You try to live strictly by the moral rules contained in your religion’s moral code. The two most important rules are “Be merciful” (don’t give people what they deserve) and “Be just” (give people exactly what they deserve). Now suppose a man is arrested for stealing food from your house, and the police leave it up to you whether he should be prosecuted for his crime or set free. Should you be merciful and set him free, or be just and make sure he is appropriately punished? How do you resolve this conflict of rules? Can your moral code resolve it? To what moral principles or theories do you appeal? Needs to be answered using course textbook, doing ethics Inquisitive by Lewis Vaughn
Requirements: 350 words -400 words
In my view, my moral reasoning for being just would be inclined to teach the man that stealing is not a solution when they cannot afford what they desire. However, I would take the time to understand the man’s intent for stealing and determine if he was remorseful or did it as a habit. Hence, I would resolve the conflict by applying the philosophy of moral absolutism, which emphasize that deeds have inherent values of either right or wrong despite the motivating aspect behind them (Vaughn, 2018). For instance, although the man’s motivation was to get food to feed his starving family, I would still consider the stealing act immoral. I believe the man could have taken a morally sound decision, such as requesting assistance. Otherwise, failing to take an act of justice would likely increase a repeat pattern of stealing.