tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post8981187007132380647..comments2017-06-15T00:36:02.259-07:00Comments on PHS TOK Seminar: Lawful? - LAW AND ETHICS FOLLOW UP QUESTION!J.Malonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18172827782199289643noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-1744801112335519052009-03-31T21:05:00.000-07:002009-03-31T21:05:00.000-07:00Alright, I am posting this for Max as he couldn't ...Alright, I am posting this for Max as he couldn't log on. These are his words, not mine.<BR/><BR/>"This question is very interesting because of the very broad implications that arise from any answer. An answer can be found through several different approaches. The first is the familiar method of analyzing the context of the law breaking to determine if it sends a good message and if it is more beneficial than the damage it may cause.<BR/><BR/>For instance, the lawyer involved in the case Magistrate Jostad discussed with us undoubtedly did aide in ending a criminal threat through impersonation. Removing murders and rapists from the streets in a good thing from an ethical and pragmatic standpoint. However, the ethical and pragmatic questions, the knowledge problems in other words, that are introduced through the impersonation have troubling implications. The justice system seems less credible and the interpretation of the law is called into question.<BR/><BR/>Looking at this dilemma situationally could lead to a more nuanced judgment, but it in turn weakens the law through requiring that it be continually re-interpreted, making the boundary between crime and justice less defined. This approach results in following the intention of the law, or ethics in general.<BR/><BR/>An absolute application of the law on the other hand, removing the question of the law's intent or the individual's obligation to follow morals outside of it, would undoubtedly result in a sharper division between crime and justice. Following the letter of the law results in more concrete standards and more agreement, or unity of opinion at least, as to what obligations to ethics and the law are. This approach has many downsides as well. Absolute adherence to solely the letter of the law can more more difficult and illogical than interpreting it situationally.<BR/><BR/>The ultimate trade offs both approaches share boil down to the choice between exchanging legal certainty for individual justice or a rational interpretation of the law for absolute understanding of it.<BR/><BR/>Because of our culture's emphasis on the individual and hatred of the arbitrary, the first method seems to have more merit.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Max"CJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746524126491515210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-90683258920408190362009-03-12T20:05:00.000-07:002009-03-12T20:05:00.000-07:00I agree with Karam for the most part. I think that...I agree with Karam for the most part. I think that personally I would break the law to uphold it for most situations, and that the ends would justify the means. However, it is hard to reconcile this with the way society functions. In the context of the law, I don't think that the ends justify the means, and someone cannot just break the law and justify it for the greater good. The one exception being Batman, who can break the law whenever he pleases in order to uphold the greater good. I trust his judgment. (Justification? -Authority of course) That's what it comes down to I think, trusting someone's judgment. You can trust your own judgment for the most part, and Batman's, but other people's judgment is sometimes harder to accept.<BR/> -Nick Jordan (King's class)Nick Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02375077118047937150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-81558853682707416692009-03-10T00:35:00.000-07:002009-03-10T00:35:00.000-07:00I believe that this is a very interesting question...I believe that this is a very interesting question to consider. In this case, we see a “the end justifies the means” case which seems to be very understandable and logical in this situation. It is true that removing a criminal from society is always a good thing, but this does not necessarily justify what the man did by impersonating a PD officer. But by saying that what the officer did what for the greater good, or that the “ends justify his means,” it almost sends a message that breaking the law has no boundaries , and it does not matter what crime you commit as long as the outcome of what you did is justified. In this sense, it is dangerous to say that “the ends justify the means.” The context of the actual crime must be taken into consideration as well. In the case of Paulter, there was more good resulting from him breaking the law.<BR/>In general, I personally believe that sometimes the law has to be broken for the greater good, especially when (as Shellie stated) there is a net beneficial gain in the end. (Of course, it all depends on the context of the situation.Karamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17613910892979901071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-49020188015728453592009-03-07T21:17:00.000-08:002009-03-07T21:17:00.000-08:00I guess I agree for the most part with what Ian S ...I guess I agree for the most part with what Ian S said, about the laws being pointless and needing to be examined closer. I think breaking a law for you consider a "good reason" is usually either to uphold a legal code, or an ethical code. In this case, with the legal code, those laws would certainly be at odds with each other, and it sends the message that the legal system is flawed, or that the ends always justify the means.B. Wurzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359722224742311652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-22466122012583996672009-03-07T15:06:00.000-08:002009-03-07T15:06:00.000-08:00If we break the law to uphold it, what message doe...If we break the law to uphold it, what message does that send? Ultimately, does it do more harm than good?<BR/><BR/>I believe that if one has to break a law to uphold another law, than one of those laws is either pointless, or it contradicts another. So no, I think that one should never have to break a lwaw to uphold another, and if that situaltion does occur, than the laws need to be looked at closely.Ian Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16420607577786261255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-7487703145208395422009-03-03T20:47:00.000-08:002009-03-03T20:47:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10121188680753820146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-56095168918615946682009-03-03T20:46:00.000-08:002009-03-03T20:46:00.000-08:00I believe that government, the police,ect. should ...I believe that government, the police,ect. should not break the law to uphold it. They have a responibility to their nation to abid by the laws they created to demonstrate trust. If they deliberatly break the law to keep the law it leads to doubts as to what extent they would go to have control. This would lead to governemnt control and less freedom's. Overall for the government it does more harm then good. But I can also see the other side. If a person was not affiliated with the government and a criminal threatened his family I can see how the law could be disregarded behind the safety of loved ones. It doesn't make it right or any good as in the whole nation, but if it saves somone, this person would have to make the choice between breaking the law and suffering the consequences. I'm not saying I would in this situation but there are extrenuating cercumstances.tpauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607226056760061840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-64033249941417506872009-02-21T10:54:00.000-08:002009-02-21T10:54:00.000-08:00In theory, I suppose the end justifies the means, ...In theory, I suppose the end justifies the means, but this doesn't mean that the end was reached in a justifiable way. I think that breaking the law to uphold it is (as most people have stated) wrong in that it goes against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. By accomplishing something in an "immoral" way, you defeat the purpose of having a moral outcome.justinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12479254726230724233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-72349981747017242402009-02-19T10:10:00.000-08:002009-02-19T10:10:00.000-08:00Well I like to think of myself as a law-abiding, r...Well I like to think of myself as a law-abiding, rule-following, trend-setting, gov't serving, overall moral guy, and I think the law should be upheld, because we as voters put the people who made the laws in charge. Of course we can't vote but our parents aren't trying to just mess the bejeebies out of life, as much as we'd like to think they are. <BR/>But there are times when laws are arbitrary or the gov't is corrupt, at which case I think Locke got it correct that it is the people responsiblity to overthrow and unjust gov't. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and I don't have all the answers, seeing as how I'm still rather young in age and the wisdom hasn't really set in. What Locke says could lead people to say moral law is just relative to each individual person. But I don't think this is true either, because without a absolute truth, we would drift into anarchy, so I guess I got somemore thinking to do.<BR/><BR/>Ms. King sorry for being so late, I wrote an apologetic rap for you.Scott-de-la-Trouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13846759167202925483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-68767646250255164262009-02-16T14:17:00.000-08:002009-02-16T14:17:00.000-08:00I think it defeats the purpose of having the law i...I think it defeats the purpose of having the law in the first place if we break it to uphold it. I understand that the constitution has its limitations and loopholes, and sometimes timing and the circumstances make it almost impossible not to break the law. But what message does that send to the public? It places certain people above the law and contradicts the idea that the law is above everything. I have to agree with Don to a certain extent that as long as the outcome is positive it doesn't matter if the law is broken. But when we say it's "okay" to one case, then that opens up tons of other possibilities of future breaking of law to uphold it, and ultimately it will lead to more harm than good... It's best not to break the law in any circumstances unless it's the last possible way.<BR/><BR/>Sorry about the late post--I need to check my PIV more often..jeewonkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09568608029779241230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-20156044337222682009-02-15T14:35:00.000-08:002009-02-15T14:35:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hannah Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818045329590377468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-52135897231775637112009-02-10T19:35:00.000-08:002009-02-10T19:35:00.000-08:00I see the law as a way to maintain order in an imp...I see the law as a way to maintain order in an imperfect society. We as humans do a lot of inexplainable things, look at the court cases, and if nothing was done to stop these things what would happen? Law is not a terrible thing, something to be hated and bent to get our ways, instead the purpose of their establishment must be realized. <BR/><BR/>So often the language issue of "breaking to law" describes those who scorn the very purpose of the laws. It seems to me that if the law is broken in order to advance the purpose of its establishment then it would be hypocritical to punish those in question. Using the example of the officer who lied to bring in the murderer; to punish actions maintaining order, life and bringing justice sends the message that the law is higher even than itself. The words of the law has exceed its own purpose for being established, holding everyone accountable to black and white is more important than holding everyone accountable for upholding the reasons for the establishment of the law.<BR/><BR/>I understand that this ideals lie on the trust of just human judgment, based on motives and the heart of a man. This I admit is impossible for all situations, but the situations must be examined and considered according to the foundation of the law, rather than the black and white.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072607653837276020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-73908138295733053682009-02-10T16:16:00.000-08:002009-02-10T16:16:00.000-08:00Personally, I do not think it causes more harm to ...Personally, I do not think it causes more harm to break the law to uphold it. Everybody has their own moral limitations, and if somebody breaks the law to stand up to their moral obligations, then I see absolutely no harm in that. I feel once there is damage done there is nothing you can do to make it worse, especially when trying to make it better (according to your moral standards). And, honestly, I don't think there is a negative message that comes with the breaking of the law; there are so many different situations when laws have been broken that it is hard to judge and say that breaking the law to live up to your morals would convey a negative message. I don't necessarily think it conveys a positive image either... so I guess what I am saying is that it doesn't really say any certain message that is really of importance to be emotionally altered by.<BR/><BR/>~Haylee SchiavoHaylee Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12461055408276216679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-66542780057518726552009-02-09T18:28:00.000-08:002009-02-09T18:28:00.000-08:00I think breaking the law to uphold it does more ha...I think breaking the law to uphold it does more harm then good in some cases but it depends on the severity of the law being broken and for what reason it is being broken. If a law enforcement officer breaks the law then he himself is a criminal just as much as the person he is trying to uphold the law to. However I agree with James Rogers, if the law being upheld outweighs the law being broken significantly then the law being broken can be excused. Also, if the law being broken is significantly outweighed in severity by the law being upheld then the punishment recieved by the person breaking the law to uphold it will or should be significantly less and be worth breaking it for justice.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14219802727823807795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-55451920133409971772009-02-09T16:27:00.000-08:002009-02-09T16:27:00.000-08:00I was absent for the seminar but I will respond an...I was absent for the seminar but I will respond anyways...<BR/>I think that the message that is sent by those who break the law to uphold it, is fairly contradictory and hypycritical. However, I feel that in some cases, breaking the law to uphold the law is necessary. As long as the law broken won't harm others or won't do harm that isn't deserved, this seems ok to me. In the reading we had to do, the law that the posed "lawyer: committed, wasn't bad at all. I think that in order to catch and give correct punishment to the murderer this had to take place. We can't also just follow the law if others are not going to be put to justice or if others are going to be harmed by doing so.Paigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08531884721755113867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-47346714818923982602009-02-09T13:02:00.000-08:002009-02-09T13:02:00.000-08:00I think it's a matter of utility, if the ultimate ...I think it's a matter of utility, if the ultimate outcome is beneficial, for example, trespassing to uncover the identity of a murderer is acceptable. I think it's which laws are broken to uphold which law is where the true importance of the matter is. After all to put it so simply would be inconceivable. I think it sends a negative message if the law broken outweighs or equals the law being upheld.AzuraZerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635549703687228396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-38777847678334610902009-02-08T22:42:00.000-08:002009-02-08T22:42:00.000-08:00Personally I believe that if we have to break the ...Personally I believe that if we have to break the law to uphold I think that depending on the situation it could be justified and not really do much harm. If there is someone who is the mafia and they kill someone at the same time they stole 3 million dollars form the federal bank. Then by all means break the law because if the person is ever going to be avenged deception, stealing, and deadly force might be needed to bring justice and in my opinion its ok and people will understand why it was done and probably wont reinact the actions. However is someone is driving to many people in their car or they have a tailight out, if a cop wants to pull them over and they have to run a red light and speed to pull them over i think it's uneeded because that puts more people in danger than the broken tailight. Overall i believe that breaking the law in certain circumstances creates a sense comfort in the people because they trust if something is needed to be done it will be done, but in other circumstances i believe it causes a sense of unfaithfullnes because the government is abusing its power.<BR/><BR/>-Pierce MillerBig Boi PMILhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430670050448135500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-76392694991946657722009-02-08T18:18:00.000-08:002009-02-08T18:18:00.000-08:00completely spaced the name game. Shellie = Michell...completely spaced the name game. <BR/><BR/>Shellie = Michelle Moon.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09621914831056985703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-2556028844662927342009-02-08T15:36:00.000-08:002009-02-08T15:36:00.000-08:00If we break the law to uphold it, what message doe...If we break the law to uphold it, what message does that send? Ultimately, does it do more harm than good?<BR/><BR/>As always, justify.<BR/><BR/>First of all, I do not think that there is such thing as “breaking the law to uphold it.” Either you break a law, or you uphold the law. There is no in between. If we choose to break the law because we feel it is for the betterment of society, or keeps more people save etc., it is still breaking the law. If we break the law “for the greater good," taking into account the principle of utility, in which breaking the law will ultimately do the most good, then perhaps in such cases breaking the law can be justified. In Pautler’s case for instance, he broke the law, and was rightfully punished for it, yet he also did the right thing by breaking the law. The message sent by this case was that breaking the law still has its consequences, as a due process so that people don’t start breaking the law for arbitrary reasons, yet in some cases it is the right thing to due. If laws are in place to protect people and their rights, ultimately it does more harm to break them. There are the exceptions though, in which the law gets in the way of protecting people.<BR/>-Meredith Campbellmeredithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07141598776630965263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-60159611240234027892009-02-07T14:42:00.000-08:002009-02-07T14:42:00.000-08:00It defeats the whole purpose of having laws if you...It defeats the whole purpose of having laws if you have to break them to uphold them. Even if it is a "one time" thing, the laws were made to establish order and if people (especially ones in authority) bend the laws, then the laws will no longer have any significance or power.<BR/><BR/>Going back to the case we discussed earlier; if people like police officers are given the power to maintain order, they have no right to be above the laws they enforce upon everyone else. They would be complete hypocrites, and YES—bring more harm than good. When people start finding the cracks to squeeze through, the cracks will eventually get larger, and at some point our foundation of order will ultimately crumble.Laura Johttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480543151915241701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-36664350097761017172009-02-06T18:35:00.000-08:002009-02-06T18:35:00.000-08:00I think there are times when it’s important and ne...I think there are times when it’s important and necessary to break the law for the greater good but other times it’s definitely now ok. It all depends on the situation. Using this case for example, breaking the law was the best way they could think of at that moment to catch the bad guy. We can look back now and see other alternatives but at the time it was what they thought was best. They used their experiences and personal morals to make a call that ultimately ended in a success as far as catching the murder goes. I’m not saying that policemen should have the right to abide by some laws and not others because of what they think, but sometimes it is better to do what fits the situation. The law definitely has grey areas and that’s where ethics come in. There are never two exactly identical cases so all we can do is learn from previous cases and make the best call in our minds for each situation.Kaitlyn T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14141839972071401258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-43030035003237426032009-02-05T20:58:00.000-08:002009-02-05T20:58:00.000-08:00Breaking the law in order to uphold it sends mixed...Breaking the law in order to uphold it sends mixed messages. It's a rather hypocritical thing to do...however. I think it's much more complex than that. Depending on the difference between the law that's been broken and the law that's being upheld, one can justify his reasoning beneath this "exchange of laws." As a personal opinion, I would suggest that some laws are more heavily weighted, more important, and more relevant than others. It's true that the web of laws upholding our society is intricate and it's arguable that each individual law has it's important role in that web. But when you think about it, the law that says a teenager cannot drive with another person until 6 months after having his license is important (for the safety of the teens) but not AS important as the law that convicts those who have commited gruesome crimes (such as murder). So my answer is yes and no. It all depends. It can do more harm, but generally, if it is involving something like the Pautler case that is about the ethical implications of his actions (wrong, but nothing in comparison to the unethical practice of murder) it did more good than harm. (Although I still stand by my statement that they should have rested their verdict until the Pautler situation was taken into account). I guess the main message it sends is this: Our law system isn't perfect. Sometimes things aren't so black and white; aren't cut and dry. Rarely, in fact. Each case is unique and should be treated uniquely. Laws can't be traded as if they were some form of currency...but they also can't always be seperate from one another. Like most things in life, laws overlap. That's just the way it is (and will always be). <BR/><BR/>-Hannah NeffHannah Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818045329590377468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-64875228223888387282009-02-05T20:27:00.000-08:002009-02-05T20:27:00.000-08:00I think that each case is obviously different, and...I think that each case is obviously different, and that each action in resonse to those cases will have different actions. To say a just outcome will come from civil disobedience in every instance is in my opinion false, but certainly if done for the right reasons with moral intents and results, then yes, it should be done. I think the message it sends is one that the humans are not always apathetic and can find a higher meaning in life than simple laws permit. Of course, this has to be considerate of peace and harmony, such as the case with Ghandi. A balance must be kept.Fliphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11318239637259678255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-50775963790884885982009-02-05T20:13:00.000-08:002009-02-05T20:13:00.000-08:00Clearly yes. By breaking the law to uphold the law...Clearly yes. By breaking the law to uphold the law, the law loses its ability to function. If we say that torture is illegal, and then DO torture people, how does the law last? I think that this act shows an inherent lack of confidence in our judicial system, that it is necessary to do wrong in order to do good. If other countries or groups took up this mantra, could any number of horrific events be far behind?griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00924741847986522231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9166466971739737088.post-32416288028527997582009-02-05T19:58:00.000-08:002009-02-05T19:58:00.000-08:00If we break the law to uphold it, what message doe...If we break the law to uphold it, what message does that send? Ultimately, does it do more harm than good?<BR/><BR/>Well, if you break it down into each individual instance, sure, there are times when breaking the law to uphold it does a lot of good! I'm glad that Paulter was found guilty, because I would so much rather that have been the outcome. However, bending the rules for one case is a good way to have to start bending them all over the place, ultimately defeating the purpose of having laws in general. If you're going to break the law to uphold it, you're better off living in an anarchy, because at least then no one will get in trouble.kaitlynLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10423546803607155022noreply@blogger.com