Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual Standards
- Based on the first case scenario, both elements of thought in reasoning and intellectual standards are exhibited. In order to illustrate this statement, it is valid that the commander is thoughtful of the public reaction and the second thought is pegged on the realization that the raid is irreversible and totally out of emergency. On the other side the intellectual standards defining operations involving raiding unarmed civilians is totally unacceptable which makes the operations by the commander and the whole troop to be illegal. The second intellectual standard is raised by the fact that the commander is aware of the repercussions of his raiding and killing civilians and the public is bound to overreact when they realize that innocent lives were lost during a raid by the army men. It is evident that civilians have lost such cases against the militia because of lack of evidence that the civilians who were shot during the raids were unarmed. In fact, the law is overprotective towards the militia and uniformed officers because of the nature of their work and their commitment to protecting civilians against external aggression (Dung, Kowalski & Toni, 2006). Consequently the issue of reasoning correlates with the intelligence displayed by the commander thus it becomes easier for them to make up a story to cover up for their mistakes.
- The scenario presents a situation that needs critical analysis of ideas. First off the element of reasoning is blurred by the fact that the person from whom the marijuana is confiscated is a criminal by virtue of possessing an illegal drug. In this case, the drug is illegal because it not authorized by the relevant medical association. The flip side is that laws regarding marijuana have been amended leading to the introduction of medical and recreational marijuana. The second element of reasoning is shown by the police officers urge to take the marijuana with him on pretext that he has an ailing wife. Regardless of the situation, if I was the other police officer, I would advise my partner who wants to take the marijuana as a medical prescription for anesthesia that it is not right. The intellectual standard upon which my argument is built dictates that law enforcement officers should not take advantage of illegal goods among them being drugs or any other goods. In this scenario, it is well thought of to state that my partner on duty would have interfered with the system so as to get ample time to convince me into accepting his idea.
Apparently this case provides the best scenario for analysis. In my opinion, I would describe it as an irresponsible behavior among law enforcement officers. Being that I am the one in charge of the situation and that we have arrested a person in possession of marijuana, I find myself in the same ship as the criminal in the event that I collude with the other police officer. Such a situation becomes tricky when the criminal decides to blow the whistle on the corrupt practices practiced by police officers. This reasoning is supported by past experiences whereby criminals have been booked for certain mistakes and in the case of illegal possession of drugs of abuse, the law demands that the police officers keep the evidence for the purpose of prosecuting the victim. Keeping the marijuana also comes in handy during court proceedings as it is mandated by the courts that the value of the marijuana be measured to see if it was tampered with. Based on this argument therefore, if I allow my partner to take the marijuana to his ailing wife, then it will be prudent that we do not book the criminal. This further complicates the issue because we would be forced to set a criminal free. This is a mistake referred to as collusion and it is such a mistake equates both of us (law enforcement officers) to the criminal (Ralph, 2010). This means that my job would be left at the mercy of the criminal who might threaten use with exposure in the event that we booked him for punishment or parole.
My intellectual thinking would not allow me to take part in such a ploy because it could risk my life and that of my family too. Often are stories told of police officers being trapped into drug syndicates without their knowledge because the circle of drug traffickers is often too wide, interconnected and so underground that they can easily trap an innocent law enforcement officer into their dirty dealings. Furthermore, refusing to book the criminal will be an act of non-compliance to the laws which demand that police officers to be role models to the other members of the society. This implies that compromising the ethics of the police force is likely to create a tainted image for not only me and my partner but it will also be a bad example to the rest of the police fraternity across the world. Statistics from commissions dealing in corruption have identified police forces across the world as being the most corrupt institutions with many cases going unreported for fear of a negative publicity (Dung et al, 2006). Personally I would not want to be one of the corrupt officers which might put my life at risk. According to the Bible, it is much better to be prosecuted for doing a right than for doing a wrong because two wrongs never add up to make a right. The best way that I could be help to my friend and colleague would be giving him money to take his ailing wife to hospital or I would advise him to look for other sources of medication rather than administering her wife with an un-prescribed dosage of marijuana which might harm her even further. This is because overdosing marijuana could be lethal to the health of any person either healthy or ailing.
- The third scenario presents elements of reasoning among them being that the parent thinks good of his child that he is willing to do anything within his powers to ensure that he gets a four year scholarship. The second element is shown by the efforts put in place by the teacher to jeopardize the efforts of this child from getting a scholarship. The intellectual standards are set by the parent who is willing to give his the paper that he did as a graduate so as to ensure that the child performs. The other intellectual standard is shown by the teacher who has control of the child’s destiny and can still do anything either in favor or against this child getting the scholarship. Therefore there exists power disequilibrium where the parent is bound to lose because the teacher has the power to determine the destiny of the student (Dung et al, 2006).
References
Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence. 170(2), 114-159.
Ralph, H. J. (2010). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]