The mayor received the various gifts from different contributors, and could be seen as a form of bribery.  It is also illegal for a government official to receive gifts that could be used to influence the mayor on certain decisions.  The mayor would lose the support of the citizens and possibly lose his job as mayor.  These actions showed signs of self-interest and in no way support a greater good.  These were individual gifts given for personal gains of the contributors.  The only ones benefiting from these actions are the ones that gave the gifts and the mayor.  These actions and decisions are by no means ethically justified by the consequences.

John Locke would look at this situation and came up with the answer that the gifts should be returned to the individuals who gave them.  The actions go against the government’s purpose according to Locke’s theory of government.  It goes against the equality of men.  The power and jurisdiction would not be reciprocal, and someone would have more than the others.  Both Locke and I would believe that the items need to be returned, and the actions taken are not ethically justified by any law.  These gifts would be a sacrifice of property that people are willing to make.  As Locke believes, people will be willing to exchange certain rights for safety and security.

The college instructor is in a way providing a greater good by providing information from a class she is taking.  She is also going against a greater good because, she is not teaching her students the things they need to know in their current course.  The consequence of these actions would be academic discipline, and possible loss of the right to teach in the school.  She could also face punishment from her teacher for using others to do her work.  The college instructor would be the only one benefiting from the actions, depending on the information she gave her students.  The actions of the teacher are not ethically justified by the consequences, due to the reason she made them.

If this situation was presented to John Locke, he would address it with an academic punishment fitting her actions.  The decision that Locke would make, would match my observations of this problem.  We would both give the teacher a chance to repent for the offense and allow those offended to seek reparation from her.  The punishment would not be extreme, but will follow the laws of the school.  She did not follow her duty to the moral law of the situation, according to Locke’s view on natural rights, and natural law.

Todd and Edna have caused themselves more problems than what they started with in this situation.  Edna being a drunk, and Todd unable to keep a job, they will be facing social services.  The child will end up growing up in foster care.  They will end up fighting more due to having more financial burdens.  There will be more fighting, which will lead to a divorce.  The actions they have taken provide a greater good for the family that adopts the child.  The only ones benefiting from the good is the child and the adoptive family.

The actions are not ethically justified in this situation.  The decision should not have been made until the other problems were solved.  Locke would see this problem as a violation of the natural rights of the child.  They did make their decision under their natural rights, but in turn violate the natural rights of the child, along with the moral laws.  The ethical decision should have been to solve their issues before deciding to have a child.  They had the right to have a child, but doing it for their own self-interest goes against the natural law provided for us.

As Locke says in his book, Second Treatise of Government, “I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.” This statement shows how Locke’s response goes along with what I believe about this situation.