While analyzing the movie “Cobb” directed by Ron Sheldon, produced by David V. Lester there are many ethically incorrect things that come to mind when hearing the name Ty Cobb. Cobb is the self-proclaimed ‘best baseball player of all time’. Cobb is the opposite of what the author of our textbook Robert Schneider describes as deontological. Cobb never seemed to “act solely based on moral principles that we would want moralized: (pg. 19).” This shows when he is so rude to the black man who ran out of his house at the beginning of the movie and refused at first to give him a ride during a blizzard to the nearest town. Ty Cobb seemed to never treat anyone how he would want to be treated, and the twisted thing is by watching this movie you learn that “everyone hated him, and he loved it.” Ethically and morally Ty Cobb seems to be everything that your parents …show more content…
Stump carried himself in a way more deontological manor than Cobb and having a good moral character as opposed to Cobb who was the consequentialist. Meaning that “his actions are judged to how they affect oneself rather than principals or values (pg. 19).” Cobb shows this many times in the movie but it stuck out the most when he was trash talking one of the catchers. He tells the catcher that “his wife left these” and throws the clothing at the catcher. Although trash talking can be useful in throwing off your opponent during a game “saying unjust things to another player during a game or practice to try and gain the advantage: (pg. 98).” There was no reason for Cobb to be insulting the catcher because in reality there isn’t much that the catcher could do to Cobb while he was up to bat. He said that in order to make himself happy because he was insulting another player. Cobb showed little to no respect for his
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
Ethical Rules on Sport’s Justice. Dallas: East Dallas Times, page 21. 2008. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Print: Harry, Patrick Hayes.
To begin, parallel and conflicting characteristics can be realized by exploring the judges of the two cases. Judge Horton and Judge Taylor both presided over the cases. Judge Horton was the second of three judges in the Scottsboro cases, and Judge Taylor was the fictional judge in To Kill a Mockingbird. The two both exhibited undeniable sympathy to the defendants in the cases. Judge Horton sympathizes with the nine Scottsboro boys by declaring, “You are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black … you are trying whether or not this defendant forcibly ravished a woman” (People and Events). It is obvious that Judge Horton was unprejudiced and believed the boys should be treated with equality. This attitude is akin to the one of Judge Taylor; Taylor assigned Atticus Finch, a notable lawyer, to the case of the fictional black character Tom Robinson. Maxwell Green, an inexperience rookie, should have been assigned the case; however due to Taylor’s empathy, Tom obtained a decent lawyer who would do h...
Should a neglected, discriminated, and misplaced black man living in the mid 1900s possessing a spectacular, yet unfulfilled talent for baseball be satisfied or miserable? The play Fences, written by August Wilson, answers this question by depicting the challenging journey of the main character, Troy Maxon. Troy, an exceptional baseball player during his youth, cannot break the color barrier and is kept from playing in the big leagues. That being his major life setback, Troy has a pessimistic view on the world. His attitude is unpleasant, but not without justification. Troy has a right to be angry, but to whom he takes out his anger on is questionable. He regularly gets fed up with his sons, Lyons and Cory, for no good reason. Troy disapproves of Lyons’ musical goals and Cory’s football ambitions to the point where the reader can notice Troy’s illogical way of releasing his displeasures. Frank Rich’s 1985 review of Fences in the New York Times argues that Troy’s constant anger is not irrational, but expected. Although Troy’s antagonism in misdirected, Rich is correct when he observes that Troy’s endless anger is warranted because Troy experiences an extremely difficult life, facing racism, jail, and poverty.
It is not uncommon for employers to talk about their employees among their co-workers or supervisors. But what happens when a company or an individual representing the organization discloses too much information regarding an employee. It is in the best interest of any employer to limit their comments or statements regarding present or past employees as their actions can lead them down a path of court fees and lawsuits. Moreover, companies stand a considerable risk of being sued when they discuss references, employee discharge or evaluations, and other similar situations (Jennings, 1992, p.1). The case of Ms. Gail Davis v. Ms. Diana Ross proves that not only does a person need to be cautious with their selection of words but also
The cases that were listed within this essay all had something in common. They were all able to prove that stem cell research can be helpful but can also pose some major ethical and legal issues. The case Sherley v. Sebelius, filed by a group of plaintiffs lead by M.D., PH.D. James Sherley and PH.D Theresa Deisher, felt that the federal funding of embryonic stem cells ESC violated Dickey- Wicker’s amendment prohibits federal funding of research in which a human embryo is to be harmed or destroyed. The appeal Sherley and her colleagues made, was unnecessary. The laws that are currently set out for embryonic stem cell research are at a reasonable level. They allow for the researchers to carry on with their research but with certain proclivities.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Consequentialism has been around for many years and is the theory that actions are judged according to how they affect oneself or others, rather than on the principles or values upon which the actions are based (Schneider, 2009). This means that a person’s actions can be justified without considering the moral implications. Consequentialism is the moral theory that most people involved in sports tend to use, because they can always justify an action because it was done to try to win a game or get a competitive advantage. This was easier to do in the early years of sports, but in today’s world of the internet and 24 hours sports, it seems almost every move a coach, player, or owner makes is dissected and their morals and ethics are called into question. In the early 1900’s, baseball pitchers routinely doctored baseballs in order to make the ball move and become harder to hit. While this practice was illegal, pitchers knew that umpires rarely ever enforced the rule so they would scuff the ball to get out the hitters. They were able to justify this
"Cobb is a prick. But he sure can hit. God Almighty, that man can hit.
...aches his children to see through people’s disabilities and skin color. He stands for what is right without disrupting the town, but isn’t afraid to voice his opinions when it was necessary. He creates equal rights for everyone by helping Tom Robinson during his trial while everyone else didn’t.