Ethics

Part 1 Current Events Assignment

Supreme Court to address limits of gun control
Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- Otis McDonald and Diane Latiker share much in common as residents of Chicagos South Side. Longtime community activists, they both have seen the good and bad their neighborhoods have to offer. They are each fighting for change, especially to stem the growing murder rates among African-American and Hispanic youths, who are dying at the hands of one another.

Their solutions to the problem put them at odds, however and their struggles -- part of larger crisis striking cities nationwide -- will be the backdrop for one of the biggest cases to come before the Supreme Court in years.

At issue is one the justices have been timid over the decades at confronting Just how far does the Second Amendment give citizens the right to protect themselves
The court will ultimately decide two fundamental questions Do strict state and local gun control laws violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms And can an individuals right to own a weapon extend beyond federal jurisdiction

The basic questions have remained largely unanswered and give the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded rights to own weapons. The amendment states A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The specific case deals with Chicagos longstanding ban on handguns. Latiker supports the law McDonald is fighting it in court.

Gun control is one of those hot-button social issues that stirs energies on competing sides. The rulings impact will be felt across the country as local communities wrestle with whether banning the cheapest, most commonly available firearm will reduce violent crime or leave honest citizens vulnerable. (Mears, 2010).

This article is about the re-evaluation of the second amendment on Possession of Fire Arms Law in the United States. The law is currently reviewed by the Supreme Court in terms of the rising crime rates especially among African-American and Hispanic juveniles. The extent freedom on possession of guns seems to have produced a negative effect, as numerous individuals are using the law to harm lives instead of protecting and preserving lives. The law, as can be derived from the article, have harmed lives, for there are those individuals whom are gaining possession of firearms with the intention of harming other individuals. The justices are currently studying the parameters in which the law can be specified and addressed to concerned civilians.

However, the issue is not merely about the banning of firearms in Chicago it is also about whether such laws do not have repercussions. As seen in the news article, there are two sides of the coin one is that banning firearms would lessen violent activity within communities, and the other side is that a ban on firearms would prevent people from protecting themselves from violent activities. While it is true that violent activities will be lessened because possession of firearms would be illegal, it does not necessarily follow that everyone would abide by that law apart from this, the law would be declining the citizens of their right to defend themselves against potential intruders whom may threaten them and their loved ones.

Certainly, there is a moral dilemma in this case, for there is a limit to protect ones life. However, protecting ones life at the expense of harming another is not a black or white issueit is a gray area, and it is difficult to decide on what should be or what should be not, depending on what is perceived as right, or as wrong. It is, of course, arguable, that protecting ones life should not be in the cost of another individuals life. Currently, the Supreme Court is addressing this moral dilemma as to ensure that every citizen can be rightfully protected through an appropriate Possession of Fire Arms Law.

The issue addresses the greater good of most Americans, extending to all countries in relations with United States. The social problem on lenient possession of fire arms troubles most families, schools, community, and the general peace and order of United States. The problem even infiltrates the attitudes conduct, and overall social behavior of citizens, especially the youth, regarding life preservation vs prevention of violence. The evaluation of the law is in process as to see how such issues may be addressed properly without serious problems in judgment.

As implied in the article, the justices are showing considerable reassessment of the situation and analysis of foreseeable consequences. I agree with the initiative of reviewing the Possession of Fire Arms Law in line with the perceived consequence of the right to protect oneself. Possession of fire arms may not be the solution of protection, for it may aggravate the threat and eventually harm ones life. It may be placed in a ground where its execution can be properly done and monitored by officials. Limitation may not necessarily mean restriction, but it may be a preventive net to safeguard life.

Summary
Whether or not to possess firearms has a lot of moral issues surrounding it. While the Possession of Fire Arms Law may not be the solution to address the dilemma of protecting ones life, it is also necessary to evaluate whether non-possession of firearms can cause more harm to people in particular areas. It is necessary to evaluate how the law may be revised in order to prevent violence as well as to safeguard lives. It is, of course, necessary to state that the second amendment on the Possession of Fire Arms law has caused more harm than good on the lives of the people. Therefore, it can be said that safety and protection of ones life calls for better parameters in which people can protect their lives and at the same time, value others lives.

Questions
What will be the possible re-amendment on Possession of Fire Arms law
Answer The possible re-amendment on the Possession of Fire Arms law would be more specifications on who can own a gun. It is important to establish that there are more meticulous processes before an individual should be able to acquire a gun. Also, the government should be extremely vigilant with coordinating with police authorities in order to prevent illegal trading or firearms.

What will be the possible consequences of such re-amendment
Answer Such re-amendment may enable the close monitoring of who will be availing a gun, therefore, the buyer may be evaluated properly. However, as said in the aforementioned answer, people will still find ways to go around this law therefore, it is necessary to be more vigilant.

Will a totally new regulation on Fire Arms benefit the majority If so, what will be that law
Answer Yes, it will. The law would state that it is legal to acquire a gun if one is of age, with proper credentials, and proper motives. There will be a meticulous process that one has to undergo before acquiring a gun also, there will be screenings and verification. Also, the gun license should be carried like an ID. This will benefit the majority, for it will enable them to protect themselves and they will know that they need not fear that there will be killings everywhere for gun owners are properly screened.

Part 2 Les Miserables Consequential Paper
Les Miserables Consequentialist vs. Non-Consequentialist scenes

There are four characters in the novel entitled Les Miserables whose values, in one way or another, signify that they are employing either the Consequentialist or the Non-Consequentialist theory. The four characters are Jean Valjean, Fantine, Bishop at the beginning of the film, and Inspector Javert. Jean and Fantine mostly morally decide closer to Consequentialist theory, while Bishop and Javert make their decisions in according to the Non-Consequentialist Theory. (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004)

Jean Valjean forms decisions similar to consequentialist theory. His decisions are closer to Ethical Egoism. His judgments are based on what is good for himself and his interests including his adopted daughter Cosette. One example is when he tries to distance Cosette from Marius and flee from one place to another this example states that he sees that distancing his daughter from Marius will be for her greater good. However, he shifts to Rule Utilitarianism whenever he is weighing his options of saving other people, which he perceives is morally right in accordance to the greater morale good of others. One example is when he saved a sailor from slipping from the ship he perceived this to be morally right, as saving another individuals life is in accordance with Rule Utiliarianism. Jean Valjean used his Personal Ethical Egoism when he was young, as explicated in his frequent stealing cases, justifying his action based on his personal rationale and self interest need. As an adult, he shifts from Ethical egoism on a larger scale to Rule Utilitarianism, learning how to listen and asserting his interests and the interests of others (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters, 2010).  It could be said that his moral beliefs are dependent on which situation he falls in, and thus, he evaluates his situation and employs the appropriate theory.

Another character whom employs the aforementioned theories is Fantine he operates most of his decision-making and moral judgments similar to the Personal Ethical Egoism Consequentialist theory. Fantine acts on her self interests, either due to perceived hopelessness, intense need for financial resources, and lack of available resources. She justifies most of her actions based on self need and for her own offspring Cosette. Her role as a mother, allows her to extend the self to another selfher child. Nevertheless, the self is the strongest force inside her, enabling her to act on her needs (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters, 2010).

One example is when she finally yields into prostitution in exchange for money to finance her daughters living expenses at the inn. In a sense, it could be said that since she perceives her daughter to be an extension of herself, Fantine would do everything as to give the needs of her daughter the same way that she would do for herself. She overlooks other moral objections (Divine Command and Rule Consequentialism) when exposing her naked body and relies on personal rationale and the perceived good outcome of her action. Fantine, in her weakness, also accustomed herself to limited choice options thus, depriving herself of maturing into other stages of Ethical decision making. There is a learned helplessness, there is also a learned poverty in morality (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters, 2010). Her actions are based on the fact that she believes that such actions will serve her ends, which is to provide for her daughter, regardless of whether it is ethical or not. To Fantine, the means are ethical as long as the ends are for the greater good.

Another character is the bishop at the beginning of the film responds on newly released Jean Valjean similar to Virtue Ethics. He believes in the inner good character of Valjean and offers him shelter. He even helped Valjean escape the policemen, when he was caught stealing a silverware. He focuses on the inner character of Valjean, even though confronted with actual thief scene. He overlooks the act of stealing, and looks forward to the day that Valjean will blossom his good natured character. This is a prime example of Virtue Ethics. Factors such as the act and result are evaluated carefully and even overlooked in favor of the inner character of the person (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters 2010). Since the bishop employs Virtue Ethics, he finds it appropriate to look at the inner capacity of the human being to be good, thus, he acts in a manner which he believes is appropriate to someone whom believes in what is good.

Last of the characters whom employ the aforementioned ethical theories is Inspector Javert he executes judgments closest to Duty Ethics. His rationale of implementing the law as an inspector drives him to have a closer yield to this theory. Non-consequentialist is the standard of his moral choices and execution. What is morally wrong, is what violates the socially founded law, and this civil law is to be obeyed and followed by all means. Since he perceives right and wrong to be dictated by law, he perceives Valjeans and Fantines actions to be morally wrong, regardless of their motives and their inner characteristics. Many times in the film, it is shown that Javert is chasing and charging violators such as Valjean and Fantine (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters, 2010).

However, near the end of the story, Javert develops a contradiction in his moral views, when Valjean rescues him out of the student demonstration. In close distance to Valjean, he is troubled by his chance to arrest him and his conviction of repaying Valjeans good act. Unfortunately, he was unable to deal with his new moral stand because of conflicting values, such as the fact that he is confused as to how he should treat Valjean because Valjean has done immoral acts (to Javerts own perspective of ethics) and yet Valjean has helped Javert in his time of need (Thiroux  Krasemann, 2004 Dewynters, 2010).

Summary
The aforementioned characters have their own perspectives regarding what is morally right or wrong. Valjean and Fantine, as seen in the aforementioned information, base their acts on what they perceive will be for the good of their own intentions, as well as for their daughter (consequentialist), Cossette. However, in the view of Javert, regardless of their ends, their means is still inappropriate, since he employs Duty Ethics. On the other hand, the bishop perceives that it is necessary to look into their ends before judging whom they are also, he would prefer to help them, regardless of what their actions are, for the bishop relies on Virtue Ethics.