The Ethics of a Law and Order Episode

Identify:

The stakeholders in this episode were Daniel, the murderer, Daniel’s family, the people of New York City, the Insurance representative, and the New York City Health Department. The ethical issue is whether or not the Insurance company, because they withheld information about Daniel’s health and did not inform the Health Department on his disease, is the reason the people were killed. In this case, Daniel would not be sent to jail, but would be sent to a mental institution, and the Insurance company would be forced to lay claim for the lives that were lost due to Daniel’s illness. On the other hand, Daniel did murder these people and could be tried as so, with the ultimate punishment of the death penalty looming over him and his family. But, this way, the people of New York City would be happy because Daniel would be punished for the deaths he caused, and for the terror he caused all over New York City.

Analyze:

The consequentialist approach is focused on doing the greatest good for the greatest number. In this situation, the consequentialist approach would tell us to try Daniel for murder and have him sentenced to death. This would make the people of New York City happy, would leave Daniel’s family without a father, it would suggest that the Insurance company representative had no fault in this situation, therefore the health department would have no place in this decision.
The deontological approach is focused on treating people as they deserve to be treated. Therefore, in this approach, the Insurance company representative should take all of the blame for the murder because he withheld important information about Daniel’s health, he didn’t inform the health department of Daniel’s disease, Daniel and his family were unaware of his syphilis, Daniel wasn’t treated for his illness, which led him to kill those people. In this case, the Insurance Company representative would have to pay reparations for choosing to to inform the Health Department, Daniel would be put into a mental institution in order to be taken care of properly, the people of New York City would not be satisfied, and Daniel’s family would be happy.
Under the virtue ethics approach, the aim is to figure out what the person, in this case Daniel or the Insurance company representative, truly wanted to be, and if they had bad intentions or virtuous intentions. Under this approach, the Insurance Company representative would be deemed as not virtuous because he put his company’s well being before the health of Daniel, which in turn resulted in Daniel’s killing of the victims. In this case Daniel would be put into a mental institution, the Insurance Company representative would be given fault for the deaths because he did not inform the Health Department of Daniel’s condition, the people of New York City would not be satisfied, and Daniel’s family would be happy that Daniel was being properly taken care of.

Justify/Decision:

Using the three tools, I conclude that the Insurance representative is at fault, and Daniel is mentally ill and should be put into a mental institution. I can justify this decision because both the deontological approach, and the virtue ethics approach lead me to this conclusion, and although it is not the greatest good for the greatest number, it is ethically the right thing to do, because Daniel is mentally ill, and should not be tried for murder. The Insurance representative should have reported Daniel’s illness to the health department, so they could have informed Daniel’s family of his illness, Daniel could then have been treated, therefore none of the murders would have ever occurred.