Essay Test
Case#1
Question 1: Identify the facts in the case
There are several facts in the case. First, Whitey committed several crimes such as bank robbery, drug deals, and many illegal activities, unlike his brother William who was a law-abiding citizen. William studied hard to become a lawyer and later became the president of the University of Massachusetts. On the other hand, in the Unabomber case, Ted had committed a crime that involves the murder of three people and the injury of several civilians. His brother, David, was a hard-working citizen living a normal life. Another fact is that both cases present two dimensions of citizens; the one obeying the law and the other disobeying the law. Finally, it can be noted that in both cases, William and David were faced with a moral dilemma. Each had to decide between loyalty and solidarity to the family and moral obligation to bring a criminal to justice.
Question 2: Identify the contenting values
In both cases, content values are family loyalty. For the Bulger case, family loyalty was above the moral obligation to bring a criminal to justice. For the Unabomber case, it was the opposite as David felt obligated to stop further attacks from his brother. Other contending issues are obedient and disobedient to the law, morality, and immorality and finally obligation to help bring justice. William and David faced contenting issues of offering allegiance to their family’s members or offer allegiance to the country. As William felt an honest loyalty to his brother David felt the opposite. David realized that he had a moral obligation to bring a criminal to justice.
Question 3. Describe the ethical dilemma posed by the contending values
In cases, it can be observed that both David and William faced moral dilemmas. Family loyalty and solidarity were weighed against moral claims and responsibility to help the state bring a criminal to justice. For David, he was compelled beyond a reasonable doubt to help the FBI to catch his brother since he could not live knowing that his brother killed again, and he was able to stop him. As David noted,” the thought that another person would die and I was in a position to stop that, I could not live with that” On the other hand, William noted that “I do have an honest loyalty to my brother. I care about him, and I hope that I am never helpful to anyone against him.”
Question 4. Describe the circumstances affecting the judgment of William and David
William and David’s judgment are affected by love for the family, who are their brothers. William felt that family love overcomes duty to help catch a criminal while David felt obligated to stop further bomb attacks.
Question 5. What might have been the intentions motivating the actions of each person
David Kaczynski is motivated by the fact that he needs to stop another attack from his brother. He thought that in case there is another bomb attack from his brother, he could never live knowing that there is something he would have done to stop it, but he did not. For William Bulger, he was motivated by the fact that family loyalty and solidarity is above moral obligation to help catch a criminal.
Question 6. Describe their actions and comment on their ethical nature
Even though William was faced with a hard decision, he had a moral responsibility to help bring his brother to justice for the crimes he had committed. David made a notable sacrifice driven by the desire to do well in society. His acts were patriotic.
Question 7. Describe the consequences of their actions
By not helping to catch his brother, William lost his reputation and had to resign as the president of the University while David lived the rest of his life regretting helping catch his brother, who was sentenced to death.
Question 8. Using the ethical theory of John S. Mill, determine whether the actions of William Budger and David Kaczynski were justified.
Based on John S. Mill’s theory, utilitarian principles are the pillars of morals. It forwards that actions are right in proportion as long as they enhance the general human happiness, and based on this concept, the actions of David and William are justified. The strength is this theory is that actions make the most significant group happy. However, utilitarianism has weaknesses such as presenting harm to the minority party as the majority feels satisfied and happy.
Case#4
Sandel argues that people should not shun moral and religious discussions in the public sphere, but they should engage in them without fear, as that would give them a better understanding of the subject. Sandel’s argument is reasonable as it discourages fearing to discuss a subject without fully understanding it as propagated by Rawl. Sandel is for the idea that people should intently learn the moral and religious practices that they do not subscribe to, and from that point, they shall know whether shun it completely or support it in various dimensions. It is important to note that Sandel’s approach is geared towards understanding a subject before deciding whether to support it or shun it. Understanding a subject involves public discussion on the moral or religious matter, then ultimately, one makes a decision. This leads to avoidance of fear by Ignorance, as stated by Sandel. This is opposed to Rawl’s idea, which is of the school of thought that moral and religious ideas should not be discussed in the public sphere. He notes that such public discussions one would generally shun religious or moral issues without fully understanding the matter.
Based on the explanation above, Sandel’s school of thought resonates with a rational thinking man. It is, therefore, essential that people should intently learn the moral and religious practices they do not subscribe. This will help them know whether to shun it entirely or support it.
Case# 3
In the facts given above, it would be important if the woman kept her marriage vows and decline to have an affair with the German soldier. It is essential to understand that the woman was a married devout catholic who believed in the institution of marriage. In this case, having an affair with the soldier would be a sin before God, whom she made the vows, and before humanity in whose hearing, the vow was made. The virtues of honesty and bravery that she should be subscribing to should now come to play. The act of taking hostages from the village had nothing to do with her marriage but war. Accepting the proposal to spare the lives of the people in prison would be compromising with an evil act. Furthermore, it is not her moral obligation to free the prisoners.
In this case, the woman should not accept the soldier’s marriage proposal. She should stay faithful to her husband, hoping that the French rebel underground army will not go on vandalizing the German stations, thus leading to the release of the hostages.
Case#2
In the case of ABC and based on Kant’s theory of duty and ethics, then the logical decision is to let the journalist go free as they owed a duty to their journalism work. According to Kant’s school of thought, the rightness or the wrongness of an action does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. As employees, the journalists were expected to perform specific tasks. This they did even having to pretend as employees so that they may get a story which is every journalist’s duty. According to Kant’s theory, every action is owed to duty, whether right or wrong, and it did not matter the consequences. The journalists were, therefore, right by performing illegality (wrong action) to get the truth, which was much important to the general public than their duties as employees of the store.
As explained above, it is essential, therefore, for the journalists to be awarded for diligently performing their journalism duties.