Interpersonal Relationship Issues among Parties - Fatal Attraction - Case Study Example

Case Study: Fatal attraction Tutor Institution Course Date Case study: Fatal attraction Introduction The title ‘Fatal attraction’ pronounces interpersonal relationship issues among parties. As much as personal qualities draw parties together, same qualities might also draw them apart. Case study analyzed in this paper involves David Scott Mathers, a sixty six year old retiree from Lidcombe, a location in Western Sydney. The case study illustrates an incident of manslaughter where the accused is alleged and confessed to have suffocated his seventy eight year old partner out of love to save her from chronic pain. According to Louise Hall Courts (2011), the victim was suffering from degenerative spine condition. Although sparing the defendant from custodial sentence as stipulated by the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court might be logical, this might not according to the ethics of the society. Consequentialism and virtue ethics are directly related to the case study as will be applied to analyze ethical aspects of the incidents. The two concepts are depicted in the argument presented by defendant’s attorney, Anthony Bellanto QC. The judgment put forward by NSW court of law seems to consider the consequences of Mathers’ act which is death and therefore considered wrong. However, his attorney focuses on Mathers’ virtues and character and stipulates him as loving partner who is selfless and considers the interests of his partner first to an extent of suffocating her to save her the chronic pain. This paper provides an analysis of this case in relation to the ethical frameworks to support or reject submission of the defense attorney. Justice and Mercy Consequentialism and virtue ethics can be used to explore aspects of justice and mercy from the case involving Mathers and his deceased lover. Justice and mercy in this case re based on societal or opinions of the community. Argument put forward by defense also exhibit elements of justice and mercy. Reconsideration of the verdict by court to send Mathers to custodial sentence on bases of act of love is an act of mercy while pushing forward with the verdict to imprison him might be considered as justice by the society. According to Ord (2005), consequentialism framework requires a munificentperson to support usefulness and beneficial to humanity but on the other hand, eradicate anything that is detrimental to human life. This statement supports imprisonment of the accused since he has been proven and confessed to be a threat to life. Mercy is therefore a matter of less concern in this case. Although virtue ethics does not illustrate much about justice and mercy, the virtues considered by this framework determine the justice driven for judgment. Aristotle ethics bases judgment on a specific element of the case where justice is derived. In this case, the court focused on deliberate action to take away the life of an individual (Pakaluk, 2005). Consequentialism Ethical egoism is evident in the action taken by NSW Supreme Court. The outcome of defense’s action, which was Ms Griffith’s death, was taken with great consideration more than anything else like the final rest of the deceased. As a result of this decision made by court based on their element of focus, it influenced the lives of other people at three different levels. According to the societal perspective, this judgment was beneficial as more lives would be protected and essence of justice according to community morals would be attained. The judgment might also be considered detrimental especially to Mathers if he did it out of love. Incarceration would ruin his personality and might affect his positivity to life. Neutrality is attained by court where societal moral expectations and the law are incorporated in the judgment. To a given extent, the judgment has incorporated a certain level of ethical egoism that is healthy to maintain general society welfare in terms of what the society refers to as justice (Gier, 2006). According to Rachels(1961), if the society is utterly governed by mercy,society welfare is likely to be ineffective. Utilitarianism concept of consequentialism determines or distinguishes the essence of wrong and that which is right on basis of pleasure and or pain. Individuals are therefore at liberty to make decisions and determine ethics behind their behavior where they derive pleasure since pleasure in most times outweigh pain.In the case study, the party involved, together with the deceased depicts a decision made on the basis of elements of utilitarianism. Although the situation does not point out actual pleasure that is attained from the decision, rest attained and pain eradicated. This exhibits the outcome of rest against pain to the individual. However, another party played a part in attaining this relief and as a result crossed boundary of what the society deems as moral. Utilitarianism therefore supports the deceased need to ease her pain and rest eternally if she did it herself. The principle points out that it is upto the individual to determine, therefore, the defense’s plea to be reconsidered using ‘act of love’ as defense is out of place. Act utilitarianism therefore supports defense while rule utilitarianism rules it out. In this case, the rest, which could be referred to as happiness in terms of the framework is focused on one person and not everyone. This is against the rules of utilitarianism which purports that interests satisfied should bring about happiness to everyone and not on specific person. Act utilitarianism points out elements of deliberate actions. Mathers’ conduct was as a result of deliberate action. He knew and ascertained to what he did. Relating this to medical report on substantial mental impairment of the party, the argument is unjustifiable (Slowther et al, 2004). Controversy of consequentialism According to consequential framework, the outcome of actions is able to justify the morality. It is right for the community to consider incarceration of Mathers as justice to prevail against mercy. The seventy eight year old Eva Griffith did not die a natural death or as a result of the chronic condition she was suffering from. The outcome in this case is loss of life in an unnatural means. Taking another persons’ life is against the moral standing of society and law of state. The law is required to protect humanity against any threats to lives. Incarcerating Mathers is one of the ways that other people’s lives would be protected since he has been proven to be a threat to life. The defendant admitted to the court that he was guilty but used substantial impairment of his mental state as defense. This can be an indication that he might also be a threat to more lives (Slowther et al, 2004). On the other hand, it will be right for the Court of Law to show mercy to the defendant and reconsider custodial sentence if the outcome considered the case is rest from the chronic pain the victim suffered. This was also one of the consequences brought about by Mathers’ act of suffocating Eva. The fact that the deceased attempted to take her own life twice because of the pain and thought of being confined in a nursing home where she could be immobilized is a clear indication of her suffering in the condition. It also shows that the deceased did not see the essence of living. Eva Griffith was avoiding the experience her own mother went through being confined in a nursing care facility. Therefore, although loss of life was involved, Mathers fulfilled Griffith’s wish and saved her from all that emotional and physical suffering. Mathers’ intentions can as well be contrary to what he claimed it was. Although the defense claims to have done it as an act of love, the baseline is that he committed murder as confessed, which was reduced to man slaughter by the court of law. According to the case study, he was a finisher of what Griffith initiated by attempting to end her life. This statement might indicate malicious intentions with no regrets and therefore a twisted intention for his act. According to Rachels (1961), utilitarianism concept of consequentialism is another aspect that brings about contrast and supports while at the same time rejects the argument placed forward by defense in the case. The defendant states that medics had informed them of impossibility of any medical solution to what he refers to unbearable pain that Griffith experienced. Virtue Ethics This concept judges right or wrong based on people’s character and their virtues other than the actual act. To a given extent, theevents of this case study have contradicted based on this framework. Initially, the ruling considered the act itself before determining the persons’ character. The case involved murder and evidence pointed to the accused. To add on that, Mathers himself pleaded guilty of the crime. However, the judge could also have judged Mr. Mathers’ act from evidences and reports given from police department to pronounce him guilty since other than the attorney’s claim of his client’s clean intentions and acts of love, other evidences show a brutal man and with no value to humanity(Gier, 2006). Virtue ethics is only a method or technique but can be expressed through acts of compassion to assuage misfortune. Compassion involves sympathy towards another person who is suffering. Compassion is majorly focused on helping another person get over or work out of a situation causing suffering. The attorney mentions compassion in the act of Mathers which is an aspect of a person that exhibits good virtues. However, this is not an entire basis for the case. If elements of virtue are to be pointed out, it gives a contradicting conclusion. In the statement given by attorney Anthony Bellato, Mathers is displayed as someone who is mindful and loving to an extent that he could not bear see his partner go through all that pain and do nothing about it. As a responsible partner, he attempted to seek medical advice and support to help Griffiths ease that pain. However, according to the case study it was impossible. The attorney insists that his act was as a result of great selfless love he felt for Griffiths and the motivation of providing her a relief from suffering. However, virtue of care and love are contradicted and the defendant is portrayed to exhibit character of a murderer where he is noted to have deliberately taken the life of another individual. Carrying out the whole process of suffocation depicts someone who is heatless and with no value to life. According to the case study, this was not the first incident that Mathers helped Griffiths in executing the plan to end her life since he had once helped her overdose of antidepressants. This might suggest that he could still have made another attempt if this one failed. According to virtue purported by the society, Mathers exhibits vices (Slowther et al, 2004). Benevolence is a virtue portrayed in this case study. Aristotle Nicomachean ethics considers virtue as an aspect of choice arrived at by measuring or obtaining a mean of relative choices objectively. The defense, Mathers, considers the two options as indicated in his statement in NSW supreme court that ‘if not the court, he would be facing Griffiths every day in the nursing care facility asking him why he did not do anything to help ease her pain when he would’. This means that the defense made a choice, his objective being to help stop Griffith’s suffering (Pakaluk, 2005). Confucian role ethics involves a way in which ethics people’s character collectively in attaining a consummate kind of life of state of life. In this case, the virtue and behavior of a particular person influences character and conduct of others around. In the case study, the character and interests of Griffiths has influenced Mathers character and decisions too who wants to support her. Within the aspect of Confucian role ethics, judgment is placed on whether the character, conduct, feelings or thoughts are right or wrong. It involves a major focus on the mind of human beings in science and psychological contexts (Ames, 2010). Conclusion It is evident that most frameworks outlined in the paper point to the fact that Mathers’ act was wrong and that the defense statement should be out ruled. Ethical frameworks might differ in away from legal rules. A framework like utilitarianism supports actions of the deceased and to some extent, which of her partner. However, ethical egoism and some aspects of virtue ethics rule out the element of mercy where Mathers’ imprisonment should be reconsidered. Although the society is characterized by both mercy and justice, according to community opinion, high degrees of mercy with limited ethical egoism will also limit effectiveness of ethics in imparting social welfare. In conclusion, custodial sentence for the defense should not be revised and Mathers should face his sentence since the act was not justifiable. If the court rules out the plea to remove Mathers custodial sentence as it was its initial verdict, the defendant is likely to be affection emotionally by affecting his positivity. However, it will have attained the opinion of justice as per the society. In case the sentence is reconsidered and removed, this means a threat to more lives exposed to Mathers according to some of the ethical frameworks. However, this is likely to impact the individual positively especially if the act was truly out of love. Bibliography Louise Hall Courts., 2011, Killing was act of love, court told. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/killing-was-act-of-love-court-told-20110421-1dqmq.html Taken from: Slowther A, Johnston C, Goodall J, Hope, T., 2004, A practical guide for clinical ethics support. The Ethox Centre. Section C: Ethical Frameworks. Retrieved from: http://www.ukcen.net/uploads/docs/education_resources/pack1/pack1_moral.pdf Rachels, J., the elements of moral philosophy. University of Alabama. McGrwHill; Birmingham. Retrieved from: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/courses/306_09/readings/rachels_ethical.pdf Ord, T., 2005, Consequentialism and decision procedures.University of Oxford. http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/decision-procedures.pdf Pakaluk, M, 2005, .Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics: An introduction. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Retrieved from: Gier, N. F., 2006, Virtue ethics and character consequentialism.Journal of religion and philosophy. Spring publishers. Retrieved from: Ames, R. T., 2010, Confucian role ethics: A vocabulary. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Read More

Consequentialism Ethical egoism is evident in the action taken by NSW Supreme Court. The outcome of defense’s action, which was Ms Griffith’s death, was taken with great consideration more than anything else like the final rest of the deceased. As a result of this decision made by court based on their element of focus, it influenced the lives of other people at three different levels. According to the societal perspective, this judgment was beneficial as more lives would be protected and essence of justice according to community morals would be attained.

The judgment might also be considered detrimental especially to Mathers if he did it out of love. Incarceration would ruin his personality and might affect his positivity to life. Neutrality is attained by court where societal moral expectations and the law are incorporated in the judgment. To a given extent, the judgment has incorporated a certain level of ethical egoism that is healthy to maintain general society welfare in terms of what the society refers to as justice (Gier, 2006). According to Rachels(1961), if the society is utterly governed by mercy,society welfare is likely to be ineffective.

Utilitarianism concept of consequentialism determines or distinguishes the essence of wrong and that which is right on basis of pleasure and or pain. Individuals are therefore at liberty to make decisions and determine ethics behind their behavior where they derive pleasure since pleasure in most times outweigh pain.In the case study, the party involved, together with the deceased depicts a decision made on the basis of elements of utilitarianism. Although the situation does not point out actual pleasure that is attained from the decision, rest attained and pain eradicated.

This exhibits the outcome of rest against pain to the individual. However, another party played a part in attaining this relief and as a result crossed boundary of what the society deems as moral. Utilitarianism therefore supports the deceased need to ease her pain and rest eternally if she did it herself. The principle points out that it is upto the individual to determine, therefore, the defense’s plea to be reconsidered using ‘act of love’ as defense is out of place. Act utilitarianism therefore supports defense while rule utilitarianism rules it out.

In this case, the rest, which could be referred to as happiness in terms of the framework is focused on one person and not everyone. This is against the rules of utilitarianism which purports that interests satisfied should bring about happiness to everyone and not on specific person. Act utilitarianism points out elements of deliberate actions. Mathers’ conduct was as a result of deliberate action. He knew and ascertained to what he did. Relating this to medical report on substantial mental impairment of the party, the argument is unjustifiable (Slowther et al, 2004).

Controversy of consequentialism According to consequential framework, the outcome of actions is able to justify the morality. It is right for the community to consider incarceration of Mathers as justice to prevail against mercy. The seventy eight year old Eva Griffith did not die a natural death or as a result of the chronic condition she was suffering from. The outcome in this case is loss of life in an unnatural means. Taking another persons’ life is against the moral standing of society and law of state.

The law is required to protect humanity against any threats to lives. Incarcerating Mathers is one of the ways that other people’s lives would be protected since he has been proven to be a threat to life. The defendant admitted to the court that he was guilty but used substantial impairment of his mental state as defense. This can be an indication that he might also be a threat to more lives (Slowther et al, 2004). On the other hand, it will be right for the Court of Law to show mercy to the defendant and reconsider custodial sentence if the outcome considered the case is rest from the chronic pain the victim suffered.

Read More