Find an example of the rights/responsibility lens being applied. How did the aut

Question

Find an example of the rights/responsibility lens being applied. How did the author appeal to the right of contract and negative rights? What distinctions were made between rights and equality of opportunity for everyone? How did the writer explore the motives of those making the decisions and taking action? Be sure to provide citations and references for all your work, including the newspaper in which you found the article. Also include citations from your text and other sources when analyzing the rights/responsibility lens, the right of contract, and negative rights.

Explanation / Answer

Analyzing the Rights/Responsibility Lens:

Mention that you are interested in learning how people become ethically mature and people will give you lots of advice… often not useful. Many believe that they learned everything that they need about ethics and morals as kids, so they don’t need any more training. However, just like learning addition doesn’t give us enough math to function in an adult world, the beginning truths of “don’t hit your sister” and “don’t lie” don’t provide us with enough guidance to know what to do in complex situations. Many will say that they “just know” what to do. Unfortunately, our gut is not very good at helping us explain to others why a particular course of action is better than another. Self-knowledge and thoughtful reflection help us find the right words to explain our positions and influence a course of action. Many will say that every problem has only one right answer — and we should know that answer. If that were so, we would not have so many laws and over 5,000 years of conversation about how one should act in community. If all the answers were self evident, few would make terrible and often unintentional errors of judgment that call their ethics into question. And, finally, every person knows they are ethical — just ask. Yet, as we look around, ethics scandals abound. With a cocked eyebrow we judge each other’s ethics but not our own. We often find that the other person is ethically deficient and we are just fine. And we have this niggling question: why, when so many say they are ethical, do we have so many problems? Is the problem due to human nature — No one can claim to be ethical and there is no hope? Or is there a more basic problem, one of definition? What do we mean by ethics? And exactly how do we determine what actions are — or are not — ethical? The Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) is a tool to help you answer those questions and to help you become more aware about your own values. As you understand what values are important to you, you will discover your preferred approach to solving ethical dilemmas. The ELI will identify your natural ethical home. You will also be given strategies to help you become more ethically mature.

Ethics can be broadly defined as demonstrating our values through our actions. As we make choices, each of us knows our own heart, our values, and our motivations. With each choice, our values are translated into concrete actions in specific situations. The specific actions are then defined as “ethical” or “unethical” depending on whether the actions match the observer’s understanding of what behaviors count.

Did you follow accepted principles?
Did you choose ideal goals?
Did you seek justice?
Did you demonstrate the expected virtues?

An example of the rights/responsibility lens being applied from website, Business Through an Ethical Lens
By Tricia Bisoux on January 1, 2013 ...
In his 17 years as executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission, David Freel found that ethical lapses in business most often arise not from malice, but from inappropriate self-interest. Whether it’s because their leaders model bad behavior or their organizations offer ill-advised incentives, even good people with good intentions can falter if they lack a solid framework for making ethical decisions.

Freel refers to the example of the sex abuse scandal at Penn State, where several janitors didn’t report what they saw because they feared losing their jobs. “We must get students to realize that they could make the same mistake,” he says. “They need to have a way to see the ethical alternatives available to them, so they can make better decisions.”

Unfortunately, the business curriculum traditionally views ethical behavior as an emotional response, not a decision-making strategy, says Freel, now a lecturer in management and human resources at The Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business in Columbus. “We teach students decision-making frameworks for human resources, law, and finance, but when it comes to ethics, there’s this notion that we should rely on our gut instincts,” he says.

That’s why educators like Freel have turned to two classroom tools provided by EthicsGame, a company based in Denver, Colorado. These tools present the study of ethics to students in terms of strategy, not just conscience. The first, the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), is an online self-evaluation exercise that helps users identify their personal values and understand how those values affect the decisions they make. The second is a set of interactive simulations that ask students to analyze and make decisions in a variety of ethical situations.

And about Positive rights, they usually oblige action, whereas Negative rights usually oblige inaction.Negative rights means that other individuals or organizations are forbidden from acting against the rights of someone else. Meanwhile, positive rights means that others are obliged to act in favour of someone else's rights. To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian.

Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery.

Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.

Below is a case from a website "http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/rs/rs.jsp?EX=&L1=HC&L2=&L3=2015&AR=0_2#A0_2" for your refernce

HCCC 18/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 18 OF 2015

-----------------

HKSAR

v

LAU Hing-fai

------------------

Before:   DHCJ V Bokhary

Date:     15 March 2016 at 10.32 am

Present: Mr Jonathan Acton-Bond, on fiat, for HKSAR

Mr Christopher Grounds, instructed by Cheung & Liu, for the accused

Offence: Trafficking in a dangerous drug ()

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: Accused, I have taken into account everything ably urged on your behalf. You stand convicted of one charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The quantity of drugs involved is 1.90 kilogrammes of a crystalline solid containing 1.87 kilogrammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

     These drugs were imported into Hong Kong from across the border. All things considered, and being as lenient as my duty allows me to do, I adopt a starting point of 23 years, enhance it by 2 years, making a total of 25 years’ imprisonment.

     I have taken into account everything urged on your behalf, including your plea of guilty, your cooperation with the Customs in making admission right after your arrest, your taking part in a controlled delivery and your having given evidence in this court against another person. I shall give you a discount of slightly more than 50 per cent thereby reducing the starting point to one of 12 years’ imprisonment.

     You were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for an offence of conspiracy to dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence on 15 February of this year.

     In all the circumstances and having regard to the principle of totality, I order that that sentence of 6 months to run concurrently with the 12 years’ imprisonment which I have imposed upon you today.

     I therefore sentence you to 12 years’ imprisonment and I make the order for that 6 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently with the 12 years’ imprisonment.

Here the Rights are distinguished based on regard to the principle of Totality.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.