Positive law can be defined as a written law that has been passed by a branch of government, regardless of whether it offends anyone's sense of right and wrong. Positivism separates law and morality (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, and Lieberman). Positivists believe that any ethical theories of morality, religion, and justice should play no role in the analysis of the law. Positivism has two values. First, by requiring that all law be written, it ensures that the government will clearly explain to the members of society their rights and obligations. In a legal system run with positivist beliefs, the accusers would never be unfairly surprised by the governments’ unwritten law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments include this positivist value by requiring that all people receive notice of any pending legal actions against them so that they can prepare a defense. Second, positivism controls judicial preferences. In some cases judges are not satisfied with the outcome of a case. For example, some judges may not want to allow a landlord to evict a family with small children in the middle of winter, even if the law allows such action when rent is overdue. However, positivism requires judges to decide cases in agreement with the law. Positivists believe that the integrity of the law is maintained through a neutral and unbiased judiciary that is not guided by subjective ideas of fairness ("Free Dictionary by Farlax"). Now referring back to the case of Regina V. Dudley and Stephens, the two men would be found guilty based on positive law. The written law states that killing is illegal except in the case of self-defense. The boy who was killed was not harming any of the other men. Dudley and Stephens plotted against the boy to kill him, so in the e...
... middle of paper ...
... is right if it produces the greatest good for the majority of the people. If you think an action will bring the maximum amount of happiness to the most number of people, then it is the right thing to do. In the perspective the of the utilitarianism view Dudley was looking out for his group. He decided to that killing of the boy and eating his flesh would bring the most amount of happiness to his group. In my opinion I would still find the men guilty because Dudley had his own interest in mind. The most frequent mistake people apply to utilitarianism is assuming that the greatest good for them or their company is in fact the greatest good for all. Dudley assumed killing the boy would be ethically ok but he in fact did not even ask the boys opinion on who to kill. If Dudley would have asked everyone in the boat their opinion this philosophy would then come into play.
In the following case, Luke is involved in a very perplexing conflict, or Ethical dilemma. This situation is an Ethical dilemma, and not just a regular “everyday” problem, because to Luke there might not be an obvious answer. He can also be thinking that both choices, keeping his commitments of confidentiality and telling his brother, Owen, are both correct things to do. If Luke tells his brother about the project, then he might concur with a theory known as Breach of confidentiality. “Breach of confidentiality occurs when someone gives away information that was supposed to be kept private.” (GENB4350 Online Lecture, Ethical Reasoning 1). By Luke breaching information that is supposed to be kept secret, he will betray the trust of his company
Patients who deny suggested consideration represent a critical test in the emergency department. Such patients can be uncooperative, and their capacity to comprehend data may be impeded by medicinal pathology or intoxicants. The outcomes of a choice to reject emergency consideration may be not kidding and lasting. The numerous contending requests of an occupied Emergency treatment now and then make it troublesome for doctors to appropriately survey such patients before they are permitted to leave.
As a brand manager at a large food manufacturer I am facing the dilemma where I am in charge of arranging the launch of a new product into the highly competitive "healthy" snack market. I have to decide whether to send or delay this product launching due to some health side effects and safety concerns. On the other hand there is another company who is our leading competitor that is also in the process of launching similar product. Just before I am about to launch the new product, I was informed by reliable lab 's research that the product could cause moderate to severe dizziness and diarrhea in a small group of individuals. However, any allegation of negative effects is unfounded and the research from my own in-house lab
At the beginning of this assignment we were given a situation involving a child where most people’s first instinct would be to protect the child, but as the assignment went on I believe we all realized that our first instinct may not always be the correct one. When we think about things from an outsider point of view, it seems easy to make what we call the right decision, but when in the moment, making the decision takes quick thinking and reasoning to decide how best to handle the situation. Throughout the ethics assignment, my thoughts have remained the same. I believe that Jimmy acted irresponsibly and unethically. Many of my classmates presented arguments that were valid, but did not change my stance on how Jimmy chose to act. Reading the
Ethical issues are “moral challenges” facing the health care profession (Stanhope & Lancaster, 2012, p. 127). Ethical issues is a major concern in the healthcare field because healthcare providers observe ethical issues every day and have to make ethical decisions. Advance directives are written documents that addressed an individual’s medical care preferences. These documents usually take effect when patients no longer can make informed health care decisions for themselves. While these documents are helpful to loved ones and health care providers, there are a number of ethical considerations that can make the development and execution of advance directives difficult (Llama, 2014). This author is a geriatric nurse that recently observed an advance directive ethical issue in the clinical setting. The purpose of this paper is to outline the steps of ethical decision-making within the seven steps for the framework. This paper will also identify the facts of the case from the perspective of each person impacted by the situation and identify which ethical principles were involved in the situation.
When I was working as a Customer Service Representative in the Bank, one of my responsibilities was to supervise the tellers. I was friends with two of the tellers working there at the time. We used to go out together outside of work and had great time. At some point I started noticing that they are being too friendly with each other and acting inappropriate for a professional environment. I decided to confront them and they confessed to me that they were dating. That is when I realized that I was faced with an ethical dilemma.
1. What is the difference between a. and a. There are a few reasons that there could be a gap between the knowledge of ethics and being an ethical person. A person may not incorporate the ethical theories that they have learned into their lives, they may choose to be unethical, they may follow a code of ethics that is morally corrupt, or they might have psychological problems. We can be educated and knowledgeable in something, but not incorporate that subject or theory into our day-to-day lives. Sometimes it is because it conflicts with our beliefs or our moral code.
Investigators and prosecutors are constantly faced with several ethical dilemmas while executing their duties, which usually put them at a position whereby they have to make critical decisions in order to avoid a lot of public scrutiny. Some of these dilemmas include administrative discretion and nepotism. First, investigators and administrators have to maintain the highest levels of discretion while making decisions regarding particular cases (Padfield & Gelsthorpe, 2012). The question that many people, therefore, ask is whether these decisions are justified or not. Because they have to ensure success and maintain their reputation, these people when faced with dilemmas have to choose between two equally unfavorable options. As Pollock (2011) emphasizes, this task is very challenging. According to the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration & Management (CAPAM) (2010), the rules and regulations give investigators and prosecutors the opportunity to use their own discretion to make a decision regarding a problem at hand. However, despite the choice made, the problem is that it may be accepted only by a small section of the society. Because exercising discretion is often made on the basis of personal judgment, the society might take this as a corrupt practice. Some people might believe that the choice was made based on personal preference, affiliation to a particular group, or even personal aggrandizement (CAPAM, 2010). Another ethical dilemma that investigators and prosecutors face is nepotism. This concept is described by CAPAM (2010) as a practice where individuals make decisions to the favor of close relatives, friends, and other close people, which usually downgrade the quality of public service. In other words, when ...
In the case, the situation happened in a rural area a developing South American country, which has a lack of food, water, education, medical care and healthy style. The pediatric team raised fund to help children, who suffered from diseases in this country, and the benefactors provide the solicited money to finance the laboratory testing, diagnosis imaging and surgeries due to children needs "the voluntary mission". In fact, there was approximately 25 child in need of medical care (19 children with hernia, 4 children with congenital cardiac malformations, 2 chilren with foot club and a child with neurocystericosis). Most of the issues happened while they were struggling to live "chores". However, the fund was not enough to treat all
Jurisprudence is the study of legal theory, and in the western world, there are two primary legal philosophy camps that guild the passage, enforcement, and interpretation of laws. These two theories are natural law and positive law theory. Natural law is the older of the two and argues that law should reflect the objective morals of society. A few notable natural law theorists are Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Luther King Jr. Positive law developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and argues that law and morals are not the same and that statues that have been passed by any human institution and have legitimacy regardless of perceived objective morals. A few notable positivists are Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, and H.L.A.
Many ethical dilemmas are philosophical in nature, an ethical issue can be described as a problem with no clear resolution. In order to solve the issue or dilemma a consensus between the parties involved must be reached. There are several reasons to come to an agreement over an ethical dilemma, it is the basis for all aspects of personal and professional dealings. Each one of us is part of a civilized society and as such it is our responsibility to be rational, honest and loyal in our dealings with others. (Alakavuklar, 2012) states that individuals make decisions for different situations in business life involving various ethical dilemmas. Each time either consciously or unconsciously individuals may follow some ethical approaches
Everyone in this world has experienced an ethical dilemma in different situations and this may arise between one or more individuals. Ethical dilemma is a situation where people have to make complex decisions and are influenced based on personal interest, social environment or norms, and religious beliefs (“Strategic Leadership”, n.d.). The leaders and managers in the company should set guidelines to ensure employees are aware and have a better chance to solve and make ethical decisions. Employees are also responsible in understanding their ethical obligations in order to maintain a positive work environment. The purpose of this case study is to identify the dilemma and analyze different decisions to find ways on how a person should act
Legal positivism is a legal philosophy or thought advocating for the written rules of law to be only the source of law. The implication hereof is that in the interpretation of any text of law recourse should be sought in the wording of that very same law or text to be interpreted. In our view, this is a sound philosophy because it promotes and maintains legal certainty by basing the interpretation of law on known and written rules, rather than some unwritten rules or personal opinion of judges that may be based on some ethical and moral principles. In this regards, the separation of law from morals as maintained by positivist thinking may contribute to the neutrality and objectivity
Legal positivism is a theory defined as, “a method of legal study that concentrates on the logical structure of law, the meanings and uses of its concepts, and the formal terms and the modes of its operation and that tries to understand the nature of law”(US Legal Dictionary - Law and Legal Definitions, 2016, n.p.). Legal positivism rests its validity upon separability. According to Pino (2014), “a legally valid rule does not lose its legal standing if it fails to conform to some moral requirement—and
Modern legal positivism is the assertion that the nature and subject of law, rests on social facts and not on its virtue. As English jurist, John Austin (1790 – 1859), puts it: “the existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit [are] another.” In simple terms, legal positivists believe that, the existence and content of law does not rely