Why Is The Paramedic Is Criminally And Morally Responsible For Terms Of Criminal Law And Responsibility Essay

As time goes by, ethical and moral issues have been brought up for long periods of time and these issues are recently becoming the rising problem to be discussed in society, business area and daily life. Most of people generally understand that the general meaning of ethics equals to the meaning of moral. However, moral is basically a matter of individual conscience without forcibleness, but ethics are related to social system with forcibleness. The academic definition of ethics is described as a stem of philosophy which raises moral questions and is demonstrated what is the main characteristic of morality and the way in which moral standards are decided (Gray & Webb, 2010).

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.

As members of a sophisticated and modern society, to participate in the day to day social life there are a few things we must act in accordance with. We must follow the natural laws that the societies have placed in order, and must establish guidelines by understanding their moral and ethical obligations. They are the foundations of our day to day life. Whether we choose to obey or disobey the norms and regulations of our social environment is determined by the way we appeal to their distinct morals and ethics.

“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all,” quoted the renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle , giving birth to the notions of natural law; the theory that without law we would be reduced to an anarchical society. Because of this, some would argue that the purpose of law would be to instill in the members of society a set of moral codes, which further illustrates the belief laws save us from ourselves, or more appropriately our “true selves”. Yet this theoretical principle leads to many criticisms and further questions; for one, what would dictate a universal moral code? Furthermore, who gets to define what is right and what is not, since morality is a fairly subjective concept? With these questions in mind, the goal of this paper is to critique the theory of natural law using Holmes rhetoric, analyze the distinction between pragmatism and natural law, and give my personal take on what “is” the law and what “ought to be” the law.

How do we know what justice is? This has been the question that we have essentially been discussing throughout all of our classes this semester. The idea that the normalities of society are the pillars for what defines what is right and what is just, is one argument that in most cases holds true. As children in our culture, we are all taught a very generic set of rules. At a very young age we learn not to harm others, steal, lie, or cheat. As children we cultivate this idea of criminals as bad people, who have somehow broken the moral code that society has so easily instilled in us as youth. However, despite society's moral code, I believe that the notion of

Moral responsibility is defined as what a thing has when it can be properly praised or blamed for something. If

The social responsibility regarding ethics is the actions that benefit society as a whole (Bethel University, 2017). Society splits ethics into two categories; the first is that there is always a “right thing to do” based on moral principles, and the second is that others believe ethics are based on circumstances that surround what is moral at the time of the incident. True ethics involve learning right and wrong and doing what is right, but

In this essay I will argue that moral obligation is like legal obligation to some extent, in that they share certain features, in particular notions of blame and responsibility. They also often overlap, though I shall argue that moral obligation is in some sense prior and superior, or more obliging than legal obligation .

As an individual within a society, you become obliged to follow certain codes of conduct, regardless of your own individual morals. To maintain a harmonious balance within a society, each person must behave within a certain code of conduct towards the rest of the individuals and the society as a whole. Although the “code” does not ask individuals to change their own morals, it does ask that they not injure the interests or rights of others. One must also realize that their morals may differ from that of another individual. Although they may practice their right of freedom by living according to their own morals and beliefs, they must still attempt to live within this social code of conduct.

Morality has been instilled in us since birth. These moral “laws” assist us to make “good” decisions and become a productive member of society. It’s an essential key component for one to live a good life. Through this understanding and instilment of a moral foundations, one can live a good life. A good life that includes making the right choices in any given situation that follows our moral grounds. Our moral grounds include assisting others when asked, sacrificing one’s own time for others, and much more. Morals help us understand how to go about making “good decisions.” For example, a situation where a person dropped their wallet by accident, and another person notices the wallet and picks it up. Now, the question is what decision shall

The concept of moral law springs from pure reason or reason that exists separate from empirical considerations. Since pure reason is able to be relevant to material action, we see a conceptual bridge is constructed in the form of the maxim, to the degree that it is tested in accordance to prescriptive law, a determinate rule of action. This determination, it must be stressed, is voluntary and subjectively constructed, while the basis of the analysis, this intend to act from duty, is based on an understanding of moral law.

living in safe harmonious community. Therefore, it goes beyond bounds of self-interest as morals is part of fabric of any society. The history of moral philosophy is proposed to justify why people should act morally, but these reasons of being moral remain controversial. Rationalizing why human beings should act morally is not an easy task when seen as part of community fabric. This question would be more challenging to these who do not take morals seriously, by which they then cannot rationalize with reasons why we do not need morality rules in our society. Furthermore, if there are moral principles which strongly influence human behaviour, it then more plausible to assume that there should be strong reasons to justify the moral act as making and defining common bounds, rather than them as merely a self-interest benefit. My response to the claim of Antiphon by where he suggest that those people who obeyed moral rules is acting from self-interest, where for me this argument in some degree could be seen as both extreme and a superficial approach. It seem he miss huge point of how a community is held together by more than just laws. There are sets of morals that applied to any kind of human act, are seen as being part of community rational framework. This essay will investigate the three main arguments in the light of normative moral theories to address some plausible reasons, why

Moral rights have three important features that define their enabling and protective functions. The first feature is that moral rights correlate tightly with duties. As such, a person’s moral right, at least partially, can be defined in terms of the moral duties other people have toward that person. Furthermore, if a person’s moral right is to do something, then other people have a moral duty not to interfere that person. The second feature of moral rights is providing individuals with autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of their interests. This means that people have the right to choose what activities or interests they are free to pursue or not pursue. Lastly, the third feature of moral rights is providing a basis for justifying one’s actions and for invoking the protection or aid of others. This is demonstrated by if a person’s moral right is to do something, then he or she has a moral justification for doing it. In addition,

The standards of ethical and moral behavior come from the understanding that we are unique beings. These standards are the innate means of justifying the decisions and actions that are believed to be right, fair, proper, wrong, unfair and improper. We are all unique individuals who depend on others for much of our human experience, particularly our social communications with others. When the guidelines for moral behavior are determined by our societal structure, then some of the social and ethical dilemmas will be handled differently and will be better equipped and mindful in our understanding of how to deal with those that behave immorally or unethically especially in a business environment.

• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.