What Is Morally Right in Patterns Movie - Essay Example

Summary of the patterns movie It is apparent that the death of Briggs had a lot of controversies especially on the sides of Ramsey and Staples. As Staples takes the heart of confronting Ramsey, the issue of Aristotelian paradigm takes course. In this regard, Staple was in a fix to handle the situation by exercising his moral obligation on the same. Having been offered with Briggs’ job including other financial incentives, Staples had to balance the proposal by Ramsey and his stand on what was morally right as far as his witnessing the death of Brigg’s death is concerned. On the other hand, Ramsey was compelled to enter into an agreement with Staples due to the situation that made him kill Brigg. However, his moral grounds were based on what was best in accordance to nature in the prevailing circumstances. Rationale for Epictetus response to the proposed strategy adopted by Staples The main teaching of Epictetus is on ethics. On his discourse, he lays out his ethical principles, which were formulated in forms of arguments in order to cure human souls (Guthrie 122). In the case of Staples’ proposed strategy, Epictetus could have argued that one has to abandon the attitude of a private individual and fulfill the ideal of a man in a moral progress. In this regard, it is true to argue that Staples ought to have stood on his morals and do what was right without compromising it with the job offered to him by Ramsey. This should also have been in line with what Aristotle argued to be the practice of good actions. Although Staples could have decided to take Ramsey’s offer basing his take of the position by reasoning as a means to living a life of virtue, his caveats seemed to contradict his morals. However, his decision to warn Ramsey about what he felt concerning the death of Brigg was such a good move, which shows his virtues. Nevertheless, Staples can be argued not to be fully committed to his moral virtues. According to Aristotle, moral virtue is constituted by correct action and emotion (Guthrie 130). Although Staples’ emotions symbolizes his true moral virtues, that is, his caveats about his feelings towards Brigg’s death and what he felt about what Ramsey did, his actions were not compatible with that. He was offered a job by Ramsey, and this could have acted as a bribe, which compromised his moral virtues. Aristotle’s point of view on individual change of heart in the business environment was that individuals must make choices that have consequences. For example, these choices should be in line with their impact on the society, if the consequences of bad behavior remove the individual further from achieving and contributing ‘good’ which, by endowment, yields a positivity to humanity, then that choice is uncalled for. It is further believed that ne person’s action can infuse the whole society. It can be argued that Staple’s action to take the job offered by Ramsey could play two major roles. Firstly Ramsey’s deeds could be encouraged as long as Staples accepted the offer of taking the job. This has an implication in that, since the offer was a kind of a deal; Staples could not disclose what happened. This, therefore, means that a culture of impunity would gradually be developed. Secondly, Staples could be compelled to sealing of such deeds even in the future as long as there is a reward offered. According to Aristotle’s concept of telos (end purpose), which articulates on the professional practice of public administration, the good life for each person is based on the move towards the perfection (Haskins 120). In this regard, it can be argued that both Ramsey and Staples were trying to move towards perfection of their good life. However, the bone of contention is on the end results of their move towards perfection of their good life. That is, the evaluation of their human soul and if their actions brigs them joy, hope, grief, or fear. The summary of the twelve angry men In the case of the young man charged with the crime of patricide, the jury needed to come up with a unified decision while giving the judgment. However, since every juror has his/her own views concerning the circumstances surrounding the young man’s case, several issues arises. However, it is in the best interest of both the jury and the young man, for a fair judgment to be made as long as justice was to be seen to be done both to the accused and the victim of the crime. Rationale for the lone juror indifferences According to Socrates, justice is good. This was argued to mean that injustice is, therefore, evil (Lynch 33). However, for one to be a just man, he/she must be a good person. But, the concern that emanates with such deliberations is how a good person needs to be like. In an attempt to explain what good is, Socrates argued that ‘good’ is natural needs, but not what man thinks he need. With this in mind, it is true to argue that the juror who differed with the other members of the jury needed to consider whether his argument was based on what he needed or for the purpose of serving the justice. According to the Socrates, the juror could have argued his stand on the decision making process based on what Socrates termed as ignorance being a vice (Lynch 35). Therefore, if the young man pleaded guilty for committing the crime, the argument is that according to Socrates, one does not commit crime if he knows it, but one commit a crime if he is ignorant of his actions. Therefore, the decision making should be based on these arguments in order to deliver a fair justice. Socrates further argues that, in the pursuit for justice, punishment for the offense is the treat for evil, and which consequently leads to punishment (Lynch 38). Therefore, if the young man was to be punished for his crime, then he can be a happy person. However, he would have been happier if he did not commit the offense at all. The lone juror could also have argued that, the decision making process should be derived from the argument that the most miserable person is the one who commit a crime and goes unpunished, since according to Socrates, punishment acts as a cure to evil and punishing such a person would make them live a happy life (Guthrie 128). On the other hand, Plato’s argument that to gain knowledge of the forms people must be re-oriented, could as well be incorporated in the decision making process by the members of the jury. This argument could have been echoed by the lone juror, which could perhaps have helped the jury in determining the correct form of punishment to give to the young man. This is arguably true because according to Plato, punishment, which is supposed to induce some form of knowledge to the offender, ought to be administered in such a way that the offender sets his mind as a whole and sets his focus on the reality (the good) (Guthrie 132). Focusing on the moral excellence of the soul, Socrates argue that every action aims at good, hence, there must be a final good, and the final good must be flourishing (Haskins 124). In this regard, both the judgment and the crime committed by the young man ought to have been evaluated with the concept of moral excellence of the soul. The lone jury, therefore, could have argued that even when deciding on the correct punishment for the young man, a clear articulation of his actions needs to be done. Similarly, the verdict of the case or the judgment should portray some final good. The final good, which should be, flourishing in this case should have been final, but self sufficient. In this regard, the jury, in the decision making process ought to have put into consideration that, the verdict should be good enough not to require any addition to it. Additionally, the platonic dialogue could be another issue of concern in the decision making process by the jury when deciding the case of the young man. This according to Plato could have served as a better strategy by the lone jury in eliciting a particular concern without necessarily providing his opinion, but ensuring that the other members of the jury think by themselves in order for them to seek answers to questions raised (Haskins 127). In addition, the lone juror could have used the view of eudaimonia, which according to Socrates focuses on the flourishing life, one which is lived in accordance to peoples deepest values not only for themselves, but also for their families and community. In this regard, the young man’s values he used to judge his actions also need to be pot into consideration when making the decision. Conclusion In both movies, the concept of Socrates view of what is morally right should have been the guiding principles. If the actions of both Staplers and Ramsey bring happiness to themselves and the society, then their actions can be argued to be correct according to Socrates. On the other hand, the jury presiding over the young man case to have articulated on several arguments raised by the Socrates as far as justice is concerned. Works cited: Guthrie, William. Socrates. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994. Haskins, Ekaterina. Logos and power in Isocrates and Aristotle. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, cop. 2004. Print. Lynch, Thomas. Virtue ethics, public administration, and telos. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5, 4, pp. 32-49, 2004. Read More