A man’s fight against the laws of the American Food and Drug Administration to save AIDS patients. Dallas Buyers Club is a movie directed by Jean Marc Vallée, which illustrates a minority’s struggle to access illegal, but non-toxic drugs that improve significantly their health. This raises the following moral dilemma: Can it ever be considered morally permissible to break the law? Given the moral implications, it is morally permissible to break the law when certain conditions are met.
It is morally permissible to do an illegal act if the action is morally right and good. An action could be morally right and illegal at the same time, when it represents the lesser of two evils, or when the intentions of the person performing it are noble and have for goal to achieve his duty. An action can be morally right, but still illegal because in a situation where there is no good option, the lesser of two evils is the morally best option to do, even if it is illegal (Thomson 39). For example, in Dallas Buyers Club, Ron Woodroof acted rightly by choosing the lesser of two evils: sell illegal drugs to help AIDS patients feel better and live longer, instead of letting them suffer and die (Dallas Buyers Club). If he would have chosen to obey the law, a great number of AIDS patient would have suffered more and died of their illness, and he would have been guilty of not helping them according to the Harming by Omission Thesis (HOT) and the Equivalence of Evil Thesis (EET) (Mieth 17). These thesis affirm that omitting to help someone in need would be as bad as hurting the person directly. Thus, Woodroof acted in a morally permissible way even if he broke the law because he chose the lesser of two evils (Matheny 16). Also, someone can act justly e...
... middle of paper ...
...r the minority according to Mill (Falikowski 79, 80). Thus, the interests or moral principles of a minority could be ignored, since they are a minority, even if they are important. For example, the AIDS patients were a minority in society, so their interests were not considered in laws about drugs (Dallas Buyers Club). Hence, if the laws do not evolve fast enough, they could interfere with people’s natural rights; they could become unjust, will be out-dated, and not consider the interests of the minorities.
To conclude, it is morally permissible to break the laws when it is morally right to do so, the law is unjust or out-dated. It is true that laws reflect what the society thinks, but this rule of majority could repress and tyrannize the interests of the minorities, such as AIDS patients. Thus, it is morally permissible to break the law under certain conditions.
...ason this situation would go against morality is because the person would be punished for their actions, because it goes against society’s moral code.
... democracies, minority groups interest are not just dismissed but are actually compromised. They are compromised by legislature placing regulations on certain interest.
...ection against the government. Others believe that courts must be more active and open to expand the ideas of liberty even if it is required to strike down the majoritarian law in order to protect the minority group from government interference.
It appears that people will always break the law to indulge in their personal vices, the difference lies in how far they are willing to take their law-breaking.
An action is morally good if and only if it promotes my personal happiness and it is morally wrong if and only if that action hinders my personal happiness.
Is it ever acceptable to break the law? Answering this question leads to the consideration of the following: Should jurors enter a “not guilty” verdict, following their collective conscience, even when the evidence present should correctly lead to a “guilty Verdict”.
Do you agree with Schmeltekopf that business schools are not preparing students well for the for the ethical challenges they will face in the workplace? Why or why not?
The minority rights in a democratic society appear to even out with the majority rule in an unusual way. There are some incidents where the minority may have loss, but on the other hand won. For example, when Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat on that hot Alabama day, she stood up to the majority tyranny. The majority won by putting her in jail, however; the minority prevailed by establishing the civil rights movements.
Even the most moral person in the world should do unjust things if they knew they could never be caught, because they have the opportunity to gain something with no repercussions. People in society would see one as a fool if they knew some person had the chance to do something beneficial towards oneself without the chance of getting in trouble, and did not pursue. People do not believe that acting morally benefits one personally, only the status of being a moral person; when the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, but instead attempt to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, through unjust acts. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources. People view the choice to act morally as a nuisance, not because that is their first choice of action. People will choose the action that benefits them over not receiving any benefit, unless they feel they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future and consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long
...it from protecting the rights of minorities and from becoming a true proponent of social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution in that it only responds to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependency upon society for case initiation as well as case enforcement prevents the Court from rendering decisions entirely opposed to societal opinion, thus why the Court can never fully lead social change within the United States. This is why, “at its best the Court operates to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but upon the basic patterns of behavior required for the operation of a democracy” (Dahl 295).
There are four types of situations that pertain to law vs. ethics. The first would be an action that is both legal and ethical. An example of this would be a nurse carrying out appropriate doctor's orders as ordered. A nurse may also be faced with an action that may be ethical but not legal, such as allowing a cancer patient to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes. The opposite may arise where an action may be legal but not ethical. Finally, an action may be neither legal or ethical. For example, when a nurse makes a medication error and does not report it.
1. In a society that decides things on the basis of majority rule, is there a danger that the majority might ignore the legitimate concerns of minorities? What steps can be taken to protect minority rights?
The Facts: Kermit Vandivier works for B.F. Goodrich. His job assignment was to write the qualifying report on the four disk brakes for LTV Aerospace Corporation. LTV purchased aircraft brakes from B.F. Goodrich for the Air Force. Goodrich desperately wanted the contract because it guaranteed a commitment from the Air Force on future brake purchases for the A7D from them, even if they lost money on the initial contract.
The law is the highest degree of rules and anybody who follows it could be said as a good person. But still however, a person that follows the law cannot be said entirely that he/she have good ethics and mannerism. For example, smoking in public near non-smokers and children is not against the law but it is not ethical to do that. A person that really follows the law that has written by the country certainly sometimes doesn’t show good ethics in character.
The Internet has received a great deal of attention in the media lately due to its tremendous