Morality and Violations Law - Essay Example

Understanding the Morality of the Different Responses to Incidents Involving Violations Law and Order I. Response Options There are at least three things that I can do in response to the situation where I witness a person shoplifting at the grocery store. First, I can ignore the incident and pretend that it did not happen, second, I can report the incident to the authorities so that the perpetrator of the crime of theft will be punished and third, approach perpetrator and tell him that taking items from the grocery store is a crime and that if he does not want to get into trouble with the law, he should either return the goods back in their places or pay for the goods before taking them out of the store. Ignoring the theft maybe the easiest response to the situation since I do not need to do anything but such response to the situation may not be the most appropriate. Telling the authorities about the incident may be a good thing to do on my part but it will result to having the man arrested and deprived of his freedom. On the other hand, approaching a perfect stranger and telling him that what he is doing is bad may result to some undesirable responses from the man and it could result to some unpleasant incidents. To decide which response is appropriate to promote the rule of law, let us look into the teachings of Immanuel Kant and Aristotle. II. Teachings of Immanuel Kant Under the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, morality can be summed up as an ultimate commandment of imperative or reason from where the duties and obligations of people are derived (Kant, 1785). Kant believes that an imperative action or inaction is necessary to maintain peace and order. For Kant, there are two classifications of imperative action namely the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as a something that compels an action under given circumstances and the categorical imperative as an absolute requirement as an end and justification of an act (Kant, 1785). Kant believes that human free will is the source of all rational action and to treat the action as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom. In applying the ideas of Kant in the case of the man at the grocery store; we can conclude that the act of taking the batteries without paying for them is wrong. Under the categorical imperative of Kant, some actions require absolute responses that serve both an end and justification for the enforcement of the law. Since in the eyes of the law, taking something without the knowledge and consent of its owner is absolutely wrong, the man’s can be categorically described as a wrongful act. According to Kant’s teachings, the act of taking something without the consent of its owner constitute a violation of an absolute duty (Kant, 1785). As it is, it is only right that theft be punished for violating an absolute duty. As witness to the crime, my absolute duty is to either prevent the occurrence of the crime or bring the perpetration to justice. Following the teachings of Kant in this case, the best thing to do in this situation is to report the theft to the proper authorities. Note that according to Kant, certain actions require absolute responses and in this case, the absolute response is to report the violation of a perfect duty to the authorities. We have to understand that under the teachings of Kant, the fact that the man took the items without the consent of its owner is a breach of law and order thus is it only rightful that such breach should be addressed in accordance with the mandates of the law. If I choose to ignore the incident and pretend that it did not happen, my act would constitute yet another breach to a perfect duty. As it is, following the teachings of Kant, the ideal response to the situation is to report the incident. II. Teachings of Aristotle Where Kant’s teachings emphasize the perfect duty of a person, the teachings of Aristotle give more emphasis on value virtue. According to the teachings of Aristotle, value virtue approach thinks about the character of the moral agent rather than the rules or consequences of the actions of the agent (Pojman, & Fieser, 2009). Unlike Kant, Aristotle sees ethics as a practical science rather than a theoretical one, thus, in his teachings, he gave emphasis on the different ways that human nature affect the way a person accept and act on a moral responsibility. Aristotle believes that human beings are meant to work towards the ultimate good and that the true character of a person guides his action (Pojman, & Fieser, 2009). Aristotle believes that people reactions to certain situations based on their moral values and that there are certain instance wherein the wrongful acts of an individual can be justified (Pojman, & Fieser, 2009). For instance, if a person is very poor and he had not eaten for day, under the value ethics teaching, his act of stealing food to satisfy his hunger would be justified. Aristotle believes one should consider the factors that pushed the person to decide to commit the act in judging as to whether or not the act was moral. The teachings of Aristotle says that different factors affect the decisions of an individual in a given situation and such factors or reasons behind the action of the person can affect the morality or immorality of the action (Swanton, 2003). In the case of the man at the grocery store, it is important that we consider the reasons of the man for taking the batteries before we decide as to whether or not the act is moral. As it is, the best response in this situation would be to approach the man and ask him why he wants to take the batteries without paying for them. By asking the man the reason for his action, we will be able to understand his motivations better and judge the morality of his action through his motives. III. My Response to the Incident In dealing with the situation, I will follow the third option which is to ask the person to return the batteries or pay for them before he takes them out of the store. I believe that preventing the crime from happening is best option. When we prevent a crime from happening, the would-be victim and perpetrator will be saved from going through all the trouble of facing the consequences of their actions. By asking the man to return the batteries or to pay for them before he takes it out of the store will prevent the man from violating the law and being arrested for the crime of theft. Moreover, by asking the man to return the batteries or pay for them would create a win-win situation where I get to do the right thing and prevent the crime from happening. Aside from asking the man about his reasons, it is also important at this point to explain to the man that the law prohibits that taking of things without the consent of its owners and if caught stealing, he could go to jail. Since taking objects or things without the consent of its owner constitutes theft, the best thing to do here is to ask the man to return the goods to the store or pay for them before he takes it out of the store. We have to understand that in the view point of the law, a violation of an absolute duty constitutes a crime thus, if the man takes away an object or thing belonging to the store without paying for it, that action, regardless of motivation, will always be an act of stealing which is punishable under the law. As it, it not enough to simply ask the man his motives, it is also equally important to explain to him the consequences of his action. My chosen course of action can contribute to the maintenance of safe and fair society by preventing a crime from happening. Works Cited Pojman, L.P. & Fieser, J. (2009). Virtue Theory. In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. (6th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Swanton, Christine (2003). Virtue Ethics: a Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press Kant, Immanuel (1785); translated by James W. Ellington (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett Read More