As individuals residing in a community, one should hold several identities, thus leading to a variety of moral responsibilities one must carry. One clear example that reflects this condition is the Bulger Brother’s case. William Bulger, as a member of his family, has the obligation to be loyal to his brother. However, at the same time, he is responsible to obey the law that applies in his community — specifically in this case is to bring a criminal to justice. He was faced with a predicament that enforced him to choose between two moral responsibilities that are mutually exclusive. Upholding impartiality in this case would mean acting for the greater good of public, and consequently renders the violation of family obligation. As a president
…show more content…
It is a theory that places the locus of right or wrong on the consequences on choosing one action over the other. According to John Stuart Mill (1863), the principle of utility seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness for the most amount of people. To accurately explain this argument, it is best to compare the outcomes between two contradicting cases. The Unabomber case is similar to Bulger Brother’s case, however it has an utterly distinct outcome. Both are telling about brothers, whom one of them is virtuous while the other is lawless. The difference lies in the decision made by the former. David Kaczynski, suspected his brother as The Unabomber, a terrorist responsible fora series of package bombs that killed three people. He tipped off the authorities about Ted’s whereabout and they finally managed to arrest him after more than 17 years of pursuit. Although his decision rendered hatred from his own brother that is sent to prison for life, but this is less significant to the goodness he caused. He has probably prevented more deaths from happening and he shared one million dollars he received as a reward to the family’s victims. Viewing from utilitarian point of view, unlike William Bulger, David took the righteous road since his decision generates more beneficial outcome for the public. William’s decision solely benefits his family, while causing significant disadvantages to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His action generates public insecurity, unhelpful for the authorities, and unsympathetic to the devastated families whose loved ones were killed by his brother or his
It is a theory that places the locus of right or wrong on the consequences on choosing one action over the other. According to John Stuart Mill (1863), the principle of utility seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness for the most amount of people. To accurately explain this argument, it is best to compare the outcomes between two contradicting cases. The Unabomber case is similar to Bulger Brother’s case, however it has an utterly distinct outcome. Both are telling about brothers, whom one of them is virtuous while the other is lawless. The difference lies in the decision made by the former. David Kaczynski, suspected his brother as The Unabomber, a terrorist responsible fora series of package bombs that killed three people. He tipped off the authorities about Ted’s whereabout and they finally managed to arrest him after more than 17 years of pursuit. Although his decision rendered hatred from his own brother that is sent to prison for life, but this is less significant to the goodness he caused. He has probably prevented more deaths from happening and he shared one million dollars he received as a reward to the family’s victims. Viewing from utilitarian point of view, unlike William Bulger, David took the righteous road since his decision generates more beneficial outcome for the public. William’s decision solely benefits his family, while causing significant disadvantages to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His action generates public insecurity, unhelpful for the authorities, and unsympathetic to the devastated families whose loved ones were killed by his brother or his