Application of Ethics to Legal Issues

Application of Ethics to Legal Issues

1. Analyze this case from the perspective of the four ethical theories presented throughout the course—consequential ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and nonconsequential ethics.

Consequentialism ethical theory looks at the consequences of an action to determine its rightness or wrongness. The theory can justify some of the acts that are traditionally perceived as being wrong (Briesen, 2016). It can also disqualify some actions which were traditionally regarded as being right. The different conclusions are based on the consequences. The main point is that an action is right if its consequences are right. Lying is right if it leads to positive outcomes. Being punctual is wrong if it leads to adverse outcomes. Hedonism and utilitarianism are two types of consequentialism (Briesen, 2016). Hedonism ethical theory determines the wrongness and rightness of an action based on if it helps people avoid pain or create pleasure. Utilitarianism determines the rightness and wrongness of an action depending on it’s the degree of happiness that the particular action produces in people. The right action is the one that creates happiness for the greatest number of people (Briesen, 2016). Many people find it challenging to apply consequentialism because it is significantly difficult for one to be sure of the outcomes of specific actions before they implement them. The fact is that no one is ever sure about everything that will happen in the future. Another factor that causes the difficulty is the fact that some of the methods of creating positive outcomes are unacceptable to a significantly large section of the population (Joppová, 2018). Consequentialism ethical theories are the only ones that can legitimize slavery as long as it leads to positive outcomes. However, people will still resist such actions because they cause suffering to some people.

The administrator’s actions are also right when interpreted from a utilitarian point of view. The defendant created a facility that created happiness for the senior residents, the mentally retarded, and the mentally ill. The defendant willingly created the residential facility, something which shows that they were happy to have it running. Even though the facility does not have a conducive environment for humans, the net effect of its existence is significant happiness for a considerable number of people. Besides, the environment at the facility might appear unfavorable for human life, but the fact that happiness was maintained means that the administrator’s acts were right.

When interpreted from a hedonist point of view, the defendant was also right for creating a residential place for the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and the senior resident. The shelter is one of the basic human needs. People who lack shelter can hardly experience a pleasure. They live a stressful life associated with pain and suffering (Briesen, 2016). Even though the conditions at the facility are unfavorable for human survival, it is still better than living in a clean environment but without shelter.

Non-consequentialism is an ethical theory that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the process as opposed to the outcomes. The theory validates most of the actions that were traditionally referred to as being right or wrong (Littlejohn, 2018). Such actions include killing and lying. For a non-consequentialist, it is wrong for one to use negative approaches such as telling lies to achieve positive outcomes such as saving a human life. Deontological ethical theory is non-consequentialist. It focuses more on a person’s duty to determine the rightness and wrongness of their actions (Littlejohn, 2018). An action can be wrong even if its outcomes are right. An action can be right even though its consequences are wrong. What matters most is if the person performed their duty.  Deontological ethics can be described using phrases such as “Duty for duty’s sake” (Littlejohn, 2018). Such phrases emerged because a deontologist can do something that leads to negative consequences, even if they were aware of what could happen. Such people act regardless of whether they are willing or not.

The case of the administrator portrays significant elements of non-consequentialism. The owner of the residential facility is wrong for failing to act according to the expectations of the legal authorities and society. The creation of an unsafe environment at the facility predisposed people to health problems. An unhealthy person lives an unhappy life. Therefore, the act of the administrator of creating a residential care facility was wrong even though the person’s primary intent was to improve the lives of specific groups of people. The defendant tries to defend themselves by saying that they did not directly create unsafe conditions, but the court maintains that they were wrong. That decision is based on the fact that the adverse events could not happen if the owner acted according to the law. In that case, the administrator is expected to act in specific ways regardless of the impact of their actions (Littlejohn, 2018) on the facility. Non-consequentialists could even recommend the closure of the facility as long as the administrator was unwilling to act according to the law. Non-consequentialism is not affected by the possible impacts of particular actions (Littlejohn, 2018). For example, closure of the facility could lead to the loss of shelter for the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and the senior resident but could still be implemented because that is the perceived “right.” That is opposed to a consequentialist who could allow the facility to continue running as long as the net impact would be positive. Based on the descriptions for the consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories, the court, in that case, used non-consequentialism ethics. It could only allow the facility to remain in operation if the administrator met the legal requirements. That shows some connection between law and ethics.

2. Discuss how ethics and the law are intertwined in this case.

The case of the administrator portrays a significant connection between the law and ethics. The administrator’s actions violate the law and some ethical theories as well. The failure to maintain a hygienic environment at the residential facility is against both the law and non-consequentialism. Laws and ethics are significant factors that control morality in almost all the spheres of human life (Hodgkiss, 2017). They help people understand the difference between right and wrong daily. By showing people the right direction, they promote the efforts of protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public. Even though the law and ethics relate to the advocate’s case, some significant differences exist between them. One of them is the fact that the laws are created and implemented to protect the citizens while ethics are created by society and performed by individuals (Hodgkiss, 2017). Laws are associated with specific punishments for particular violations, while ethics do not. The government uses various approaches to ensure that people act in specific ways. Sometimes it is forced to use force because it has the responsibility of ensuring that people live in the right manner and do the right things. On the other side, ethics only suggest the right things and how to do them. They also give people options to improve their decision-making (Hodgkiss, 2017). Both the law and ethics guide people’s decision-making. The administrator should have maintained hygiene in the residential facility by following deontological ethics, which requires a person to perform their duty at all times. They should have done the same to meet the legal requirements as well. In that case, acting according to the law would help the administrator avoid some punishments while abiding by the ethical requirements would help them preserve self-respect. Despite the significant agreements between the law and ethics, significant differences still exist. Some actions appear quite unethical but legal (Hodgkiss, 2017). Such include betraying the confidence of a friend and lying. Some methods of implementing laws appear to be unethical, at least to some extent. A significant example is a use of killing as a punishment for violation of particular laws. Almost all communities of the world do not accept killing as a form of punishment, but the law legitimizes by punishing criminals with death.

3. Present your assessment of the court’s finding and whether it was just.

I feel that the court decision was not just. My judgment is based on consequentialism ethics. The defendant’s primary intent was to create a shelter for the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and the senior resident. They must be happy about having the residential facility running. One fact is that the administrator of the residential facility, who is also the owner, significantly impacts controls the mental state of the people who live at the residential facility. When the administrator is happy, the people are also very likely to be happy. When he/she gets punished by the government for failing to manage the facility in the right manner, they become unhappy. That weakens their willingness to provide to the residents as well. I would recommend a legal system that punishes people based on the net impacts of their actions as opposed to promote a “duty for duty’s sake” kind of ethics. The most appropriate judgment should be the one that maximizes the happiness of citizens (Briesen, 2016). Such laws should not only look at a person’s mistake but also on the impacts of the court decision on other people as well. If the legal action must be taken against people such as the administrator, in this case, the court should also provide ways that will maintain the happiness of the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and the senior resident who relied on the defendant for happiness. In conclusion, all the factors that control peoples’ decision-making should consider the person’s impact on the lives of other people as well. The most appropriate control should be the one that maximizes the happiness of the greatest number.

References

Briesen, J. (2016). Epistemic consequentialism: Its relation to ethical consequentialism and the truth-indication principle. Epistemic Reasons, Norms, and Goals. https://philarchive.org/archive/BRIECI-3

Hodgkiss, M. (2017). Newsworthiness guidelines for a socially responsible press: Aligning definitions at the intersection of journalism, ethics, and the law. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=communication_diss

Joppová, M. P. (2018). Spinozian consequentialism of ethics of social consequences. Ethics & Bioethics, 8(1-2), 41-50. https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/ebce.2018.8.issue-1/ebce-2018-0008/ebce-2018-0008.xml

Littlejohn, C. (2018). The right in the good: A defense of teleological non-consequentialism in epistemology. https://philpapers.org/archive/LITTRI.1.pdf