Explore BrainMass
Share

Ethical Reasoning and Arguments

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Can someone help me with setting an ethical argument for the victim's family and the DA in the following situation?

Joe drove the getaway car during a bank robbery in which a teller was killed. Joe was caught and sentenced to 25 years to life under California's "three strikes" law.

Fifteen years into his sentence -- gaunt, wheelchair bound and tethered to an oxygen tank -- he has been diagnosed with a terminal disease and three competent physicians from outside the prison system have certified he has less than 6 months to live.

A special meeting of the parole board is called.

His family argues a moral ideal -- for his "compassionate release" so he can die at home with his family.

The victim's family and the DA argue obligation & consequences -- that he should die in confinement in accordance with the sentence of the trial judge.

Assume you are in a court of ethics, not law.

Use ethical reasoning skills to argue the victim's family and the DA's side. Leave personal biases, culture, or religion as well as the experiences of all of your friends, neighbors and relatives at the door. Think obligations, moral values and consequences.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 10:20 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/philosophy/ethics-morals/155670

Solution Preview

I think the crucial question here is what sort of justification you offer for punishment. If the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation, then there is really no point to prolonging Joe's incarceration, since he will not have the opportunity to improve any further. On a deterrence theory of punishment, there is also ...

Solution Summary

This job uses ethical reasoning skills.

$2.19
See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Reasoning and Critical Thinking Explanations

Hello, I need help with answering some questions relating to critical thinking. If you could, please provide examples along with the explanations so that I can have a better understanding.

1) What roles do ethical and emotional appeals play in an argument?
2) Is there such a thing as an over-reliance on logic? Explain.
3) How do we use deductive reasoning to affect conversations or arguments?
4) Can you provide an example of a time when language comprehension caused a misunderstanding of a metaphor being used?
5) What technology do you feel has inhibited a specific skill you use to have?
6) What process do you feel people go through when making ethical decisions? Do most individuals base it on how many people they will affect emotionally? Do you feel one is greater than the other?
7) Why do we tend to rely on emotions when making important ethical decisions?
8) Do you feel fragments of information are sometimes more or less affective at the workplace?

View Full Posting Details