Critical thinking requires the ability to evaluate viewpoints, facts, and behaviors objectively to assess information or methods of argumentation to establish the true worth or merit of an act or course of conduct. Evaluate these scenarios, first analyzing pros and cons of alternate views, before you come to a conclusion. Be open minded. Do not draw a conclusion first, and then try to find facts to support it – this frequently leads to narrow (and incorrect) thinking.
For this assignment, utilize the following format for each scenario:
1. Isolate and evaluate the relevant factors on both sides.
2. Identify the precise moral question to be answered.
3. Apply ethical principles to the moral question based on an objective evaluation of the facts, only then drawing a conclusion.
4. Answer the scenario question(s).
The scenarios (2) are as follows:
A. Butt Charge
The state of Maine proposed a new law requiring every filter-tipped cigarette sold there to carry a nickel surcharge. The 5 cents would be refunded when the butt was returned, in the same way that cans and bottles carry deposits in some states. Butts would be returned to the same recycling locations that handle cans and bottles.
According to the proposal, cigarette manufactures would place a mark on the filter of each cigarette sold in Maine, indicating the 5-cent deposit notice. If passed, this law would raise the price of a pack of cigarette by $1.
The law arose from problems caused by an earlier ban of cigarette smoking in most public place, forcing smokers outside and leading to the problem of used butts on the ground around entrances to stores, public buildings, and parking lots. The law also seeks to provide a new source of revenue for the state while avoiding a general tax increase. If half of all butts sold were returned for a deposit, the state would gain about $50 million in unclaimed deposits.
Cigarette vendors and manufactures did not support the proposed new law, arguing that it would push smokers to buy their cigarettes in other states. There was also the question of health concerns in handling used butts and the practical matter of counting the returned used cigarette butts.
You are a smoker living in Maine. Is it morally permissible to enact such a law?
How does your argument change if you are a nonsmoker?
B. A Judges Relations
A judge in Chicago was charged with violating ethics rules for having sex in his chambers with a court reporter. Apparently, a physical relationship took place in the office and the judge and court reporter had sex on multiple occasions during the holidays. The judge argued in his defense that there is no rule specifying the consensual relations with another adult in the privacy of his chambers are prohibited.
It was charged that the sexual relationship with the court reporter “created an atmosphere of impropriety and is not in keeping with the dignity of a judicial officer.” although no state rule has been found that addresses or prohibits consensual sex by a judge in his office.
The judge was also charged with forcing kisses on two ADAs, repeatedly asking female prosecutors for dates and commenting on their appearances. But these charges were separate from the judge’s challenge of his having consensual sex with a court reporter in his chambers.
Assess the moral permissibility of the judge’s conduct using the three major ethical perspectives.