Introduction
In the morning of Wednesday, March 18, Ryan Moats was rubbed the opportunity to say goodbye to his mother in-law by the name Jonetta Collinsworth who was ailing from breast cancer. This was as a result of awful actions by one of Dallas policemen by the name Robert Powell. After spending about 15 minutes in a red light alongside Officer Powell’s Scrutiny, Ryan Moats arrived at the hospital too late to say his final goodbye to someone he treasured. Collinsworth had already taken her last breath just moments earlier. Owing to the above alluded realities about the incident, this writing will establish answers to various unrequited questions surrounding the incident by the use of preconvention, conventional, and post conventional thoughts.
Discussion
Moral reasoning is the process used by an individual to determine the existing difference between right and wrong by the use of logic when faced with a personal situation. It enables individuals to take appropriate decisions in times of dilemma.
Officer Powell’s Moral Reasoning
The Officer was reasoning from Rule which is also known as deontological reasoning. Moral principles often inhibit an imperative form of setting whereby an obligation becomes sufficient to justify an action. Here, the present stance, whether real or hypothetical, falls under a given duty, and offers a rationale to execute an obligation based upon the legal requirements of that given duty. Most interestingly, this kind of reasoning stresses on one’s ability to view an ethical dilemma with respect of how it will rationally affect others. This is factually known as “moral sensitivity”.
It is evident that, the red light was running thus indicating that it’s unlawful to keep driving. In this regard, Officer Powel followed the provisions governing his working operations to the later. According to him, it would have been unlawful to grant Ryan Moats the permission to precede yet the red light was running. With respect to the above arguments, it is rational to conclude that the officer used deontological reasoning.
The Footballer’s Moral Reasoning
The footballer who in this case is Ryan Moats was reasoning from Consequences. This is also known as “Teleological Reasoning”. In this case, the component used is moral judgment; the ability for an individual to reason appropriately on what ‘ought’ to be done in particular situation. In such a dilemma, principles are treated as values and not imperatives. They become ends to be achieved by the society and not laws governing direct actions in the society. Moral argument therefore becomes an exercise for evaluating the means of responding to an impending issue and establishes ways to acquire the best possible outcome of the results.
Ryan’s mother in-law was fatally sick and just about to die. That was an emergency issue and for that reason, he wanted to do what ought to be done in case of an emergency. That is why he decided to ignore the red light. Owing to the above realities, it is lucid to assert that the footballer used Teleological Reasoning.
What I would have done
This was an emergency situation requiring a lot of care and contemplation. In this regard, I would stop at the red light to explain the magnitude of the emergency to the officer more precisely and concisely. In fact, I would take the least time possible in communicating the extent of the situation at hand. The officer might have been amused by moats decision to break the law without prior explanation. Therefore, my decision to brief him would help in neutralizing the situation.
Was the Officer right to hold them?
The officer was not right to hold them owing to the kind of emergency they were in. strangely enough, the vehicle they were in was carrying four passengers with its hazard lights on. Moreover, it was heading to the front doorway of the emergency Room. This should have prompted Powel to obviously conclude a possibility of there being a real emergency. For that reason the officer was wrong.
Ethical Ramification of this Decision
The decision by the officer to hold Ryan was unethical. Similarly, the officer’s attitude towards Ryan and his relatives was negative contrary to the provisions governing Police Standards. Morally, the decision tarnished the good name of the police department in Dallas making people to lose faith in the police fraternity. Consequently, with regard to ethics, the decision contravened code of ethics of the police by not giving an emergency the priority it deserved. Many individuals came up with a variety of ethical concerns about the issue; one of it being Racism and Partiality in the police department.
What they would have done differently
For amicable results of an outcome to be established ethical protocols ought to be followed to the later. Therefore, the officer and Moats should have acted in a different manner than they did. First, Officer Powel should have taken the least time possible in issuing Moats with the traffic ticket. When two people from the hospital came explaining the dire circumstance to the officer, he should have taken it as a real proof that there was an emergency and therefore he should have given leniency to them. Secondly, Moats should not have driven when the red light was on without giving prior explanation. He ought to have stopped for a short while to explain briefly in one or two minutes.
Conclusion
