Merit and Punishment

Earned or Given Merit and Punishment
Alan Hodge
SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility (GSG1141N)
Instructor:  Todd Hughes
November 7, 2011

Earned or Given Merit and Punishment
Do people receive what they earn in both merit and punishment or are they given merit and relieved of punishment without justification? What are the repercussions of merit without that which is earned? What are the repercussions of punishment not being a just punishment? This just of merit also must be true and equal to both acts of reward and merit, as well as just and equal punishment. In this paper the views of merit and punishment based on what is earned and what is given with and without justification from different both the utilitarianism and the deontology ethical theory views
First what the utilitarianism and the deontology ethical theories views are must be understood. The utilitarianism view is considered the natural way of viewing an act to see if it is the right or wrong thing based on the results or consequences of the act (Mosser, 2010). While the deontologist view are opposed to the consequentialist methods and prefer to look at the moral value of an action (Ascension, 2011). The deontologist looks at what one should do based on duty under moral values to justify the right over the good.
Ethically, there must be a line of both what someone earns and is awarded, and what that person receives in both the line of merit and punishment. One of the first points that always seem to be argued or come up when discussing what is just and equal is, does race, financial status or geographical location make a difference in what is awarded in both merit and punishment? It would be foolish to state other than yes sometimes upon any of these questions. As to no matter which theory is used, there will always be somewhere some form of favoritism or prejudice within some human qualities. But if the outcome of merit or punishment of the act is applied in each...