Right And Wrong

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?

Jimmy Santiago Baca is a winner of the International Prize for his work in, A Place to Stand. The making of a poet. He writes, “I had no money. There is no way I’m going to make bail” (Baca, 187). In some cases, prisoners are only locked up because they had to get appointed a defense attorney who convinced them to plead to the charges so they would not have to go to trial and risk getting an extended amount of time. District attorneys are elected by the citizens and those people want someone who is tough on crime. If the district attorney is not tough on crime, the people will not reelect him. This can lead to many innocent lives being wasted; For instance, some criminals will sit in a cell for decades for the smallest offense. However, if a prisoner attempts to plead not guilty and the case goes to a trial by jury and they do find him or her guilty, they will be sentenced to an even longer term. It is obvious that our justice system is unfair and against human morals and ethics. They are somehow “innocent until proven guilty” yet they cannot afford to prove themselves innocent. Not only is poverty a reason for the rising increase in the population of inmates, many lack the education needed to understand the law or what they are being accused of.

It is important for anyone convicted of a criminal case, especially those who are innocent, to have an adequate attorney, in order to atleast have a chance in proving their innocence, Therefore, instead of continuing to put most of our money in the prison system, we should use at least some of that money towards public attorneys. According to a 2008 estimate by the American Bar Association, state and county governments spent 200 billion dollars on criminal justice every year but only spent 5.3 billion dollars on public defence systems (Laughland, 2016). In addition, many public defenders are overworked. About 73 percent of county public defender offices exceeded the maximum recommended limit of case (150 felonies or 400 misdemeanors), according to the United States Department of Justice (Brunt, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to limit the amount of work provided to the county public defender offices which would allow the defenders to provide the time necessary to each of their cases in order to have a fair trial for the

Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the Orange County Public Defender’s office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office’s attorneys. But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S.,

In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.

The injustice of incarcerating a defendant that was tried and convicted without the representation of an attorney is “an obvious truth.” Gideon, 372 U.S. 344. Yet, isn’t there truth to the shocking injustice of leaving the poor and most vulnerable without representation for legal issues regarding basic needs such as shelter, food, safety, family and health? The decision in Gideon stressed that a criminal conviction, stripping an individual of their liberty, without the representation of counsel was a grave injustice that violated the dues process clause. The poor are denied due process, suffering a loss liberty and justice because they cannot afford legal representation. In some cases, the loss is just as great if not greater than being convicted of a crime or imprisoned. Kathryn Grant Madigan, Advocating for a Civil Right to Counsel in New York State Note, 25 Touro Law Review 9–22 (2009).

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Imagine you are a teen walking down the street with a friend. Now imagine being surrounded by police and getting searched for something that is not there. Since the item in question can not be placed the accuser changes their story; After multiple versions of what allegedly happened the police arrest you and your friend. Due to having a history of theft, a judge charges you with second degree robbery, even though there is no evidence to prove any wrong doing. Thinking the justice system will come through, and knowing your innocence, a trial is requested. Bail is set and cannot be paid due to economic hardship. Another consequence of not having money for bail, is there is also no money for a private attorney. A public defender, who has to many cases to keep straight, is assigned to help defend in court, yet he is trying to lessen his load and recommends several times that a plea deal is the best option that should be taken, even in the case of innocence. Picture holding out hope that if the case could just go to trial all would come to light. Four years pass by, mostly spent in solitary confinement, where the harsh circumstances begin to take a toll, mentally and physically. Imagine conditions so horrible, death seems better than enduring another day. Now picture the day for “justice” is finally here. No sooner does court get started it ends. The case gets thrown out due to the person who started all of this not being present. All the suffering that has been endured,

Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

Any beneficial conversations about morality that occur between those who practice religion and those who do not, or those with different religions, must incorporate a common set of ethical concepts and a shared procedure for resolving issues and making judgments, all of which ethics provides. It is also understood that in these conversations moral positions on the issues