Discussion Responses (Jus522 W2)

I’m trying to study for my Law course and I need some help to understand this question.

1- As a decision-maker for an administrative agency considering whether or not to allow the release of water to disgruntled ranchers at the potential cost of increasing the danger to an endangered species of fish, I would first consider many factors in this decision. I would first consider that, in the event of releasing the water, would it indeed cause more harm to the community than help. I would also consider the fact of what the ranchers would benefit from this release. I would also think about the harm that could be caused by releasing this water, which would include certain toxins and bad chemicals that would ultimately harm the fish. As a decision-maker, I could not allow this unethical behavior to occur. According to Stinson (2003), the motivation behind a legal review of agency decisions is to force a “check” on agency decision-making. The Administrative Procedure Act and the customary law mean to guarantee that organizations utilize appropriate strategies to discover all the pertinent realities before they decide. At the point when an organization request is tested, the court surveys just the record that the agency had before it at the time settled on the decision. An agency’s structure must be maintained on a similar premise enunciated in the request by the agency itself (Stinson, 2003).

Reference

Stinson, P. (2003). Arizona Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Has the Ninth Circuit Weakened the “Take” Provisions of the Endangered Species Act? Ecology Law Quarterly, 30(3), 497.

2-If I were the decision maker for an administrative agency considering whether or not to allow the release of water to disgruntled ranchers at the potential cost of increasing the danger to en endangered species of fish, I would use the consequentialist decision making frame work. With a situation such as this, there are specific and ensured consequences for the decision made. The consequentialist theory states that the decision made is determined through appeal to rankings of states of affairs as in some respect better or worse (Hurley, 2018). In this situation, I would look at the consequences for allowing the release of water. If I do allow the release of water, this could bring an extreme hazard to an already endangered species of fish. If I do not release the water, the disgruntled ranchers will become more frustrated. I would weigh these options and examine the results that I got. If the favor lied with releasing the water, I would try to relocate as many of the fish as I could to an environment where they could live and prosper. If it was in favor of the ranchers, I would probably do the same so that the issue does not reoccur and the fish are able to survive and reproduce.

References

Hurley, P. (2018). Consequentialism and the Standard Story of Action. Journal of Ethics, 22(1), 25–44. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10892-…

3-Having to make a decision whether or not to release water to anyone, one must consider all potential consequences which includes financial and the potential impact on the endangered species of fish. Considering this particular scenario, one must have thoughtful consideration of local, state, and federal regulations protections involved and determine what the most appropriate action allowed, if any. Banks (2020) describes deontologists as those who believe in “constraints or rules as moral barriers in the promotion of the good.” Any decision made should be in accordance of the law with the consideration of financial and the direct impact on the endangered species, before providing ranchers with water from the designated area.

Reference

Banks, C. (2020). Criminal justice ethics (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/sage/2019/criminal-justice-ethics_theory-and-practice_5e.php