You Try To Live Strictly By The Moral Rules Contained In You ✓ Solved

You Try To Live Strictly By The Moral Rules Contained In Your

You try to live strictly by the moral rules contained in your religion's moral code. The two most important rules are "Be merciful" (don't give people what they deserve) and "Be just" (give people exactly what they deserve). Now suppose a man is arrested for stealing food from your house, and the police leave it up to you whether he should be prosecuted for his crime or set free. Should you be merciful and set him free, or be just and make sure he is appropriately punished? How do you resolve this conflict of rules? Can your moral code resolve it? To what moral principles or theories do you appeal? minimum of 350 words.

Paper For Above Instructions

When faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to exercise mercy or justice, particularly in the context of a man arrested for stealing food, we must consider the moral principles that guide our decisions. This situation embodies a classic conflict between the dual commands to "Be merciful" and "Be just." Each principle holds profound significance within various moral frameworks, including religious ethics, utilitarianism, and deontological theories.

From the perspective of religious morality, mercy is often viewed as a divine quality. Many religious texts, including the Bible and the Qur'an, emphasize the importance of compassion and forgiveness. For instance, the Bible's teachings often highlight the value of mercy, as seen in Matthew 5:7, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." This perspective invites us to consider the circumstances surrounding the act of theft. Was the man stealing simply to survive? If so, exercising mercy might align with the moral function of alleviating suffering and recognizing the harsh realities some individuals face.

However, the concept of justice cannot be overlooked. Justice entails giving individuals their due, ensuring that actions have consequences that reflect societal standards. To act justly in this scenario would mean prosecuting the individual for theft, as failing to do so would undermine the rule of law and potentially encourage further criminal behavior. In this light, justice serves a vital role in maintaining social order and reinforcing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

To navigate this ethical conflict, one might turn to a utilitarian approach, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number. This perspective encourages us to evaluate the consequences of either choice. If letting the man go leads to further theft or harms the community, then justice may be the more beneficial path. Conversely, setting him free might foster a sense of communal support and compassion, especially if he poses no ongoing threat and his circumstances are dire.

Furthermore, we can explore virtue ethics as a potential reconciliation of mercy and justice. Aristotle suggests that a virtuous individual would seek balance, embodying both compassion and fairness. In this case, one might consider alternatives to traditional punishment. Perhaps, instead of a formal prosecution, offering assistance or providing food directly could be a way to embody both principles. This solution recognizes the man's desperate situation while also assuring the community that transgressions will be addressed appropriately.

Ultimately, resolving this dilemma requires introspection and an honest evaluation of the consequences associated with each decision. While an individual's religious moral code may stress the significance of both mercy and justice, navigating the conflict may not yield a clear answer. Each case potentially requires a nuanced approach that considers context, consequences, and the broader implications of our choices.

In conclusion, the conflict between being merciful and being just cannot be easily resolved. It demands reflection on moral values, the specific circumstances at hand, and the impact of our decisions on the community and the individual. By appealing to multiple moral principles—religious ethics, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics—we can aspire to find a path forward that honors our commitment to justice while recognizing the profound calls for mercy within our moral framework.

References

• Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• New International Version Bible. (1984). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
• Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Smith, A. (1790). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: A. Millar.
• Singer, P. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.
• Wright, R. (1996). The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Yukalov, V. I. (2009). Decision Making in Social Dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(3-4), 256-268.