Watch The Movie Crash: Apply The Moral Checklist To The Dile

Watch The Movie Crashapply The Moral Checklist To The Dilemmathe Mora

Apply The Moral Checklist To The Dilemma: The moral checklist presents a structured way to analyze a difficult moral case. You are asked to apply this checklist to the case study. You should present each part of this checklist as a heading followed by your explanation.

1. Determine all of the facts the case.

Who are the interested parties and what are their relationships? Carefully identify who has a stake in the decision. Often there are more parties whose interests should be considered than is immediately obvious. What is at stake for each? Look at the relationships between the parties.

Do these relationships bring special expectations or obligations. (10pts)

2. Identify the moral concerns/values or the moral issue. Important clues include conflicts between two or more values or ideals. Is there a question of trust? fairness? loyalty? harm?, etc. (There is something uncomfortable, what is it? What are the conflicting concerns?) (20pts)

3. Attempt to rank the importance of these concerns or values from lowest in importance to highest in importance for each party involved. Weight the benefits and burdens. (15pts)

4. What are your options for resolution? What decisions can be made? (elaborate) (5pts)

5. Rank the benefits and associated costs (consequences) of each possible decision. (5pts)

6. Test each option for resolution. Does it pass the: a. HARM test? (Does it do less harm than the alternative? Minimize harm?) What are the unintended consequences of each option? – to individuals, communities, society? (5pts)

b. PUBLICITY test? (Would you want your choice (decision) published? Is the decision something you would be comfortable telling your family about? Would you want children to take your behavior as an example?) (5pts)

c. REVERSIBILITY TEST? (Would I still think this is good if I were that person or those people negatively impacted by it?) (5pts)

d. PROFESSIONAL test? (What are the professional expectations? What would my colleagues do—workplace norms? What does the code of ethics require?) (5pts)

7. Make a decision. Choose what you believe is the best option for resolving the dilemma. (5pts)

8. Why did you make this decision. Reason out a justification. What is your defense? Here you refer back to the moral concerns and values that drove your decision. Make this a step-by-step defense. What rules did you appeal to in resolving the dilemma? (20pts)

Paper For Above instruction

The film "Crash" provides a compelling exploration of interconnected human lives and the moral dilemmas arising from racial prejudice, economic disparity, and personal biases. Applying the moral checklist to the central dilemma — whether the characters’ actions are justified or morally acceptable — reveals complex ethical considerations.

1. Determining the facts: The film features multiple characters from diverse racial, social, and economic backgrounds living in Los Angeles. Key interested parties include the victims, offenders, their families, and the broader community. For instance, officers like Officer Ryan and Detective Graham have authority but also moral responsibilities beyond law enforcement. Victims like Farhad and the Persian shopkeeper, as well as the offenders like Ria and Peter, have stakes that involve safety, justice, and personal dignity. Relationships are often strained or complicated, such as the police officer’s bias toward minorities or the black and white characters’ racial tensions. The relationships often impose expectations, such as police duty to serve justice impartially or individuals' expectations for safety and fairness.

2. Moral concerns and issues: The core moral issues involve racial bias, trust, fairness, and harm. Several scenes highlight conflicts between prejudice and morality — for example, racial profiling and police brutality. Trust is compromised when characters act out of racial stereotypes or personal biases. Fairness comes into question when characters’ actions seem unjustified or driven by stereotypes rather than objective morality. Harm is evident in physical violence, emotional trauma, and societal division. The uncomfortable truth is the persistence of racial and social bias that fuels the characters' actions, often conflicting with moral ideals of equality and justice.

3. Ranking importance of concerns: For most characters, the highest priority is avoiding harm — physical or emotional. Fairness and trust rank just below, as characters often act out of self-interest or prejudice. For example, the police officer’s biased actions prioritize personal bias over duty, while victims seek safety and justice. Balancing these concerns involves assessing whose safety or rights are most threatened, with the recognition that underlying biases often distort moral priorities.

4. Resolution options: Possible options include: 1) continuing with biased actions, which perpetuates harm; 2) confronting and addressing biases through training and dialogue; 3) implementing societal reforms to reduce systemic bias; 4) individual character redemption through moral reflection and change; or 5) ignoring the issues and maintaining the status quo. Explicitly, reforms that promote empathy and understanding represent more ethically sound solutions, while injustice or apathy perpetuate moral failure.

5. Ranking benefits and costs: Reforms and confronting biases generally lead to increased social cohesion and reduced harm but may face resistance and temporary discomfort. Maintaining biases may keep the status quo but sustains harm, injustice, and societal division. The cost of change involves effort, time, and potential conflict, while the benefit involves a more equitable society and diminished harm.

6. Testing each option:

a. HARM test: Addressing biases reduces harm caused by prejudice and violence, whereas maintaining biases perpetuates pain and injustice.

b. Publicity test: Transparent acknowledgment of biases and reforms would be publicly acceptable and can serve as moral example. Concealing systemic issues would be unethical.

c. Reversibility test: If characters or society could reverse their positions, acknowledging bias and seeking reform would still be justified; denying or hiding bias would be less defensible.

d. Professional test: Law enforcement and social workers are ethically required to uphold fairness, impartiality, and justice, aligning with reform efforts.

7. Best resolution: The most morally justifiable resolution involves confronting biases openly, engaging in dialogue, and implementing systemic reforms to promote justice and equality.

8. Justification and defense: The decision to advocate for systemic reforms is grounded in the moral values of fairness, justice, and respect for human dignity. This aligns with professional ethical standards for law enforcement and social work, which emphasize impartiality and service. The choice minimizes harm by reducing bias-driven violence and discrimination (Hannah & Hannah, 2012). It is publicly defensible because transparency and reform foster social trust and cohesion. Reversibility is ensured by emphasizing ongoing societal growth and commitment to equality. The steps include recognizing biases, advocating for policy change, and fostering community dialogue, thereby fulfilling moral obligations toward all stakeholders.

References

• Hannah, S., & Hannah, K. (2012). Ethical Leadership and Social Justice: A Comparative Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 491-505.
• Cruciani, P. (2010). Systemic Bias and Policing: An Ethical Examination. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 35-55.
• Gordon, P. (2014). Racial Profiling and Implicit Bias in Law Enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 283-291.
• Harper, M. (2018). Ethics in Law Enforcement: Principles and Practices. Routledge.
• Williams, R. (2016). Justice and Moral Dilemmas in Society. Ethics & Society, 11(2), 112-128.
• Marsh, L. (2019). The Psychology of Prejudice and Its Impact on Society. Psychology Press.
• Kim, J., & Kumas, D. (2020). Systemic Change and Ethical Policy Making. Ethics & Policy, 9(3), 201-219.
• Stewart, A. (2017). Ethics in Social Work and Policy Development. Social Work Today, 17(2), 24-29.
• Johnson, M. (2013). Moral Conflict and Ethical Decision-Making in Public Institutions. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 523-532.
• Smith, T. (2021). Race, Ethics, and Justice: Critical Analysis of Systemic Bias. University Press.