An ethical issue or social problem that has impacted my local community was the 2018 massacre at Parkland High School Florida. You can follow this link for further information on the incident. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
This incident has left the American news media asking a series of familiar questions: How could this have happened here? What could we have done? News personalities and experts frame the American public as split into two camps, one that favors stricter gun control and another that wants unfettered access to firearms. Analysts are recruited to argue one or another side of this clash, moving public discourse no closer to a realistic solution to gun violence.
American gun owners deploy a particular ethical system in their responses to instances of mass gun violence. To understand how this ethical system is produced, this allows us to move beyond the terms of the gun control debate. Is my opinion that owning a firearm brings with it an ethical system that makes the prospect of giving up guns in the aftermath of a mass shooting even less attractive to gun owners. Some people call this debate “the problem of evil” by communicating that the world is run by good guys and bad guys, or good versus evil. In other words some people are categorized as humans and others as inhuman or even monstrous.
Apply the theory
The debate between pro-gun or anti- gun advocates in the United States relates more to virtue ethics. This debate hangs more on a single question between legal gun carrying and violent crime rates. A broadly consequentialist assumption is that once we establish whether gun control is an effective deterrent, we will have settle the question of goodness in gun ownership and provide guidance to lawmakers on constructing more or less restrictive laws.
The Army suffers from a huge sexual assault problem with the statistics rising each fiscal year. In my local community of Fort Campbell / Clarksville TN we average 10 reports of sexual assault a month. When a sexual assault report comes up in a unit not only does it affect the victim but the entire unit as well. Soldiers take sides and lose trust with each other, unit cohesiveness is lost making the entire unit not ready to deploy. Often the victim and perpetrator are taken out of their respective units leaving a gap where that soldiers skillset is gone and needs replaced.
To mitigate sexual assault in the Army, the Army has created a program called SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program) which mitigates sexual assault by making soldiers aware and to help intervene when we see it happening. This program falls in line with deontological ethic theory/ Kantian ethics. If we apply Kant’s two part categorical imperative to this ethical issue then the first part is solved with soldiers treating everyone with respect and the second part when soldiers expect other soldiers to not sexually assault someone and to prevent sexual assaults that could or are happening. It would be a soldiers “duty” to prevent sexual assault.