Marin Shkreli Vs. Gibbs
Marin Shkreli and Leroy Jethro Gibbs are two seemingly different individuals on the surface, but from the standpoint of law, morals, ethics and values, there are also some glaring similarities. It is also interesting when comparing and contrasting the two in regards to ethical theory, including ethical relativism, situational ethics, social contract theory and utilitarianism.
First, when it comes to law, morals, ethics, and values, we see similarities and differences. To begin with, let’s consider both men with regard to the law. Marin Shrkeli was placed under arrest by the FBI for securities fraud after obtaining license to a drug and increasing its price by over 5,000 percent. Since the FBI found grounds to arrest him, it is obvious …show more content…
Ethical relativism says there is no defined right and wrong. This right and wrong is learned from a person’s culture. For example, Shrkeli could have grown up with a father that defrauded customers or stole from investors in his company. Gibbs could have had a grandfather that communicated to him from a young age that he should work to get back at those that hurt him or the people he loves. What might be wrong in Gibb’s culture, might be right in Shrkeli’s, and vice versa. Perhaps for these reasons, they could both justify their individual actions and feel like they did not do wrong. Moving on to situational ethics, most apparent here is with the situation of Gibbs. If we look at the act committed itself, we would say he was wrong, however if we take out the absolute moral standards that we know and analyze the entire situation and the actions that led to the murder, we might feel more likely to see sympathy with his actions. We look at the entire situation. On the other hand, this is hard to do with Shrkeli because there is not much about the situation to justify his actions. For social contract theory, we see both Gibb’s and Shrkeli going against what society deems as acceptable; they are not necessarily examples of social contract theory but examples of just the opposite. Despite what we in society think would be the right decision, to not murder anyone and to not raise the price of drugs on sick people, we see these
First, when it comes to law, morals, ethics, and values, we see similarities and differences. To begin with, let’s consider both men with regard to the law. Marin Shrkeli was placed under arrest by the FBI for securities fraud after obtaining license to a drug and increasing its price by over 5,000 percent. Since the FBI found grounds to arrest him, it is obvious …show more content…
Ethical relativism says there is no defined right and wrong. This right and wrong is learned from a person’s culture. For example, Shrkeli could have grown up with a father that defrauded customers or stole from investors in his company. Gibbs could have had a grandfather that communicated to him from a young age that he should work to get back at those that hurt him or the people he loves. What might be wrong in Gibb’s culture, might be right in Shrkeli’s, and vice versa. Perhaps for these reasons, they could both justify their individual actions and feel like they did not do wrong. Moving on to situational ethics, most apparent here is with the situation of Gibbs. If we look at the act committed itself, we would say he was wrong, however if we take out the absolute moral standards that we know and analyze the entire situation and the actions that led to the murder, we might feel more likely to see sympathy with his actions. We look at the entire situation. On the other hand, this is hard to do with Shrkeli because there is not much about the situation to justify his actions. For social contract theory, we see both Gibb’s and Shrkeli going against what society deems as acceptable; they are not necessarily examples of social contract theory but examples of just the opposite. Despite what we in society think would be the right decision, to not murder anyone and to not raise the price of drugs on sick people, we see these