Law and Morality Essay Example for Free

Law and Morality Essay It is not an everyday occurrence that someone must decide the fate of anothers life. The dilemma of making a decision that someone must die in order for the others to survive, can obviously be troubling. The process in which the termination of ones life may be easy to make, but to justify that decision is the most difficult one. This paper is given a situation in which a decision of taking ones life is essential. The situation is that a nuclear war has occurred, which has destroyed most of the centres of civilization. There are five people that are that have escaped death by finding their way to a nuclear bunker. These five people consist of a pregnant woman; an old man, who is a retired judge; two teenagers a fourteen-year-old boy and a sixteen-year-old girl; and a young and healthy woman who is a doctor. They all have been there for fifteen days and they must remain there for an additional fifteen days before they can be rescued. The problem is that although there are five of them in the bunker, there is only enough food for four people to survive for the remaining fifteen days. Rationing the food will not be of any use, because all will die with such a plan. The only way for most of the survivors to live for the next fifteen days is for one to die. Somehow they have contacted an outside source to advise them on the questions of Who shall die? , and How should the decision of choosing the person be carried out? These are all very difficult questions to answer, but something must be done. It is unlikely that someone will voluntarily allow someone to kill them so that the others may live, that is why another form of decision making must be allowed. The best way to do so is probably by that outside aid to suggest that they try drawing lots. For example whoever pulls the shortest straw is the one who dies. With no time to procrastinate, this would seem the most time efficient and fairest way to choose who will die. Of course a reason must be provided to the person who had drawn the shortest straw, and that is the objective of this paper. This essay will explain how the decision will be made that will ultimately take one of the survivors lives to save the remaining four people. From that explanation of the decision made, it will attempt to justify it. This paper proposes to explain and justify the decision by using legal tools such as Law and Morality, the Meta Rule, and The Doctrine of Necessity. The advice provided on how to carry out the unfortunate death of an innocent person may not be a right one, but perhaps it will be legally and morally justified. Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue and a moral issue associated with the predicament. The reason law has a part in the situation is that after the decision is made, it will be examined legally and must be accountable for its consequences. Morality has its place too, because many will find it morally wrong to take ones life despite any justification. . there is some connection between law and morality, but the two are clearly not identical. First, morality is only concerned with right or wrong, with the good and evil; law is concerned with lots of things on which there is no right and wrong procedures for land registration, incorporation and so on. Second, morality is to some extent uncertain and a matter for each individual, law tries to be objective, written down in black and white and there for all to see. Third, morality often leaves things vague and subject to general principle, law goes into specifics. 1 From that description of law and morality, it is obvious how they relate to the issue here. When the time comes for one of the five people in the bunker eventually to die, it must be legally justified. The reason for this is that murder is illegal, unless legally justified. 2 On the other hand, reasons for the killing must be provided to put to ease those who question the dilemma in accordance to morality. Since law and morality are equally important and both are evenly delicate when dealing with this issue, advising the survivors on what to do will not be easy. Pleasing everybody is impossible, whether it is examined from a legal viewpoint or a moral one. However, if the situation is analysed with both the law and morality issues in mind, there may be a chance that many will see some sort of vindication behind the decision to kill someone. One example that can probably create a good foundation to better explain the complexity of the given situation, is that of the case of R. v. Dudley and Stephens. A basic summary of the case is as follows: Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, another man by the name of Brooks, and Richard Parker, who was a boy in his late teens, were the crew of an English yacht. All four of them were cast away in a storm 1,600 miles away from the Cape of Good hope. This boat was not supplied with any water or any food, except a few canned vegetables that lasted them a duration of three days. Being lost at sea, with no food or water, they needed to find someway to keep themselves alive so that they could live long enough for them to be rescued. Many days went by, and within that time they had not eaten or drank anything. Both Dudley and Stephens suggested to Brooks that someone be sacrificed to save the rest, Brooks disagreed, and they never told the boy of the idea. The next suggestion by Dudley and Stephens was that they should draw lots to see who should sacrifice their life to save the others, again Brooks refused and they did not let the boy in on the plan. Eventually the decision that if no vessel were to come around the next day, they should kill the boy. This decision, yet again, came from Dudley and Stephens. Again Brooks disagreed and the boy was never consulted. A day passed and no vessel was in sight. Dudley went to the boy, who was sleeping, and killed him. They fed upon the body of the boy and drank his blood for the following four days when they were finally rescued. After being returned to shore Dudley and Stephens were brought to court, put on trial, and lastly sentenced to death by the court. This decision was eventually brought down to life imprisonment, but then they released Dudley and Stephens after six months. 3 The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens is very similar to that of the one being looked at in this essay. In both cases, each group of people do not have enough or any food to survive long enough to be rescued, someone must die in order for the rest to survive, and both situations have legal and moral repercussions. Both Dudley and Stephens had understandable reasons to kill the young boy in order to survive, and could have escaped being sentenced to death if they had done one thing, consulted the boy. By not consulting the boy, an argument can be formulated to prove that they should have never released Dudley and Stephens from their first sentence of death. The boy never consented to his life being taken away from him, but if he were consulted and provided a reason to why he must be killed then perhaps Dudley and Stephens could have avoided any type of punishment. It is probably safe to assume that the boy would have not wanted his life to be taken away from him, and Brooks obviously rejected all of Dudley and Stephens suggestions, therefore it is apparent that some method of solving disputes was in order. So is the case with the five people in the bunker. Although they are in a dilemma of who and how someone should be chosen to die. Unlike Dudley and Stephens, these five people were able to reach an outside source to aid them with their problem. First of all, this outside source can offer them a method of solving their disputes by administering the Meta Rule. The way in which the Meta Rule operates is as follows, Disputes are resolved by the decision of one or more persons, once arguments from each side of the issue have been put. 4 An outside aid is ideal in such a predicament, because they can offer an objective review of the situation and listen to all the arguments made by those in the bunker; this a process that is called Audialteramparten, which in Latin means to hear both sides. It is important that the decision-maker hear both sides and that the decision-maker also be a generalist. 5 The reason for this, is that by listening to both sides they can know all the concerns that the people in the bunker have, and by being a generalist they can be impartial to the situation, thereby making a rational and fair decision. By imposing the Meta Rule, this outside source can make a decision, and according to the Meta Rule, this must be carried out. Whether or not the decision is wrong does not matter, it is imperative and necessary that one be made to resolve the dispute of who, how, and why someone must die. The doctrine of necessity is a very important notion to this case, because it is necessary that someone die in order for the remaining four survive. ? Necessity knows no law, it is often said. In other words, you cant be held legally liable for an act you had to do. 6 This is what the people in the bunker must remember, and this will legally justify the decision to kill someone. Morally, whether the decision was right or wrong, can be argued till the end of time, but there is no time to accommodate a moral debate. All that is left to do now, is to draw lots and find out who is going to have to die for the others to live. When the selection has been made by lots, the victim yields of course to their fate; or if they resist, force may be employed to coerce division. 7 As harsh as it may sound, if necessity has no legal standing in this situation, it should not stand in any other case. In other words, necessity has been used as an argument to justify ones actions in other cases and is accordingly justifiable in this circumstance. Making a decision on the situation without examining it with knowledge of law and morality, the Meta Rule, and the doctrine of necessity would make it even more difficult to find a rational reason why one of the five people in the bunker should die, let alone justify it. Law and morality illustrated how sensitive a situation such as this can be, and how difficult it is to make a pure legal decision when morals are a large part of everyones lives. The Meta Rule showed that even when the courts are not present to facilitate a case, there is always another method of resolving disputes legally. Finally, the doctrine of necessity explained why some forms of action are necessary and must be taken and applied to a given condition. It is unfortunate that there are cases in which people, whether or not they know each other, must kill someone else to save their own life. It must be even more disturbing, rather than unfortunate, for a person to sacrifice their life for the welfare of another, nevertheless it is noble. Perhaps this goes to show that when it is absolutely necessary to kill someone in order to preserve ones own life, murder is always justifiable. Works Cited 1 Patrick Fitzgerald and King Mc Shane. Looking at Law: Canadas Legal System. 4th ed. (Ottawa: Tri-Graphic Printing Ltd. ) 1994. Pg. 3. 2 Carleton Dept. Of Law Casebook Group. Introduction to Legal Studies 2nd ed.. (North York: Captus Press Inc. ) 1995. Pg. 24. 3 Carleton Dept. Of Law Casebook Group. Introduction to Legal Studies 2nd ed. . (North York: Captus Press Inc. ) 1995. Pgs. 19-24. 4 Fraser, D. Fall Term Law Notes for 51. 100A. (Carleton University) 1996. 5 Fraser, D. Fall Term Law Notes for 51. 100A. (Carleton University) 1996. 6 Carleton Dept. Of Law Casebook Group. Introduction to Legal Studies 2nd ed. . (North York: Captus Press Inc. ) 1995. Pg. 25. 7 Fraser, D. Fall Term Law Notes for 51. 100A. (Carleton University) 1996.

Relationships in Lawrences Sons and Lovers Essay -- Lawrence Sons and

Relationships in Lawrence's Sons and Lovers      Ã‚   There can be no argument that D. H. Lawrence's Son's and Lover's is a study of   human relationships. Gertrude Morel, because of her turbulent and odd relationship with her husband, ends up developing deep emotional relations with her two eldest son's. The second eldest in particular, Paul, is the receiver of most of this deep emotion. Because of these feelings and the deeper-than-usual emotional bond between the two, Paul has difficulty being comfortable in his own relationships.   Paul's relationship with Miriam is plagued by his mother's disapproval, jealousy, and Miriam 's own spirituality.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Paul's relationship with Miriam is one where the love is not allowed to flourish.   Although there is no doubt that there is love between the two, the forces around them create tension that suppresses it. Miriam believes herself not nearly as beautiful as she really is. Because of this she is always looking for things to love her. In the case of Paul she believes that if Paul was to need her, if she could take care of him, "if he could depend on her, if she could, as it were, have him in her arms, how she would love him."(137) However, this is never allowed to happen. Paul's mother Gertrude already occupies this space in his life. Thus the relationship between the two is a struggle for an identity. The relationship is a struggle between Paul and his mother and Paul and Miriam.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The main conflicts between Paul and Miriam are between physical- spiritual differences and his mother. Miriam holds spirituality very close to her. Thing with Miriam are always on a very spiri... ... giving in to his mother, he breaks it off with Miriam. We get the impression that Miriam waits for Paul forever. It concretely ends when his mother dies and he leaves to find himself.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Son's and Lover's is a study of human relationships. Paul is the receiver of most of his mothers deep emotional feelings and has with her a bond tighter than normal. Because of this Paul has trouble handling and being comfortable with his own relationships.   Paul's relationship with Miriam was plagued by his mother's disapproval. If it wasn't for the selfishness of his mother Paul would of most likely been happy with Miriam.    Work Cited    Lawrence, D. H. Sons and Lovers. New York: Viking, 1913. On-line. U of Virginia Electronic Text Center. Internet. 23 February 1998, www: http:Hetext.lib.virginia.edu/english.html.

New Surgical Technology: Adoption or Diffusion? Essay

This article raised an interesting subject: surgeons and patients seeking improved treatment often forget that a new technique is not necessarily a better one. Human body with its health problems remains the same but the surgical technology is always moving towards progress. People develop new surgical tools and new surgical procedures constantly. However, do we carefully test all these new tools and procedures before using them on people? And how? On humans? On animals first perhaps? Is it ethical? How do we know that new tools and procedures are better than the existing ones? Too many questions†¦ New surgical technology promises improved patient care and, therefore, surgeons may hurry to adopt it despite little evidence or their advantage over existing procedures. Surgical procedures that are later found to be ineffective waste resources and endanger lives. Anything new must be carefully tested and proved in fact to be better. Therefore, the key to this problem is a cautious and total understanding from the surgeons and the patients of why such new procedures come to be offered as treatment. Let’s look in detail how this new medical technology gets adopted in the US. It may come in the form of: * a drug * a device * a procedure * a technique * a process of care For the surgical technology in particular, new things come in the form of a new procedure that uses existing devices or drugs, or an existing procedure that uses new devices. Before adopting any new technology, people should seriously consider the following factors: * Will this new technology improve the quality of clinical care? * If found successful, will the inventor promote its rapid adoption? * How widely this new technology will be distributed? * Will it pass all known and potential barriers for adoption, (financing, marketing, etc.)? * Is it compatible with the existing technologies and operating rooms? From all of these questions the main factor is always the same: the new technology MUST improve the quality of clinical care for patients. If this precondition is not satisfied, the technology should be abandoned: even a logical and scientifically positive attitude is no substitute for proof in practice. There were cases where surgical technology that was quickly adopted without evidence of its relative benefit, was abandoned after careful examination. For example: In 1964, Dr. Smith reported that injecting the enzyme chymopapain into an intervertebral disc relieved pain caused by herniation of the lumbar disc. In 1989, the American Medical Association’s diagnostic and therapeutic technology assessment group questioned the effectiveness of the procedure and raised concerns about its safety. Their evaluation showed that, compared with placebo or no treatment, chymopapain was effective in only selected patients. In addition, when it was used by less experienced surgeons some patients had serious complications, including allergic reaction and even damage to the spinal cord. I feel positive about innovation in all fields especially when people can improve the quality of life by repairing and healing the human body. However, before adopting any new technology in the operating room, it should be offered to patients for a trial period. Also surgeons shall carefully watch and study this procedure being done numerous times, and if it can be supported by the already existing equipment and the existing operating rooms. Do we ask the patient about the convenience or improvement by the new procedure or equipment? Of course! He is the one on the operating table putting his life in the hands of the surgeon. Surgeons always like the new technology if it can be easily and quickly understood, and added to their existing practice without waste of time. If the input to their practice is great, surgeons will invest more time and effort and disregard disruption of their routine day to expand the competitive advantage that a new technology offers. What I learned from this article is the use of new surgical technology has the potential to provide patients with the best possible care. On the other hand, if the new procedure or instrument were not carefully tested and approved, it ruined surgeon’s reputation, wasted resources, and caused harm to patients. Surgeons and institutions must not adopt a new technology without solid evidence of its efficiency and superiority over existing ones. In reality, quite a few innovations in medical technology were often adopted without enough evidence and testing and this was wrong. No matter how good the surgeon’s skill and ability to perform a procedure, it is wrong, if the procedure should not be done in the first place and may potentially harm the patient. Source: Article from BMJ : British Medical Journal 2006 January 14; 332(7533): 112-114. Editorial by Gabbay and Walley and pp 107, 109. Contributors and sources: CBW is senior adviser for the Health Technology Center and senior fellow at the Institute for the Future in California. ————————————————- References: McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002; 324: 1448-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed].

Driving A Vehicle While Texting - 1745 Words

Introduction We currently live in a society where technology has become a necessity, more specifically, cell phones have become essential and people go crazy when they are without this particular device. This obsession with our cellular devices has caused many deaths, affected our form of communication with others, and making us stupider. Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent when traveling at 55 mph of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded. Cell phones have changed our form of interaction with others significantly. I know that whenever I see someone I know of but do not really want to speak to I purposely take my phone out to avoid having to speak to that person. Also whenever I am with a group of my friends phones are always out talking to others that are not in front of them on messaging or social media. Cell phones have affected our learning. Cell phones have become a ubiquitous presence on college campuses and are arguably considered distractions. Recent research has been devoted to better understanding the perceptions of cell phone use among college level faculty and students as well as the consequences of cell phones in classrooms. Cell phones have significantly taken overShow MoreRelatedMotor Vehicle Crashes Involving Distracted Drivers880 Words   |  4 Pagesmotor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers. â€Å"Distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving; all distractions endanger drivers, passengers, and bystander’s safety† (http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html). Distractions may include, texting, using a cell phone or smartphone, adjusting the radio, and more. I will specifically be covering motor vehicle crashes related to texting and driving, asRead MoreWhy Drivers Should Not Be Mandatory1635 Words   |  7 Pages16years is taken as an achievement for most teens because it is finally the time they get to drive a vehicle. A person endures painful driving lessons from his or her overprotective parents who grip on the passenger seat for dear life and lecture him or her for driving a bit fast.lastly, when a person is ready for driving test, he or she take the nerve-wrecking driving tests where if unlucky the driving supervisor would be a grumpy looking man who appear so tough that one can lose his or her nerve andRead MoreDangers Of Texting And Driving1361 Words   |  6 Pages Dangers Of Texting and Driving Drivers should not be able to use their hand held cell phones while in a moving vehicle. Too many teens and young adults are being killed each year in texting and driving related accidents. Teens and young adults must be educated about the effects, benefits and laws of texting and driving in order to keep adults and teens safe while driving a vehicle. Cell phones should not be in use inside a vehicle while it is moving. There are a lot of benefitsRead MoreDistracted Driving Essay1137 Words   |  5 PagesDistracted driving is very dangerous to everyone on the road ways.   Distracted driving is engaging in non-driving activities that distracts the driver from the primary task of driving (SIRS).   In 2015, 3,477 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver (CDC).   Each year about 421,000 people are injured in crashes involving a distracted driver (Edgar Snyder).   Ã‚  Drivers would not be texting if their message was not very important.   Ã‚  Distracted drivi ng should be illegal and security devicesRead MoreArgumentative Research On Texting And Driving854 Words   |  4 PagesArgumentative Research on Texting and Driving Being able to drive is a dream come true, but that dream can easily become a nightmare that a person might never get to wake up from. However, texting and driving can be dangerous and statics shows that approximately 660,000 drivers have attempted to use their phones while operating a vehicle (TextandDrive1). Motorist should understand the consequences that texting and driving lead to. These are some of attributes they should consider: it’s againstRead MoreTexting, Driving, And The Dangers Surrounded By It1080 Words   |  5 PagesTexting and Driving Introduction The message I chose to analyze is texting and driving, and the many dangers surrounded by it. I selected this message because people need to become more aware of how serious the issue is and the increasing number of fatalities that are resulting due to texting and driving. Did you know that texting takes your eyes off the road for 4.6 seconds? At 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of an entire football field blindfold (Distraction.Gov). Now just envision thatRead MoreThe Dangers Of Texting While Driving977 Words   |  4 Pagescaused by texting while driving (â€Å"Cell Phone†). Likewise, that is about half the percentage of accidents kindled by drunk driving. Driving preoccupied is injurious; furthermore, adding texting into the equation yields the greatest amount of accidents. One text could alternate a person’s entire life, or worse, cease their life. The danger of texting while driving is an outlandish issue that can be diminished by prohibiting its use and offering phone-disabling devices in vehicles. Texting and drivingRead MoreTexting And Driving Is A Cause For Concern847 Words   |  4 PagesProblem/Solution draft Texting and driving has become a cause for concern. According to statistics from The Council of States, in 2014 a high number of people lost their lives as a result of distracted driving. The article â€Å"Texting While Driving†, written by Jennifer Burnett, who is an attorney at law and works for The Council of State Governments, states that 3,179 individuals are victims of an accident where texting and driving was involved. Another source from The National Highway Safety AdministrationRead MoreTexting And Using Other Hand Held Devices While Driving Essay769 Words   |  4 Pages Texting and using other hand-held devices while driving is a trend that has sadly adopted a sense of normality in today’s society. This activity is usually called distracted driving. The U.S Department of Transportation describes distracted driving as a type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their attention from the activities of safe driving, consequently increasing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. (Sherin, 2014) It is done by teenagers and adults on a regular basis. There is aRead MoreThe Dangers Of Texting And Driving1391 Words   |  6 PagesDistracted driving alone has claimed around 3,500 lives in the year 2015 (Currin, Andrew). These numbers have increased throughout the last decade causing people to take notice. Texting while driving is the leading cause of distracted driving deaths in the United States. In the last seven years, states across the U.S. have banned texting and driving in efforts to stop fatal accidents that have claimed so many lives. Th e focus of this is piece is to understand the dangers of texting and driving, the direct