Recent orders
Description of the issue of controversy
PHILOSOPHY
STUDENT NAME
AFFILIATION
DATE
Description of the issue of controversy
In these conceptions, there are problems however the main is defining what is right to the person defining it. Ethical behavior in this projects reflects a valuable system growing out of theological world view based on principles of justice, equity, the rights and needs oneself as well as of others, a sense of duty to the society, and its legitimate needs and standards. Ethical leaders have the moral identity and cognitive moral development that give them special characters.
Ethical leadership has various elements of making decisions and acting as well as leading ethically. Ethical leadership is both visible in the sense of how a leader works and treats others, how he behaves in public, his actions and statements: Invisible. In the aspects of the leader’s character, his procedure of decision-making, his mindset, the set of principles and values on which he draws, as well as his courageous ways of deciding during situations(Aristotle, 2014).
Discussion of how two or three philosophies or philosophers would describe the roots of the problem
It is morally correct to do the right thing even if it brings displeasure to other parties. Kant sees the world in a different perspective indicating that if something is morally good it should not have qualifications but in real life in order to achieve such statue we have to put energy to achieve this statue (Aristotle, 2014). Immanuel Kant moral philosophy has become part and parcel of our daily lives as it is a general alternative to utilitarianism. Ethics are an essential part of the philosophical and intellectual framework used to relate and understand the world. To be a leader one is a role model and this makes it an exception that all leaders ought to be ethical. Ethical leadership models ethical performance in the community and in an organization. Kant’s theory looks to achieve what should be done regardless of the consequence. Moral theory explains that there is no moral event in the world but rather goodwill: the will to do the right thing for the reason of doing the right thing
Discussion of the political or ethical theories that are in evidence in the controversy
The deontological theory is based on better decision making as persons should follow and adhere to obligations and duties and this will help resolve ethical dilemmas. Leaders are role models (Aristotle, 2014). If you want your organization or initiative – and those who work in it – to behave ethically, then it’s up to you to model ethical behavior. A leader that has a character of ethical behavior is a role model for other organizations as well as the community. Maintaining ethical leadership is vital and it lasts a lifetime
Utilitarianism theory seeks to be fair and just because it has the potential to foresee the consequences of an action. To create a role model an organization has to input the right set of skills. According to a recent survey it is estimated that most leaders enjoy satisfaction and commitment in what they do. Imagine a leader who despises his duties but prefers the power. This is not a leader who will be considered a good role model. An ethical leader will handle reports fairly and with care, they also reduce deviant or unethical behaviors in followers.
Virtue Ethical theory is rating theory as it focuses on character as opposed to other theories that focus on actions. It seeks an understanding of a person’s irregular behavior based on morals, reputation and motivation to see if it is unethical (Sullivan, 1989).
In conclusion for a leader to assist in ethical dilemmas he has to follow a certain code of conduct to facilitate good decisions. The leader should respect the ethical beliefs and values and should uphold the fruits of trust and honesty.
Reference
Aristotle, (. B. R. (2014). Nicomachean ethics: Hackett classics (17 ed., pp. 2-33). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Sullivan, R. J. (1989). Immanuel Kant’s moral theory (pp. 6-56) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Miranda Act
The Mirtanda Act
Name
Institution
Date of submission
The Miranda Act
The Miranda act is a set of specific rights that anyone under police custody is entitled to. It is considered as standard police procedure as police officers are required to recite these laws to a suspect under custody. Miranda warnings are given verbally during an arrest and on paper when a written confession is being taken. It is made up of four parts being; An individual’s right to remain silent, any statements made may be used as evidence against them in a court of law, the individual’s right to an attorney and if the individual cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them before questioning, if so desired.
The Miranda act originates from a 1966 supreme court ruling Miranda v. Arizona (1966) under chief justice Earl Warren (Miranda, 1966). He released a 60 paged written opinion outlining a police procedure that would ensure all suspects are informed of their rights during arrests and before being interrogated Under this act, unless this warning is given to a suspect, no evidence or information obtained during questioning can be used against the suspect, nor can it be viable in a court of law. The Miranda act is meant to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right so as to eliminate self-incrimination during interrogations.
This act is based on the belief that during interrogations, there is such pressure on the suspects that undermines their will to resist speaking where otherwise they would not, therefore making it hard for one to exercise their constitutional rights. The Miranda rights are meant to reconcile the power police officers have with the basic rights of an individual. It gives a suspect the power to make informed decisions on whether or not to waiver their rights as given to them by the constitution.
However the act has had some limitations one being that a police officer is not required to explain these rights to the suspect, nor the consequences of waiving such rights, hence most suspects are unable to fully grasp the importance of these rights, limiting their ability to exercise it. Another limitation is that the Miranda act almost has no impactful difference in a police interrogations and behavior, as the police continue to use psychological tactics in getting confessions such as the use of threats and promises to induce suspects into signing waiver forms and confessions. Many police departments have also been giving training to their officers on how to carry out interrogations with regards to this act, hence finding deceptive ways of influencing suspects to waive their rights (Miranda & Arizona,). A classic example of such a scenario is when police officers persuade suspects that they are better off giving their statements to a friendly police officer rather than wait for an unsympathetic public attorney
Despite all these challenges the Miranda act has been able to bring about a balance that enables for the protection of essential constitutional rights of suspects without law enforcement agencies having to prove the legitimacy of the confessions they submit, as the evidence they collect holds up in courts. The Miranda act has therefore been very influential in ensuring all American people enjoy their freedom, as police officers are able to do their job without infringing the fundamental rights of all citizens. It is after all one of the fundamental American rights.
References
“50 years since Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at Supreme Court,” March 1, 2016, azcentral.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 u.s. 436 [1966])
Miranda v. Arizona, Justia U.S. Supreme Court.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 as a Policy Problem
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 as a Policy Problem
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 as a Policy Problem
Introduction
Target audience: scholars and policy designers, and implementers
The legal minimum drinking age is 21 years across all 50 US states, although there are exceptions to this rule. Exceptions include medical reasons, basic consumption and under adult supervision. The legal age for purchasing alcohol varied from state to state before enacting the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Some reasons cited for having the legal drinking age as 21 include reduced motor vehicle crashes and protecting users from adverse birth outcomes, drug dependence, and homicide and suicide. While the outcomes of having 21 as the minimum legal drinking age benefit health, there is a policy gap as it only pushes underage individuals to binge drink (Fell & Scherer, 2017). Maintaining the legal drinking age of 21 does not guarantee that 18-year-olds will not drink as it only results in drinking in less controlled environments.
Analysis
The only alternative to the MLDA law is reducing the legal drinking age to 18 years. Having 18 as the minimum drinking age has pros and cons. One advantage is that it would help reduce binge drinking. This follows the belief that when young people have easier access to alcohol, they will not have the thrill of drinking excessively granted an opportunity. This is because they do not have to deal with hiding or obtaining fake IDs. Another pro is that it creates a much safer drinking environment as individuals are likely to call higher authorities such as the police in case of an emergency situation like alcohol poisoning (Carpenter & Dobkin, 2017). On the downside, lowering the legal drinking age to 18 is not advisable as a person’s brain is not fully developed by then. Alcohol interferes with the brain development process. It would also increase irresponsible drinking behavior as eighteen-year-olds are usually not as experienced.
Recommendation
To resolve the minimum legal drinking age dilemma in the United States, the ideal solution is to reduce the minimum drinking age to 18 years. Policy designers and implementers must push for having 18 years as the minimum drinking age and comparing outcomes. This would be the best solution because it would give society a chance to witness, document, and compare the actual outcomes of having 18 and 21 years as minimum legal requirements. Reducing the legal drinking age would be the right move as we would see reduced cases of road fatalities. After all, the United States has more drunken driving-related fatalities than countries with 18 years are its minimum legal drinking age.
Implementation
Various steps must be followed to implement the policy of 18 years as the minimum legal drinking age. The first step is identifying a need which in this case is reducing the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years. The next step would be appointing an individual or team to lead responsibility, such as a committee. Step three has to do with collecting information and step four is drafting the policy (Zainal, 2020). In step five, consultation with appropriate stakeholders takes place, and in the next step, the policy is finalized. Then, it is considered whether procedures are required to provide guidance on how the policy shall be implemented. For instance, procedures for collecting and addressing complaints and who will handle them. The next step is implementing the policy itself, and this includes supporting the policy implementers. The final step is all monitoring, reviewing, and revising.
References
Carpenter, C., & Dobkin, C. (2017). The minimum legal drinking age and morbidity in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(1), 95-104.
Fell, J. C., & Scherer, M. (2017). Estimation of the potential effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per deciliter in the United States. Alcoholism: clinical and experimental research, 41(12), 2128-2139.
Zainal, A. G. (2020). Requirement and Difficulties to Implement the Policy Lifecycle Model for Systems Management. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(6s), 472-478.