The Golden Rule In 12 Angry Men

C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2015).Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases (10th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage. O 'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New

Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.

In the play Twelve Angry Men there was a man prosecuted with the stabbing his father at the chest. 12 Jurors had to decide if the boy was guilty or not, I would say he is not guilty for two main reasons. First a quote in the book stated “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her eye glasses to bed, and I don’t think she put them on to casually look out the window” (page 61). This quote shows that the witness from the plaintiff could not have seen the crime happen without her glasses on. My last reasoning on why I think the boys not guilty is because Juror 5 said “ who’s ever used a switch blade befor would never stab the knife downward” (page 56).

Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

By no means is our social structure perfect, nor is any social structure around the world. The whole premise of a society is to have different classes of people who are grouped together by certain circumstances. Societies tend to have spoken and unspoken rules, without rules the whole society would fall apart and break down. This breakdown of social rules is most often seen in the unspoken rules of a group, and highlights differences between social classes. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, displays how this social breakdown occurs when the spoken and unspoken rules of society are not followed, especially when it comes to the breakdown of marriage as well as general relationships between people.

William Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights.

However, Nick doesn’t question the situation and even goes on to get as debauched as everyone else at the party. Nick’s “bystander complex” is further cemented when he sneaks out of the party amongst the chaos and spends the rest of it with McKee. Socially, Nick wasn’t in any position that would hinder him from offering to help Myrtle or even to stop Tom from abusing her. He was after all closest to Tom in

Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.

Under this approach, an action is considered morally bad because of some characteristic of the action itself, not just because the product of the action is bad. Wells Fargo unethical practices demonstrates unethical behavior, under deontological ethical theories as its employees duty to operate in an honest and fair fashion , in providing services to the public. Wells Fargo codes of conduct does not permit sales practices of these sort, therefore the employees who participated in these practices made unethical decisions. Unfortunately there was a wrong-doing on a massive scale. The acts of unethical behavior were conducted by both the employees and management.

12 angry men THE STORY UNFOLDS in front of us. The film places us as the audience into the shoes of the different jurors. Forcing us to make tough decisions of character and morality. We’re told very quickly and very efficiently that we’re dealing with a life-and-death situation. The jurors need to sentence a young man being accused of murder; all 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision if they decide he’s guilty he’s be executed.

Persuasion is the key to success. However, to achieve the best outcome, many things play a role, some of which include logos, ethos and pathos. In the book Twelve Angry Men, jurors brought their ideas to the table through different perspectives. Having facts and evidence shows that you know what you talking about, and have looked further into the topic. The best persuasive appeal presented in Twelve Angry Men was logic.

(Johnson , 2014 ) In this case , it shows that under normal circumstances the management level of a company or corporation will choose to hide the truth over honesty and integrity .In other way , profitability has override the important of ethics in the corporation .

The Argument from Fair Play: When a person receives a benefit or reward or some other thing from industry, whose success depends on the obedience to its rules and regulation, and that obedience involves some sacrifice, and he intends to continue receiving awards, the he just obeys the rules of the company no matter how morally correct or incorrect are these