Capt. Frank Furillo’s decision about the two “toughs” is a very controversial one, and there are many different ethical-theoretical perspectives that either back his decision or do not believe his decision was the right one. He basically strong arms the two men into confessing to committing the crime of rape and murder of a nun, and thus is left with a guilty conscience because while the evidence was very strong, it was only circumstantial. The first perspective is the act-utilitarian perspective, which says that we are only acting morally if the decision being made produces the same amount of happiness that any alternative decision could produce. Capt. Furillo realized that the evidence was only circumstantial, but he also realized that if the two men were released into society that they would be killed for sure because “street justice” had been sworn against them. In a move that was attempting to save the two men’s lives, he told them that they would be killed, and therefore, even though the evidence was only circumstantial and the men probably could have been acquitted, they confessed because they did not want to get killed by the angry mob. He was definitely within his bounds from an act utilitarianism perspective because he saved the men’s lives, and therefore it was the best possible outcome, because the street justice would have only left more lives lost, which is not ideal in any scenario. Even though he broke police protocol and was left with a guilty conscience, he did not break any ethical guidelines according to act- utilitarianism. Under rule-utilitarianism, people are based off of their judgments according to the moral code. That is, what we as people know to be right and wrong. Rule utilitarianism even goes so far to say that if we base all of our decisions upon our moral code, we not only are making the right decision, but also should not feel bad about the results of our decision. Based upon this, Capt. Furillo was not unethical in his decision to get the confession out of the two men. He saved their lives, and therefore was doing what he knew was right based on his moral code. Based on rule-utilitarianism, he was not acting in any sort of wrong or negligent way. In the case of Kantian Deontology, a person is judged based on the way that they act according to a specific duty that they may have. Basically, people have to act based on what is truthful, and in that regard, Furillo was not right. It could not be proven that the men were guilty (even though it was highly likely) but Furillo was only doing what he felt was right, and even though he may have been wrong according to Kant, he should not be held accountable or punished in any way. Furillo basically was using his power to protect the men, even though they may have been freed from the courts, he knew that they would face inevitable death on the streets, and therefore felt obligated to make sure that no more lives were lost. The final perspective is the prima facie deontology, which basically says that if someone has one obligation that is overridden by may more important obligation, that they are not acting an a morally wrong fashion. Capt. Furillo had an initial obligation, which was to allow the two men to walk, which is normal protocol. However, he realized the imminent danger that he would be putting the men in if he let them walk, and therefore he had a more important obligation to make sure the men were protected and no more lives were pointlessly lost. Based upon this, he was not acting in a wrong way according to Prima Facie deontology. He protected the men, doing what he felt was right, and he therefore should not have any kind of guilty conscience or anything of that sort. These different perspectives are all unique and right in their own way, and they are all pretty good rules to judge our morals and decisions by.
Liberalism key thinkers
Rousseau (1712- 1778)
Influenced by French revolution
The social contract, a legitimate political order
“man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”
Abandon claim of natural rights for rights in the civilised society
General will, overall will of the majority
The separation of powers, observed the UK
Judiciary – legislature – executive
Tolerance – religious tolerance
Writing Assignment I: Twentieth-Century
Rejections of Liberalism
Source I portrays Adolf Hitler’s policies and summarizes its dogmas in three simple phrases through a propaganda poster. Hitler being the founder of the Nazi Party is to this day considered one of the most influential voices in the implementation and execution of fascist principles. Principles involving extreme right wing policies that demand absolute control of lives of the average citizens. The…
September 19, 2012
Errors of Mankind
In both medieval and modern society humans have always made second guesses on their actions to think if they did or did not do the right thing. Even in out two stories the characters do bad things and our author’s “attempt to define the good man and good women of their age with a Christian context. Whereas Chaucer’s microcosmic group contains all classes of the church and secular personages, O’Connor limits her…
Throughout modern history, the culture of modern nations has become increasingly liberal as time passes. In the beginning of the American industrial age, many factors in day to day life would seem extremely conservative by today’s standards. In the early 20th century, it was the standard for women to be clothed completely with dresses while staying at home caring for the family while men wore hats and ties while working a standard “9-5”. Ideas such as women in the work place or even voicing their…
John Locke: known as father of classical economic (classical) liberalism, roots in 17th century. Believed people are created to be equal and should have natural rights, life, liberty, and property. Believed govt should be limited, and the individual should be self determined.
2. Adam Smith: classical liberalist. Believed humans are natural and free, and it is in human nature to make (produce) things. The market system was viewed as a machine to him, and believed the system was driven by self-interest…
Liberals and conservatives argue their political views for different subjects of the political spectrum that will contradict their beliefs if found the appropriate topic to compare.
Liberalism and conservatism has changed over the years to make up the government that we have today. Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism have been formed by the beliefs of the different mindset of Americans. Conservatisms and Liberalists have different ideas on how they believe that the government should be run. Most…
Modern liberalism emerged after multiple events. The continuous democratization of the state was one of them. Another reason was because of all the knowledge that was gained from the Great Depression and WWII. Liberalism was altered and revised after these few events. Liberals became less suspicious of government action and more worried with substantive equality. They believed in a bigger and much stronger government since they were less skeptical about their authority. Liberals also became much…
By: Harinder Sandhu
War Measures Act.
• The war measures act was a federal statue adopted by the
Canadian government, after the World War One. This gave
power to the Canadian government to make their own
decisions during any emergency. This act was only used during
wars or emergency it was a sign that Canada has declared war,
it allowed the government to bypass parliament in order to do
what's necessary for the war.
War Measures Act. Cont.
• The war measures act was founded…
HEAD: RESISTANCE TO LIBERALISM
The Justification of Resisting Liberalism
Liberalism, in general, was an ideological movement that emerged out of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century. It embraced the ideas of individualism which were established in the Renaissance and Reformation era. The Renaissance period sparked a belief in the importance of the individual in society. It helped promote the beliefs of classical liberalism which gradually…
Realism, Liberalism and Feminism
In our modern world we can communicate instantly worldwide, cook a full meal in under a minute, and have enough weapons to destroy not only our planet but just about any planet that gives us a funny look. Of course while technology progresses at its incredible rate, we squabble and argue over who gets what, and what they can or cannot do with it, whether or not that is what it is or if it is something that it truly isn't and frankly it's all very confusing. Luckily…