Introduction: Both law and ethics help our society to run effectively. Citizens must comply with law. Law can be defined as “must do”. On the other hand, ethics can perhaps be defined as “should do”. In this way, some could argue that laws define baseline rules that must be in place to help society to run. Additionally, it could be argued that ethics create a higher standard than laws for how society should be run. These two issues and how they relate have been debated by even the earliest scholars. In this paper, I will use a case from our textbook to help us examine how law and ethics relate. Summary of Case The case that I will be examining comes from pg. 105 in our textbook, Hamlin v. Hampton Lumber Mills Inc. (2011). In this case, Hamlin got injured while working for Hampton Lumber Mills. The lumber mill failed to train Hamlin effectively. Additionally, Hamlin was instructed to stand in unsafe spaces. Then, Hamlin was told to unsafely remove a board that was stuck in machinery. Hamlin’s thumb was mangled. Hamlin was hospitalized and unable to work for four months. Afterwards, the mill refused to reinstate him. Hamlin sued and received $6,000 in lost wages and punitive damages of $175,000. The mill won an appeal which stated that the …show more content…
In this case, we have a few stakeholders: the lumber mill, Hamlin, and future employees who could have similar lawsuits against employers. This decision did not help the lumber mill, as they had to pay nearly $200,000 in damages to Hamlin. This decisions was good for Hamlin, as he was payed for the harm he received on the job. Employees in the future may be mistreated badly and want to sue for damages outside of the 4:1 ratio suggestion. These employees will benefit from the case. Overall, I believe that society will be better off because of the decision of this case. So, the decision creates net benefits and is ethical according to Betham’s
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
...awarded by a jury, this motion was denied by the judge. In the end Arnold & Porter lowered their desired settlement from $21 million to $15 million, Pittston offered $13 million. The two parties reach a settlement for $13.5 million, $8 million of which was for psychic-impairment.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Ethics is an important proponent when considering any decision. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something everyone should know. However, the importance of ethics gets minimized when a decision that seems wrong actually has benefits. In the efforts of improving society, often ethics is violated. Sometimes in order for society to be better off as a whole, there has to be little sacrificing of ethical practices along the way to do so.
The Moral Philosophy of Ethics as defined by Cyndi Banks is defined as “a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of questions of right and wrong and how we ought to live, Ethics involves making moral judgements about what is right and wrong, good or bad.(2).” Ethics in the criminal justice department is important because it justifies ones actions. In The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo and Hard Measures by Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. there are many scenarios of ethical dilemmas that need to be questioned.
* The assumption made by the lawyer, and for that matter, by society, that its values and demands are intrinsically a priori valid, are a matter for another interesting research, yet it diverges too much from our point.
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
The verdict came in, the jury found for the plaintiff $2 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages. The vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff. Nicholas slipped into the night and had a Learjet take him to Marlee.
It is important to first understand the difference between law and ethics. Ethics examines the values and actions of people. Often times there is no one right course of action when one is faced with an ethical dilemma. On the other hand, laws
Moral language in traditional schemes usually has a structure that resembles that of law. Traditional, natural law ethics used this model with integrity, for it saw moral principles as terminology to law and God as alike to the sovereign. Now, however, ethics has become autonomous activity, so that it is now an inarticulate metaphor. The virtue ethicists reject this model. Ethics should help us develop admirable characters that will generate the kind of insights needed for the difficulties of life.
We all live by our own ethical values which truly gives us identity of who we are. Our social lives are ruled by a system of convention known as laws. We are bound by rules, whether, it’s at our workplace or at the school. What is the law? There is no simple definition to distinguish what the law is.
William O. Douglas said, "Common sense often makes good law." Well that is what laws essentially are, rules and regulations that make sure common sense is followed. One could even say that laws are enforced ethics. Laws serve several roles and functions in business and society, and this paper will discuss those roles and functions.
It is observe that ethics encourage people to follow the universal code of ethics while following or performing any legal
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.