If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor. Torture to an enemy of the United States by the military or by any of the other Agencies is wrong and against our own laws and treaties. Our own military’s lawyers have even expressed concern over the use of torture of prisoners. The Judge Advocacy General’s Corps
To determine the fairness and impartiality of the Chamberlain case, we need to assess the role of the media, the nature of the evidence at the trial and the police investigation. Assessing these would then show that the Chamberlains did not receive fair treatment due to the inconsistences in the justice system and the public prejudice on society.
In contrast, however, Sartwell’s article focuses primarily upon the civilian aspect of obedience, whereas Szegedy-Maszak focuses more upon the military aspect. Obedience to authority is commonplace in society. The question has arisen over time with horrible evens such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the torturous methods at the Abu Ghraib Prison. This question is would someone compromise his personal beliefs or morals to obey an authority figure even if obeying would bring about physical harm to another person. Szegedy-Maszak makes the statement that the Abu Ghraib Prison was “an island where conventional morality no longer applied” (Szegedy-Maszak 212).
Many of these factors boil down to personal beliefs and value systems. We were challenged to look at several examples of good Samaritans, vigilantism, civil disobedience and crimes among professionals. As a team we had to compare our value systems with those who had been involved in each of these situations. In the Good Samaritan cases, we had a general consensus that we would like to be a Good Samaritan. In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice.
If the reader were like me, they would have been sentimental and found this passage very uncomfortable. After all, the inmate did something to lock them up in the first place. I find this appeal unfair to the reader, because, if the reader is not educated in the prison system or aware of the reason the prisoner is locked up in the first place, they may feel differently towards the treatment of the prisoners, compared to basing their opinion off just Abramsky’s article. Secondly, Abramsky supports
Analysis of Ethical Dilemma PSY/610 Introduction It is important for psychologists and other professionals to demonstrate ethical behavior when working with clients/patients, students, and colleagues. Unfortunately ethical behavior is not always applied in situations where it is appropriate and as a result those individuals on the receiving end are treated unfairly. This paper will attempt to confront a situation where two graduate assistants are receiving unethical treatment from a researcher who is currently leading the three studies they are working on. This paper will include ethical considerations for the scenario and notate the ethical violations made on the behalf of the senior researcher. Ethical Considerations Thinking before we act or speak is crucial while in the workplace.
Psychological professionals are often criticized for disregarding the rights of the clients, resulting in distrust, and in many cases their licenses revoked. Dual relations between psychologist and client are the leading cause of termination according to an article by Meyers (2005). This paper will examine the concept of dual relationships. It will present a scenario and analyze the dual relationships that exist. This paper will also discuss in detail the ethical issues and challenges that are presented by the dual relationships.
I believe that this study was not ethical to conduct because it directly harmed another person just to get a statistic and a person would always get hurt based on the fact that human behavior follows normative influence almost every time. A reason for an ethics board to not approve a test like this one could be to just define ethics in itself, and use that explanation for your whole argument. Ethics is defined as a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions (Dictionary.com, LLC. Copyright © 2009). This means that there are certain things you can and cannot do to a human being just to get results for a test.
The philosophy of retribution is that of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, that to cause a crime violates the social contract and a criminal must pay his or her debt to society by being punished. This principle suggests that a crime against one individual is a crime against all citizens. According to Lawlink, retribution is the theory that the guilty should endure the punishment which they entirely deserve. Denunciation then again, involves the imposition of a sentence which is in fact severe with regards to make a statement, which the crime in question is not to be tolerated by the community (2003).
2. What are some possible explanations for the hesitancy to discuss ethics in the workplace? Conversations about ethics and values can be challenging. We struggle with openly disagreeing with other people on moral grounds, since it may appear that in doing so we place ourselves on the “moral high ground.” In addition, there is a perception that someone who is willing to talk about ethics lacks the toughness to be an effective leader (Adenle, 2011). This is based on the assumption that making tough choices means, making choices that are unethical.