The movie “Return to Paradise,” raises profound ethical questions regarding personal mortality as well as lawyers’ ethical responsibility. The movie revolves around three young Americans who enjoy a cheap and sensual summer in Malaysia, usually while stone on cheap hashish. Two of them, Sheriff and Tony, return to the United States, leaving Lewis behind with their brick of hash. Unbeknown to them, Lewis is arrested for dealing with drugs. Two years later, Sheriff and Tony are living their lives in New York a city in the U.S when Lewis’ lawyer Beth suddenly contacts them regarding Lewis’ arrest. They acquire the knowledge that Lewis has been convicted as well as sentenced to death and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The sentence was going to be performed in a period of eight days from the present day.
Beth, Lewis’ lawyer explains that she has personally struck an oral agreement with the Attorney General of Malaysia if both Sheriff and Tony voluntarily return to the country of Malaysia; the life of Lewis will be spared. If they both return, each one of them should serve a period of not less than three years behind bars. Lewis lawyer persistently makes efforts to persuade both Sheriff and Tony to return to Malaysia, however, in the process, she begins to have a passionate affair with Sheriff.
What are the wrong moral obligations of Sheriff and Tony to return to Malaysia to serve three or six years? Lewis was not a close friend; he was just someone who they met while on a pleasurable holiday. Even if the Attorney-General honors his promise, they will still have to serve jail time in a very unpleasant as well as dangerous third-world prison. Furthermore, going back will be morally wrong because it may result in great problems for their relationship in the city of New York. Nevertheless, not going back will as well be morally right in light of the fact that, in case they do not return, Lewis their not so close friend will be executed and they will have to live with that for the rest of their lives (Vaughn, and Lewis 115).
Other than being morally right or wrong, the movie additionally draws in ideas of Aristotle, on the grounds that it has several issues of Ethical Relativism as well as Personal Responsibility. Ethical relativism is the hypothesis that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. From the movie, both the American as well as Malaysia country believe sole in their own ideas, which another country will have a different opinion concerning those ideas. The clemency hearing becomes a forum for different views of American and Malaysian society. Ethical relativism is encountered when the chief Justice remarks that Westerners have no understanding of the reason why Malaysia has adopted such a harsh drug law. What Westerns think about is only their rights. By contrast, the Chief Justice states, Malaysians do not understand Western tolerance in dealing with drugs, especially in light of the enormous damage drugs have done to the fabric of Western society. Thus each culture, Western American and Muslim Malaysians have a different approach to dealing with a drug problem, which is the sole idea of ethical relativism.
Additionally, with the idea of Ethical Relativism, it is clear that the Malaysian government is very strict about dealing with drug trafficking in their country. To them, it is extremely morally wrong to be involved with drug trafficking in large amounts, so bad that they believe that the ultimate punishment is death (Sander, Gen, and Rick Lines 51). They seem to be able to come to that conclusion generally quickly. In the United States, Capital Punishment is extremely hard to achieve in contrast. There are no clear crimes that lead to the direct sentencing of death as opposed to Malaysia (Brunello, and Anthony 90).
Aristotle recognizes participation in law courts as an essential element in citizenship hence would highly support the participation of Malaysian court in the movie. He views that capital punishment is wrong, however, distinctive sorts of wrongdoings and their level of immorality and comprehends why the death penalty can be moral as it fills a need to satisfy equity. It permits tit for tat or an arrangement of reasonableness. Aristotle says our motivation in life is to utilize sanity with good virtue. He centers on singularity and says temperance is having an average condition of character. While thinking about the death penalty, Aristotle would state the death penalty isn't virtuous in light of the fact that there is no mean or intermediate state. Murder will be murder whether it is executing one individual or ten individuals because of the degree of crime committed or rather capital punishment it is still murder.
I personally believe the degree, as well as severity of the crime, has made adequate for the death penalty to make a rebound in the public eye. I will not agree that death penalty is, definitely, moral, be that as it may, savage wrongdoing and its expanded event in the public eye has made the death penalty a legitimized practice as individuals look for an approach to manage their torment. The Movie, Return to Paradise, addressed many issues that are real and are seriously dealt with in real life. These countries believe in their ways which is the sole idea Ethical Relativism. The many other cases of this happening show that this is not a rare problem.
Work cited
Brunello, Anthony R. "Politics, Ethics and Capital Punishment in America." (2015).
Sander, Gen, and Rick Lines. "The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Pulling Back the Curtain to Expose a Flawed Regime." The collapse of the Global Order on Drugs: From UNGASS 2016 to Review 2019. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018. 49-63.
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton " Company, 2015.
