The Grey Zone Analysis

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

THEME: The line between good and evil is sometimes unclear, and as a result, people often think that they are doing the right thing when it is actually the wrong action, and vice versa.

“‘Ain’t gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal from ‘em.’ ‘Le’s do it now. Let’s get that place now’” (106). These are the last words that filled the air between George and Lennie, their last exchange preceding a pivotal moment in both of their lives. They conversation calms and soothes Lennie, who hopes to finally get the farm that he and George dreamed about for so many years. Yet unbeknownst to him, Lennie would soon be set free from his earthly bonds by his long-time friend; a bullet, shot from the barrel of George’s gun, would enter Lennie’s head and kill him instantly. That bullet was not one of self-gain and moral disrepute, but one of freedom and liberation from worldly restraints. While this remains a hotly contested topic in classrooms reading Of Mice and Men, George’s intentions in killing Lennie were overwhelmingly good-natured.

Rebecca Saxe’s Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality analyzes multiple research studies performed on the ethical ideas of morality. Saxe uses three current studies to validate her argument, including a Harvard internet study, research on the cognitive activity in the brains of an infant, and analysis of brain imaging using an fMRI. She uses logos and ethos in this essay to support her argument that scientific research will never fully explain the process that a human takes to make a sound, moral judgement, despite all of the innovative studies being performed. Saxe begins her argument by presenting a scenario that helps the reader to further understand the topic being discussed: moral dilemmas. The scenario includes

In John Steinbeck, novella Of Mice And Men we are introduced to George, the brain and Lennie, the muscles. As we travel beside the two men we are introduced to a dreary and often cruel world full of death and broken dreams of the early 1930. As the story progresses, we see how Lennie’s inability to control his own strength grows more and more troubling .This would lead to George having to make a heartbreaking decision about whether to shoot Lennie, sparing him from a slow and painless death. The debate that spawns from his decision is whether it was ethical to take someone else’s death into one’s and if it's murder or a case of a mercy killing. The book makes a compelling argument against George murdering Lennie because of his mental disability , the way he did not take proper care of Lennie, and should George shot Lennie?

The sound rang in your ears, his limp body fell to the ground, and your hand shook with the weight of your gun, and the blood of the person you just killed; your best friend. In Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, George’s best friend is lying dead in front him, Lennie, who like George is just a character but is mentally disabled. And although Lennie may have killed Curley’s wife and is now in danger, George murdering Lennie doesn’t solve any issues. George was not justified in killing Lennie because they could’ve run away like they did in Weed, George betrayed Lennie’s trust, and by killing Lennie George shows he is a hypocrite to his own rules.

What if a man walked outside and walked to a friends house. Now once he got to this house, he learned that this friend accidentally harmed someone because he doesn’t have mental control over his strength. So this man kills his friend. This is what happens at the end of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.

A murder is any type of unlawful killing that was planned ahead of time by a person with intent to harm. Murder throughout history has been considered an act of evil and a sinful deed. In John Steinbeck’s novel, Of Mice and Men, George killed his best friend Lennie and many readers believe that George’s actions weren’t justified. However, George was justified in killing Lennie because he saved him from the consequences of the murder, and he prevented Lennie from accidentally hurting someone else. George was justified in killing Lennie because George saved him from the consequences he would have faced if he was caught by Curley or sent to jail.

In life, people are faced with tough decisions every day. In the novelette Of Mice and Men, written by John Steinbeck, George was forced to make a tough decision and ended up euthanizing Lennie. George was put in this situation because Lennie killed Curley’s wife. He kills Lennie to protect him from society as well as protect society from Lennie. Also, Lennie is unable to make decisions on his own, so he always looks to George for answers. Though Lennie’s death may seem like a murder, George’s actions are justified when he kills Lennie due to the reason that it was a mercy killing.

A life is very precious and valuable, and taking away one's life is viewed by many as a crime and violation of human rights. However, under certain circumstances, the taking of someone's life may be viewed as acceptable. When one is in great pain or danger, and could no longer benefit from living, killing them might be the best option for them. This is the case in Of Mice and Men a fiction novel by John Steinbeck. In the book, Steinbeck tells the story of two good friends, George and Lennie, who travel around as ranch workers during The Great Depression. After Lennie commits an accidental murder, George finds Lennie and kills him. George kills Lennie because he knows Lennie’s

In the book Of Mice And Men by John Steinbeck, the character George shot and killed his friend Lennie for killing Curley’s when they were in the barn together. Sooner than later, Lennie snapped her neck and ran away to a hiding spot he and George came up with. A mob of their associates, Curley, Candy, and Slim went to go lynch Lennie. George made a start to Lennie’s hiding spot to shoot Lennie. George didn’t want his friend to suffer for his mistakes, therefore he killed Lennie. Thus George was justified in his actions when he killed Lennie. George did the right thing.

Have you ever been put in a situation where you aren’t sure if it’s right or wrong? Have you ever thought of your punishment? In John Steinbeck's novella, Of Mice and Men, George is put in a similar situation. People could go both ways with this. In some cases, people would think that George killing Lennie was wrong and George should be punished.

Imagine watching an innocent man who can not control his actions have his own life taken from him by his best friend in a matter of minutes. In the novel “Of Mice and Men,” John Steinbeck uses dialogue to show that George does not do the right thing by killing Lennie. George and Lennie are two white men living during the Great Depression who are traveling in search of work to support themselves. The men have a dream to own their own farm one day, but because of Lennie’s mental disability the two are constantly nomading to new places for work. At the end of the novel, George is left with the choice to kill his best friend, or allow him to continue to cause harm to himself and others. George decides to murder his best friend, which many will

right and wrong share a very thin line. The right decision for some might be wrong for others and vice

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.