Introduction
The production and obedience of law have many ethical and philosophical dilemmas that confuse people and raise many arguments. Adams explains that mate protection should depend on specific regulations and legal precedents to ensure the correctness of the decision (1). Such factors as morality and ethics should participate in the process for better outcomes. The intentions of the first mate related to the case of death should be deeply analyzed. In my opinion, attempts to kill someone cannot be justified because every person has a right to live, and no one should have the privilege to take it. However, the final decision depends on the judge’s knowledge and legal standards in the specific area of the country.
Main body
My decision is based on the ethical standards that state that killing is a violent action that many nations and religions have never accepted. Individuals who have killed lose the chance to experience the joy of life, and those who commit a crime are punished by being imprisoned. In some cases, murderers can get the death penalty for their actions. Therefore, killing causes ethical and legal issues rather than a pleasure to those who commit a crime.
Many real-life cases in the criminal industry help build new laws and teach young professionals. The US vs. Holmes case is often compared to the lifeboat case, but I believe the ethical decisions are different and cannot be studied together. In the story of US vs. Holmes, the first mate was accused of sinking a ship, which caused the crew’s captain’s death (Adams 3). In the lifeboat example, people have limited resources to be saved, and someone should be killed to protect others (Adams 3). In the first case, the problem could be caused by the accident, and the mate could not have motives to kill one of the crew members. However, in the second study, it is seen that people should make an ethical decision and kill someone on purpose. In both cases, the mate should be judged for the killing action. However, I believe judges should evaluate the activity from different philosophical perspectives and provide other decisions.
The similarities of these cases include legal and ethical issues that should be resolved. The specific circumstances in the case of US vs. Holmes show how people deal with criminal liability. The value of human life is taken into consideration as well as in eh case of the lifeboat. The similarity of these studies is mostly related to the ideas of fair justice related to those who committed a crime.
Nevertheless, the case difference is clear and can be studied from diverse perspectives. While the main problem in the US vs. Homes case is personal responsibility, lifeboat examples are about the trade-off between individuals and the interests of the surroundings. Social pressure rarely affects personal thoughts that are not discussed with others. However, trade-offs and group decisions can be affected by those with a stronger will and higher skills of survivance. Therefore, the difference in cognitive motives does not allow us to compare these studies and make common conclusions.
Deontological ethics allow understanding of the right and wrong aspects of actions. According to Adams, there are four main positive aspects of deontology: obedience to duty and respect, universality, clarity in rules, and motivational force (11). People should follow moral obligations and stay respectful of others. Moreover, deontological ethics allow one to make the right decisions depending on the circumstances. Individuals can build their rules and apply this setting to all problems. Clear rules and guidelines allow people to come up with solutions to problems quickly and ensure that they stay ethical about others. When individuals understand the consequences of illegal actions, they gain more motivation to follow deontological ethics. For example, one of the most common cases related to this concept states that honesty can make people more honest with themselves and get protection from their surroundings.
Deontological ethics also has some negative aspects that should be taken seriously by people who want to stay moral in their actions. There needs to be more consideration for consequences, limited action scope, and more flexibility (Adams 13). Even though deontology makes people act according to the law, some actions may be harmful depending on other individuals’ locations and beliefs. The rules of deontological ethics do not cover some decisions, and this problem may only allow one to act morally on some occasions. Additionally, the world is fast-changing, and some ethical trends are behind, causing gaps in cultural norms. For example, open communication is becoming more popular these days, and sometimes, deontology may force people to think things causing more issues in the future.
Conclusion
Utilitarian ethics has a close definition to deontological, but some differences should stay clear for everyone. For example, positive aspects of the concept are focus on well-being and flexibility which are lacking in deontological ethics (Adams 8). Utilitarian ethics is forward-looking, and such problems as climate change make people more moral about their actions toward others. Nevertheless, this type of ethics usually ignores the values of cultures and cannot be morally accepted by some nations (Adams 9). The common cases are ignorance of such issues as diseases and mental problems. Utilitarianism proposes that every person should be vaccinated, but some of them are strongly against this treatment method. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the ethics regulation to ensure that additional problems can be avoided.
References
David M., Adams. Philosophical Problems in the Law. Cengage Learning, 1992.