Moral Issues. Que 1: There are more than four hundred pet cemeteries in the united States, People often spend hundreds of dollars to bury their dogs, cats, birds, goldfish, and hamsters. Is this practice morally acceptable?
Que 2: A man is falsely accused of a crime and spends fourteen years in jail. Finally, his accuser is overcome with remorse and admits having lied. When the man is released, he sues the State for wrongful imprisonment and seeks monetary compensation. The Courts rule that the State has no legal responsibility, but does it have moral responsibility? Why or Why not?
“In the beginning of his book, Ruggiero responds to the question “Why do we need ethics if we have laws?” (Ruggiero 4) in a rather striking way by claiming, in effect, that ethics is required by the law because it underpins and informs our laws in some way. At one point Ruggiero goes so far as to assert that, “…law is not possible without ethics. The only way for a law to be enacted or repealed is for one or more people to make a decision about right and wrong” (Ruggiero 4). Ruggiero attempts to back up this claim by providing some examples that he sees as providing some clear evidence for his position, one concerns the creation of a law against sexual harassment and another concerns the repeal of the law of Prohibition. In this vein he writes, “The only rational basis for a law against sexual harassment is that the act is wrong” and he adds further, “The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made Prohibition the law of the land—until the Twenty-first Amendment repealed it in the name of justice” (Ruggiero 4).”
Que 3: The question is “Do you agree with Ruggiero’s assessment of the intimate relationship between ethics and the law?” I intend this question in a general sense, but especially in regards the two examples he gives concerning the laws against sexual harassment and Prohibition. That is….
Que 4: …can you think of any other (non-ethical) explanations for why we (now/no longer) have these particular laws?
Que 5: If so, what would those reasons be if not “ethical” ones? And furthermore, what might that mean for Ruggiero’s initial characterization of the relationship between ethics and the law in general?
Question One – Moral Issues
Spending expenditure on catering for pet burials is morally upright and humane. The culture considers pets as part of the family (Rohr, 2017). Domestic animals, especially cats and dogs are treated as a supplement portion of the household.
Question Two – Moral Issues
The state had legal responsibility. The accused failed to convince the court of his innocence. The government should have stepped in to conduct its parallel inquiries through investigative agencies (Rohr, 2017). Failure to conduct enough investigations made the government legally responsible for the misfortunes that befell the accused.
Question 3 – Moral Issues
Ruggiero was right in his explanation. Ethics is considered as the focal point of morality in any society. Enacting laws without well-established ethical valuations means that citizens can act immorally, thus, violating the rules (Ruggiero, 2014). Therefore, ethics and law work hand in hand for the attainment of a morally upright community.
Question 4 – Moral Issues
The laws discussed are no longer applied. This is because of the contradiction between decisions and the respective verdicts (Ruggiero, 2014). Additionally, the laws do not have a clear jurisprudence that could render a lawbreaker guilty. Therefore, the laws are being treated as natural laws incorporated with ethics.
Question 5 – Moral Issues
In some circumstances, the judge is generally put to task in making sound decisions. About Ruggiero’s previous characterization, some judgments are made based on the ethical beliefs of a particular setup. Laws and ethics can be termed as two inseparable entities despite being different (Ruggiero, 2014). Do you require a similar paper, talk to us!
Moral Issues. Reference
Ruggiero, V. R. (2014). Becoming a critical thinker. Nelson Education.
Rohr, J. (2017). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. Routledge.