Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Are forensic scientists/police officers morally wrong for needing more…
Are forensic scientists/police officers morally wrong for needing more crime for a better career?
Why would they be?
How is this related to how they feel personally about the job?
Why are the two related (overall morality vs. personal stance)?
How would they not be related?
Why do you think this is?
How many crimes do they need to solve to make a living?
Is it crimes solved or cases taken on?
If it is crimes solved, why do you think the closing of a case should impact their pay?
How should the two be connected if at all?
How would this knowledge make the victims or victim's families feel?
If it is cases taken on, why would officers not take on as many as possible and deal with them very rapidly?
Why could they be morally right for solving more crimes?
How can this affect victims or families involved?
Why should the quantity of solved cases affect the families?
Why should we separate them?
How can we distinguish cases individually based on content or context?
Why should we do this?
How does this affect our morality?
Why is it considered bad to solve more crimes?
Why is this not about solving and more about the amount of crime itself?
How can we exchange the two in a good/morally good way?
Can there be a morally good way?
What is it?
Can crime be good?
Why is that?
Why is it usually considered horrible?
Why is one person's suffering another ones' income?
How can we juxtapose forensic scientists and gang members or the mob, if they count on other's suffering for their prosper?
1 more item...
How would they be considered morally right for this?
Are they not solving more crimes and helping more people?
Can they also be making things worse depending on circumstances?
How is this possible?
How do the effects of hardcore crime solving affect the victim and their families?
How does that affect the investigators?
Why is it more crime and not worse crimes?
Can it be both?
Why is it worse if it is both?
Why is it better?
How can we decide as humans which is worse or better?
How do we hold that power?
Why should we have the power to decide bad or good?
Why do we decide bad or good?
What is bad?
1 more item...
When should we distinguish morally wrong and morally right?
Who makes this distinction?
Is it less a question of when and more a question of how do we distinguish this?
Why?
Should this method change over time?