and laws that clearly define a crime and penalties to be imposed for the crime (both must be understood by the judge, jury and the criminal).