Ethics is an essential aspect of society because it helps ensure that harmony prevails. Often, we are called upon to ensure that our actions improve the livelihood of our colleagues. However, sometimes people are required to make hard decisions that might involve sacrifice and subjecting some individuals to suffering. Philosophers and scholars have written about what individuals should do when confronted with hard situations. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are some of the most popular philosophical arguments which we must analyze and seek to establish how the issues before us can be morally resolved. I have chosen the case concerning a sheriff who has been working for racial harmony in his community and has had to frame an innocent bachelor disliked by every town member. The framing is meant to prevent the escalation of the matter and ensure that the community’s peace is not threatened by racially motivated murder. I will analyze the case using utilitarianism and Kantianism to see how ethical the sheriff’s actions are. Thereafter, I will present my evaluation and state why I believe that the sheriff’s action isn’t morally justified because it violates the values of a fair society.
Kantian ethics holds that priority should always be given to people’s rights. In essence, Kant submits that morality and values must always be upheld without looking at the consequences of sticking to the truth and doing what is right. Kant does not give room for individuals to lie or deceive their colleagues regardless of the “good” that might be sought by the use of lies and deception. This is the reason that Kantian ethics assert that people should never be used as a means to an end (Shafer-Landau, 2019, p.119). Instead, people should be used as ends in themselves. This is a vital deontological theory that calls upon people to uphold morality and ethical conduct at all costs. Sometimes, people might use deception and imagine that they are helping solve the problem at hand but ultimately end up causing harm to the people they thought they were helping using lies. An example is if a thief goes through a street where one is standing, and people chasing the thief ask the standing individual the direction taken by the thief. While one can be tempted to lie in the direction of the thief, such acts can result in harming the thief because they might have changed their direction later and taken another route which might see them meet the individuals pursuing him despite being lied about the direction.
In the scenario presented to us, the sheriff’s decision goes against Kantian ethics. Framing an innocent man is immoral and a significant violation of their human rights. Regardless of the town members’ hate for the innocent bachelor, this does not justify the framing because he is likely to suffer from other people’s actions. Kantianism requires people to act in a manner that could be universally accepted and allowed to be part of society. The sheriff seeks to prevent the escalation of the situation and ensure that ethnic clashes or riots do not erupt in the community. This way, the sheriff treats the innocent bachelor as a means to an end instead of the end itself. The sheriff might succeed in his decision and achieve his objective of ensuring that harmony prevails in society. However, this can be considered as a case of covering fire with a blanket which ultimately becomes uncontrollable. The sheriff will easily lack an option if another racially-motivated murder occurs and there is no person to frame. Therefore, based on Kantianism, the sheriff’s actions are morally wrong, and he must ensure that the truth and morality are always upheld regardless of the consequences of such decisions.
On the other hand, we can use utilitarian lenses to analyze the scenario before us. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions to inform individuals’ decisions. This is the reason why it is often referred to as consequentialism theory. Utilitarianism holds that one should be guided by the decision which brings the most happiness and pleasure to most people involved. Therefore, individuals should not put weight on the morality of social values in place. Utilitarianism allows for lies and deceit to be used to help save many people from getting harmed. In essence, one can sacrifice other society members if that will ensure that the other individuals are not adversely affected once one of their colleagues is subjected to suffering. Using utilitarianism in our case, we realize that the sheriff’s actions can be justified. The sheriff is concerned with the community’s harmony and by framing the innocent bachelor, he is likely to achieve his goal because the community will not riot as a response to the racially-motivated murder. Riots are likely going to cause damages and suffering of more people, which can be avoided once all community members are convinced that the innocent bachelor is the perpetrator of the murder.
However, we note that there are two types of utilitarianism. There is the rule and act utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2019, pp.92-102). Act utilitarianism is concerned with the consequences of one’s actions. According to act utilitarianism, the specific consequences of a decision are used to inform judgment. Rule utilitarianism is concerned with the general rules which would lead to the contentment of most people it applied. Therefore, act utilitarianism may judge the sheriff’s decision as morally right because the specific action of framing the innocent bachelor is likely to make the society members to continue living harmoniously. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism is likely to judge the sheriff’s actions to be morally wrong because they are against the general rule of striving to protect people’s rights. Rule utilitarianism has significant similarity with the Kantian ethics because they are concerned with the victim’s ethics. Therefore the sheriff’s actions are morally justified using the consequentialism theory which looks at the overall effect of an individual’s decision to the society.
My analysis of the sheriff’s decision finds that he is morally wrong and should not have framed the innocent bachelor regardless of the intended effect to the community. It is wrong to use deception and false allegations against an individual and subject them to suffering. Justice requires that individuals bank on the truth always in their decision-making because otherwise, they will be doing a disservice to other people and make them suffer innocently like it is the case for the bachelor. I understand the sheriff’s background and especially his determination to ensure that the community lives harmoniously. We understand that making the community members realize that the murder case was racially motivated is likely to trigger riots and violence in the community. However, this does not call for the use of deceit and lies to calm the community members down. I am confident that the sheriff could use other strategies like creating awareness on the importance of peaceful coexistence. This will most likely lead to the resolution of the murder case in a more amicable manner which will ensure that the community members embrace forgiveness. Again, the sheriff will not have to use deception and lies to solve the problem.
Again, the sheriff is betraying his moral principles by framing the innocent bachelor. The sheriff is a respected community leader and most people adhere to whatever he says and believe that it is the truth. There is a likelihood that the community members will ultimately know the truth and this will make the community members lose confidence and trust with the sheriff. Lies are likely to ultimately surface and it is wrong to have the sheriff exposed because of failing to follow the principles of justice and fairness. It is difficult to come to a conclusive decision which factors in Kantianism and utilitarianism. Kantian ethics seem to provide elaborate guidelines on how individuals’ decisions should be made. Based on Kantian ethics, we can call out the sheriff and inform that their decisions are morally wrong. However, it is difficult to make a judgement using utilitarianism which is complex because it has the act and rule sides. Therefore, it is essential for people to be guided by their moral and ethical principles in decision making.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I believe that the sheriff’s action is not morally justified because it violates the values of a fair society. Fairness requires people to uphold the rule of law and endeavour to ensure that all people receive justice. The innocent bachelor might have numerous flaws and misdoings which make him an easy target by individuals who want to avoid the consequences of other people’s actions. However, he is entitled to human dignity and must be fairly treated which shows the reason why I emphasize my support to him. I am disappointed with the sheriff’s actions, especially because he is expected to lead the way in ensuring that the community and all its members follow the set regulations and laws. I am relying on Kantian ethics to back my case and defense for the innocent bachelor. We should always stand for the truth and ensure that justice and fairness prevail in our communities regardless of the consequences of such positions. Deception and lies are likely to lead to temporary and unsustainable peace which once it runs out might lead to more devastating effects.
References
Consequentialism: The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill https://express.adobe.com/page/MBnG4JijldsXz/
Kantian Ethics https://express.adobe.com/page/Oyzsq10lHytKr/
Shafer-Landau, R. (2019). A concise introduction to ethics.
write