Merit_and_Punishment

Earned or Given Merit and Punishment Alan Hodge SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility (GSG1141N) Instructor:  Todd Hughes November 7, 2011 Earned or Given Merit and Punishment Do people receive what they earn in both merit and punishment or are they given merit and relieved of punishment without justification' What are the repercussions of merit without that which is earned' What are the repercussions of punishment not being a just punishment' This just of merit also must be true and equal to both acts of reward and merit, as well as just and equal punishment. In this paper the views of merit and punishment based on what is earned and what is given with and without justification from different both the utilitarianism and the deontology ethical theory views First what the utilitarianism and the deontology ethical theories views are must be understood. The utilitarianism view is considered the natural way of viewing an act to see if it is the right or wrong thing based on the results or consequences of the act (Mosser, 2010). While the deontologist view are opposed to the consequentialist methods and prefer to look at the moral value of an action (Ascension, 2011). The deontologist looks at what one should do based on duty under moral values to justify the right over the good. Ethically, there must be a line of both what someone earns and is awarded, and what that person receives in both the line of merit and punishment. One of the first points that always seem to be argued or come up when discussing what is just and equal is, does race, financial status or geographical location make a difference in what is awarded in both merit and punishment' It would be foolish to state other than yes sometimes upon any of these questions. As to no matter which theory is used, there will always be somewhere some form of favoritism or prejudice within some human qualities. But if the outcome of merit or punishment of the act is applied in each ethical outcome, and its merit or punishment is applied equally and blindly as the goddess Themis also known as “Lady Justice” (Gonzalez & Prosise, 200) would imply for it to be applied. Then the outcome will be the same and either earned or given without being earned, based on the theory utilized and not who conducts the act. In this paper, the first look at the merit aspect, merit and reward will be looked at how they are applied within each of the two ethical theories. It will then be discussed as to what ethical problems and issues they bring up based on their application in both of the ethical theory views. In the second part of this paper examples of punishment will be brought up and how the punishment should be equal and not based on whom or where you are. Under the first part of merit there is a story about a professor of a college class being asked by a student how many students had he failed before. The professor replied that “he had never failed a single student before but, once he had failed an entire class”. This becomes one example of whether merit is just or earned reward, versus given merit without justification just so all have equal merit without earning it. Some say this story is true, while others state it’s just an urban legend of sorts. Whether it is true or not, the message behind the story about equality of what is earned and what is given without just can be used as a great example. The version of the story I have read goes like this (Watts, 2009). It seems that the professor had a economics class and that the majority of the class had insisted that socialism worked because no one would be poor and no one would be rich, the perfect and great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged, everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try or succeed. This example now must be looked at in the ethical theory views. Under the utilitarianism view this can be seen that the outcome was bad for the group as a whole. The ones doing the most work where not be given their fair share. While those who did not complete any of the work at all, where receiving the same as those who did some work, as well as the same grade as those who completed the most work. The merit without working to earn it under the utilitarianism theory view shows that under this circumstance that in work only what is earned should be given as merit and reward. This view and outcome could be used as a great example today for the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) groups how no company will pay the same for all workers. Also this should be looked at by the government as they should know that there is no way to be a social country and give without earn and be equal at the same time. For those who are given without earning it are not being treated equal but as privileged. Then not only are they protesting how the wealthy should give their money equally to those across the board as one of their protesting points (as they have no set points about their protest and position across the board) recently they have started doing the same about what should be given and to who based on earn and need and not just equal. There is no set or elected leadership and status, but self imposed groups and individuals are starting to claim leadership of different positions such as their bankers, their internal police force their official speaker at each location and other positions. One example of this is that OWS has obtained more than $500,000 from donations for the group. But since many has taken over within the OWS group as the say so of who gets the money, they are conducting the same merit justification as they are supposedly protesting. The story of the professor and his class, as well as that of the example of the OWS looked at from the deontology view could say it is ethically and moral correct for all to be equal. This seems to be the common view of not only the deontology but that of liberals as well. As it may seem ethically correct for all to have the same amount, it is unethical to believe that those who want it without earning it are not looking as to how those who have it may have worked to acquire it. These are just two examples taken from two different ethical views. While each view can be justified to be morally and even ethically correct based on their views, under the deontology view there is a lack of motivation. By taken from those who have and giving it to those who don’t whether it be money and financial wealth, a grade in school or just equal living standards, without requiring all to work to achieve this, then there will a lack of motivation on both sides to acquire better. Each person deserves only what they earn and that without it to have an entitlement society on merit without earn, where there is a reward just because individuals are part of that society just doesn’t and will never work properly as can be seen in many of the social economies of Europe today. When examples such as these of equality in a society come up, I am reminded of a famous quote from the 80’s that is brought to my mind about the view of socialism. “– the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money” ~~ Margaret Thatcher. Now for the second part of this paper that which is given as punishment and whether what is given is earned or not. Now whenever there is talk about prison and punishment the factor of race and racism always seems to surface. Civil rights activist’s state after the latest census the numbers shown for minorities versus whites where shocking. More blacks and Latinos were in prison than in college dorms, while twice that percentage was for whites (MSNBC, 2007). First I state here that if punishment is given equally, as the law states then more blacks and Latinos per capita shouldn’t be committing crimes. Does punishment usually equal the crime, I state not in our society today. An interview was conducted a few years ago about whether they worry of getting caught committing a crime or not. Many of the criminals stated their only worry was getting shot committing the crime as they usually don’t do their full time. This shows that without proper punishment for a crime there is little to deter the future commitment of that crime. One man even stated he robbed a bank to get free health care and to be away from the worry of war and other people (Bershad, 2011). If this punishment is looked at from the utilitarianism view it will state that this is not the proper punishment for the crime. As the outcome shows growing crime statistics and where it takes an average of $5000 a day for a felony jury trial. It takes an average of 5 days to conclude the trial with an average time of conviction of 2.2 years. How is this justice for those that were robbed from' But when looking at this example from a deontologist view they will say that this is just and equal punishment. The criminal should not be expected to rot in prison but should have a just time of punishment, then be given the opportunity to have a second chance in life. While this seems like a nice view again is the person receive the just punishment for the crime they commit' What about more serious crime such as murder' When a person commits 1st degree or premeditated murder they knew they were taken the life and rights of that other individual whether for money, position or other personal gain. I believe this extends as well to individuals who plan other actions knowing the possibility of such an act might occur such as taken a weapon to commit the robbery. This is the same as pre-meditated as the person took the weapon planning to use it if necessary to get what they wanted. Many times I hear the argument that they are being punished by being in prison for all their life, but they took the life of the other individual. These individuals still get to know pleasure, they get to watch television and in many states they can even have congical visits. Where is the punishment in this' If looked at from the deontologist view they will state where does the death of one person get justified with the murder of another' Life in prison should be just punishment for this crime. But from the utilitarianism view this was a preplanned murder if conducted in this view it was not from a human but from an animal to commit such a hideous crime. And we don’t murder animals but we do kill them. If it was up to me, not only would they be put to death but in the same painful matter as they committed it themselves but this is only my opinion. Another action that should be punished by death is committing the act of treason or being a coward and committing the act of desertion in battle and war. We have been at war for more than 10 years now, yet every day people who joined the military for its benefits are cowardly when they are called up to serve. Or in battle itself stating they can’t handle the battle and use PSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) as an escape all disease. The fact is that both of these are actions of cowardice. They don’t want to leave a child alone, or don’t believe in the cause behind the war. But this was not the stance they took only months before when they joined. These are cowardly actions in time of war and should be treated as such as was justly earned. The key word here is what they earned. This I believe is how the utilitarianism would view this crime. These crimes can cause the destruction of countries, or lead to death of many brave soldiers who have to fight these battles without those needed to back them up. There is never an excuse for these actions other than the need of personal gain, whether it is for profit through selling secrets or articles through the act of treason. Or whether, it is the act of personal profit of saving one’s self by being a turncoat for the enemy and committing treason and abandoning other soldiers in battle as a deserter. These crimes are far worse than any other crime in my book as it is just another premeditated murder of both country and brave soldiers, thus this crime should never be considered with any other punishment but that of the death penalty. However, the deontology will never view this or any other as a need for the death penalty as it is immoral to take a life. They do not see the morals that were taken from the victims that were murdered or left alone on the battle field Thus to them this is excessive punishment. This view always has the argument that prison is for rehabilitation, but I disagree as prison is for punishment alone. Only by providing punishment, and harder punishment for worse crimes, will this truly deter the crimes themselves. In conclusion, many can give their opinions on many topics of reward, merit and just. But depending on your ethical view of just and reward the outcomes will always be different. But in reality only by rewarding those who earn it, and punishing those who deserve it as well to the extent and degree they deserve based on their crimes, will society truly entice individuals to follow the rules and to better themselves. . Reference Ascension Health. (2011). Issues and Concepts: Deontology. Retrieved 7 November, 2011 from http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php'option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=172. Bershad, J. (21 June, 2011). Man Robs Bank for $1 for Prison Health Care. Retrieved 4 November, 2011 from http://www.mediaite.com/tv/this-exists-man-robs-1-from-bank-only-to-receive-prison-health-care/. Gonzalez, G., & Prosise, J. (2000). Statue of Themis, Pic. Retrieved 22 October 2011 from http://www.grisel.net/athens_museum.htm Hursthouse, R. (18 July, 2007). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved 22 October 2011 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education. MSNBC. (27, September, 2007). Race and Ethnicity: More blacks, Latinos in jail than college dorms. Retrieved 7 November, 2011 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/ns-/us_news-life/t/more-blacks-latinos-jail-college-dorms/#.Trgu-LLc92A. Watts, K. (25 March, 2009). The Tale of the Economic Professor. Retireved 23 October, 2011 from http://dailymull.com/1371/The-Tale-of-the-Economics-Professor.