Do you believe that certain ethical theories are more applicable, or more justifiable in certain situations than others. Let us consider this question in light of the '6-year old child stealing food from the lunch room' example. Are the Theories of Justice more capable of handling this situation than Deontology or Consequentialism? If so, how do we decide which of these theories "outranks", holds greater weight, than the other theories?
(Submitted by Tully Cheng)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the example of the young child stealing from the cafeteria, it was noted that the child was malnourished. Therefore, one has to consider the ethical dilemma faced between allowing the child to commit a wrongful act but have a meal (if in fact the child is starving), or punish the child for taking food, thereby further causing physical harm to the child (child is still starving). If we consider the stakeholder to be an administrative figure in the school, it is his/her duty to ensure there are no unlawful acts committed in the school. If the child's parents are neglectful, it would be in the child's best interests that the figurehead should intervene with either a note home or a meeting with the parents to discuss how to fix the situation to prevent child starvation such as reduced lunch plans or after school programs. However, the figurehead should still explain to the child that taking food from the cafeteria is stealing and therefore immoral. This would hopefully prevent it from becoming a regular occurrence or even become a habit into adulthood.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what theory would be used for this instance, I do not feel there is a concrete response because depending on whether you are looking at the child, or the stakeholder, there are different sides to each of the theories that may coincide with this example. For instance, in the theory of deontology, the child has a duty not to steal, which the child violated. On the other hand, the stakeholder has the duty to report crimes and prevent the child from stealing, but also to prevent undue harm to the child. (ethical dilemma). The theory of consequentialism could also apply to this story because depending on the choice that the stakeholder makes; punish the child or allow him/her to steal, will have different results.
I would like to also pose a question in keeping with this same example: Who can define when and at what age or stage of maturity one can be considered an adult? There have been many lawful debates when crimes have been committed about whether or not the suspect should be tried as an adult or a minor. In the example of the lunch room, the counterargument was brought up about whether or not the same actions would be taken had it been a teenager rather than a 6 year old. We assume the teen is held more responsible because of an increased level of maturity with age, but who is to say definitively if a child committed a murder whether or not they were mentally competent or immature and would not be tried as an adult? Is it ethical to interrogate a child as an adult?
I very much agree with what Alexandra posted above and I would like to respond to her question to who can define when and at what age or stage of maturity one can be considered an adult. It seems like a difficult question to answer because of so many factors that play into this specific situation but I think we should look at it as a big picture. As human beings - I'm sure all of us know how children of 6 years act and how a teenager acts. The amount of knowledge and social norms a 6 year old knows is by far extremely different and by no mean, can be compared to what a teenage knows. I don't think it makes any sense to punish and put the weight of what responsibility means to a child of that age because, in reality, the capability of what that child knows and can hold in understanding what he or she did wrong is not much.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong - I'm not saying that a 6 year old is not intelligent. I'm just saying that children that age are NOT mature yet - and so punishing and declaring them responsible just does not make sense, and really has no use because how much do they REALLY know to act like a responsible and mature human being? In conclusion, I think that we should look at the situation and use our intuition and common sense in deciding at what age an individual is at a stage of maturity.
However, my other point that I would like to bring up are the chances of a child committing a murder is very unlikely - but if the situation does seem to arise, perhaps THAT is when the chance of digging deeper into facts of finding out whether or not the child is mentally incompetent, rather than looking at the bigger picture comes into play. Perhaps the child was raised in a family where rules, and role models were absent, or maybe the child lived in a violent environment and was influenced by what he or she has seen and grown up with.
There is no definite line in defining when or at what stage of maturity one individual has reached, however if it is not necessary - then there is no need to look for reasons to claiming is a child should be blamed for his or her own faults. We should keep in mind that a child has a mind of a CHILD - and so punishing a 6 year old as if he or she was a teenager is unethical - and useless.
I do not think that a specific age can be decided as a line that separates a child from being tried as a child or an adult. Every child matures at different speed, so while one child may be mature and more responsible, another may not. I think that there is never just "one right answer"; with every decision or choice, there is always something thats always lost, someone or people not happy. Since there can be no right answer, the next option is to go with the best option - which in this case, I think that even if a crime was committed by a child, authorities should treat the child as an adult. Children can easily deceive authorities with their age and be said that they were incapable of a crime. Children should be treated as an adult unless there are sufficient evidence that the child was in fact incapable of the crime. A criminal is a criminal, after one time, a second time is likely to occur, we have to keep everyone as safe as possible.
ReplyDeleteIn this specific situation, I do believe that the theory of Justice is overall more capable of handling the situation. The child does need to learn that the act of stealing is wrong. I think that the steakholder mentioned previously, "the administrative figure" had the duty to educate the child about his or her actions, and then proceed to further help the child to acquire their individual needs (in this case food) in a way that is acceptable. Although the child is very young, he or she needs to be treated as anyone else in a similar situation would be treated.
ReplyDeleteI would like to compare the Theories of Justice to Consequentalism to address this situation with a six year old stealing. The Theories of Justice involves the principles of equality. After the reading the posts above, I believe that in this specific situation we would use notion that there is difference in the level of maturity between an adult and a child, with the exception of a few cases. Since the child is still learning how he or she should or should not act, it is not fair to punish a child in the same way you would an adult for the act of stealing. If a child and an adult were equal with their levels of maturity and knowledge, then it would be fair to blame the equally, but this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteConsequentalism seeks to address the impact of decision making. We aim to make decisions that will produce optimal consequences. Let’s say a decision was made to punish the six year old for stealing. Now we have to determine the potential consequences of this decision. A good consequence would be the child associating punishment with stealing being wrong, and will not steal again in the future. However, the child can be frustrated that he or she was punished and would continue to steal, and no lesson would be learned.
Both these theories have multiple exceptions and counterarguments that can be brought up. After specifically applying both to this situation, I think it would be best to appropriately punish the child for stealing. This means that the child should not receive the same blame as an adult, who is more mature and knowledgeable, but in a way to produce a good consequence of the child not stealing again in the future.
I do believe that certain ethical theories are more applicable, or more justifiable in certain situations than others, such as the example of the '6-year old child stealing food from the lunch room'. In addition, I believe that the Theories of Justice more capable of handling this situation than Deontology or Consequentialism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that one standard should be withheld regardless of the circumstances. Although this may be harsh or perhaps too easy on individuals, I believe it is the only fair method for all individuals to receive the same treatment. I feel as though it would be impossible to decide which of the theories "outranks" and therefore holds greater weight, than the other theories.
It may seem problematic, and in some ethical theories perhaps ethically immoral, if the child in the given example is held to the same standards and would face the same consequences for his actions as a grown adult, but this would eliminate the question of when do children know what is right and wrong and they would be held responsible from birth. This also eliminates the use of different ethical theories on a case by case basis which would yield opposing outcomes.
Although I do feel that exceptions should be made in certain extreme circumstances, I strongly believe that one ethical and judicial standard should be set for all to follow. This would eliminate the problem that certain ethical theories are more justifiable in certain situations than others and that the Theories of Justice are more capable of handling a particular situation than Deontology or Consequentialism.
-KEENAN