Warning: Constant FORCE_SSL_ADMIN already defined in /home/lizrodrigues/digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/wp-config.php on line 105

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/lizrodrigues/digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/wp-config.php:105) in /home/lizrodrigues/digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
https://digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/response/some-thoughts-regarding-4-8/ CSC 105, Spring 2019 Fri, 12 Apr 2019 20:40:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 https://digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/response/some-thoughts-regarding-4-8/#comment-72 Fri, 12 Apr 2019 20:40:33 +0000 https://digitalage19.sites.grinnell.edu/?p=628#comment-72 I found the duty-based approach to be complicated and somewhat problematic. On one hand, making decisions based on a consistent code of ethics is in some ways admirable, and it is comforting that decisions divorced from results can be considered moral. However, using a duty-based approach can lead to negative results. Ignorance towards results is a harmful approach, and one I see on a broad level in society, especially American politics. In many ways, strict constructionists and people who take that approach to policy embody this philosophy. They govern in a way seeking to be extremely consistent with the Constitution, regardless of outcome. However, in reading Supreme Court cases, the programs or rules that are attacked by this group for being inconsistent with their reading of the Constitution are also very valuable to specific, often marginalized groups. In this way, this governing group makes decisions based on a limited reading of code of law and can safely ignore results they don’t care about, however negative. This, and the duty-based approach, is entirely too convenient for ignoring societal ills just because outcomes are not a competent of morality.

]]>