Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
A young man entering medical school has, as proximate and intermediate ends, the passing of his exams, and the advance from the first to the second class; more remote ends are the exams and classes further on; the ultimate end of the whole series of his studies and efforts is the status of a physician. Now, in order to pass the board exam this young man opted to use a copy of the examination which was actually leaked from the office of the people responsible for the actualization of the Board exam. He passed but did he do the right thing? Or was such human act immoral and be considered a crime?
It is inherent for human beings to commit mistakes. Basically, we are prone to doing something tagged as ‘anti-social’. And in occasional times, we are being drained upon by our human weaknesses. However, there are actually things, which modify the human acts. Technically, human acts are thoughts, words, deeds, desires, and omissions performed by a human being when he is responsible; when he knows what he is doing and wills to do it. An act is perfectly human when it is done with full knowledge and full consent of the will, and with full and unhampered freedom of choice. If the act is hampered in any way, it is less perfectly human; if it is done without knowledge or consent it is not a human act at all. An act done by a human being but without knowledge and consent is called an act of a person but not a human act. In the terminology of classical realistic philosophy, a human act is actus humanus; an act of a person is actus hominis. There is basically a thin difference from acts of humans with human acts. Acts of man are those which we do daily like eating, drinking, sleeping, etc.
What is a crime and how does the government control social order?
Crime is the breach of a rule or law for which a punishment may ultimately be prescribed by some governing authority or force (Stanley, 1985).
Informal relationships and sanctions have been deemed insufficient to create and maintain a desired social order, resulting in formalized systems of social control by the government, or more broadly, the State. With the institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State are able to compel individuals to conform to behavioral codes and punish those that do not. Various mechanisms are employed to regulate behavior, including rules codified into laws, policing people to ensure they comply with those laws, and other policies and practices designed to prevent crime. In addition, remedies and sanctions, collectively constitutes a criminal justice system. Not all breaches of the law, however, are considered crimes, for example, breaches of contract and other civil law offenses. The label of “crime” and the accompanying social stigma are normally reserved for those activities that are injurious to the general population or the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. The label is intended to assert hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify a punishment imposed by the State, in the event that an accused person is tried and convicted of a crime. The term “crime” can also technically refer to the use of criminal law to regulate minor infractions, such as traffic violations. Usually, the perpetrator of the crime is a natural person, but in some jurisdictions and in some moral environments, legal persons are also considered to have the capability of committing crimes. The State also commonly commits crimes, although this is underrepresented in the justice system (Blythe, 1992).
Crime: What modifies the human acts
A person is not responsible for an act done in ignorance, unless the ignorance is the person’s own fault, and is therefore willed (vincible ignorance), in which case he has knowledge that he is in ignorance and ought to dispel it. Thus, in one way or another, knowledge is necessary for responsible human activity. On the other hand, a person is not responsible for an act over which he has no control, unless he deliberately surrenders such control by running into conditions and circumstances which rob him of liberty. Thus, in one way or another, freedom is necessary for every human act. However, a person is not responsible for an act which he does not will, unless he wills to give up his self-control (as a man does, for instance, in allowing himself to be hypnotized, or by deliberately accepting leaked paper) thus, in one way or another, voluntariness or actual choice enters into every human act (Perle, 1989).
There are principal modifiers of human acts Ignorance, concupiscence or passion and violence. Invincible ignorance destroys voluntariness and relieves the agent of responsibility while vincible ignorance lessens but does not remove voluntariness and responsibility. On the other hand, passion or concupiscence are hatred, grief, love, mischief, desire etc. It may be classified as antecedent or consequent. Antecedent concupiscence lessens voluntariness and responsibility but does not take them away while consequent concupiscence does not lessen voluntariness and responsibility. So if the young man opted to copy the answers on a leaked answer sheet, then he commits a crime of passion (desire to pass) thus; he is liable for the punishment suitable for a consequent concupiscence. Furthermore, fear also determines the human act. Some people commit crime out of intense fear of the abductor or the predator, for example. Oftentimes, people opt to kill their attackers for fear of death thus; they try to save themselves for self defense. This sometimes, drives the person insane thus; he is not responsible for his action. Thirdly, violence, an external force applied by a free cause to compel the person to do something out of his free will. This does not make the person responsible for his actions. Lastly, habit may also be a modifier of human act. Habit does not take away voluntariness; acts done from habit are voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is permitted to continue. Thus; the person is still held responsible for his actions (Perle, 1989).
Conclusion
Saint and sinner alike are striving towards God. The Saint is striving in the right direction, and the sinner in the wrong direction. But it is the one Goal they are after, that is, the full, everlasting, and satisfaction of all desire. The good man in his good human acts and the evil man in his evil human acts are like two men digging for diamonds; the one digs in a diamond mine, the other perversely digs in a filthy heap of rubbish; the one works where diamonds are to be found, the other’s work is hopeless of success. But it is to find diamonds that both are working. Man necessarily (and not freely) intends or wills the supreme and absolute end of all human acts. Man freely (and not necessarily) chooses the means (that is, intermediate ends) by which he expects, wisely or perversely, to attain that end. Whichever man chooses, the end will never justify the means. It is the ultimate end, God who will render us responsible for all our manifested actions. Thus, legally, the young man committed a crime; Crime of passion. He is liable for his actions because it was directly at his will to use the leaked answer sheet. The end, his passing of the exam, does not justify the means, his using of a paper out of leakage. In whatever aspect, he is morally wrong and he ought to face the necessary punishment for his dishonesty.
References
Blythe, James M. (1992). Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Stanley (1985). Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification. Polity Press. ISBN 0745600212.
Perle, Stephen. Morality and Ethics: An Introduction. Butchvarov, Panayot. Skepticism in Ethics (1989).
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.