Was Cash Morally Right Or Morally Wrong Not To Save Sherrice? (Essay Sample)

Name
Course
Course Instructor
Date
Was Cash morally right or morally wrong not to save Sherrice?
On May 25 1997, 18-year-old Jeremy Strohmeyer sexually assaulted then killed 7-year-old Sherrice Iverson in a Nevada casino. Strohmeyer dragged Sherrice into a bathroom stall, where he muffled the young girl’s screams, and began sexually assaulting her. Strohmeyer’s best friend, David Cash climbed a nearby toilet stall and watched Strohmeyer muffle the girl’s screams, then left the bathroom. Strohmeyer later confessed to Cash that he had raped and killed the girl, before they left the premises. This paper argues that David Cash was morally wrong in not making an effort to save Sherrice. While the he had broken no Nevada law in not helping Sherrice, he held a morally failed stance.
David Cash failed to observe basic human decency in his decition not to help Sherrice. Sherrice was a small child in comparison to Strohmeyer, essentially rendering her defenseless against an assault from the larger man. An objective view of the situation reveals that it would have required a much more physically able person to resist the assault, thereby mandating the requirement of assistance to the young girl from such a person. Cash had the prima facie moral obligation to assist the child in defending herself from assault, as is mandated by common human decency (Zimmerman 6). By failing the obligation to assist the object of the assault, Cash became ethically reprehensible in the subsequent outcome, rendering his moral stance wrong.
Cash failed in his moral duty and obligation to his fellow man. In standing by and doing nothing to assist Sherice, he failed her as fellow human being. Attempting a subjective accounting of Cash’s actions and inactions reveals that his standpoint was ethically wanting. The subjective element of the performer’s ethical actions primarily consists of the performer’s thoughts about the situation (Ross 12). Cash clearly did not place much thought to the possibility of assisting Sharrice escape the assault. Given his close relationship to Strohmeyer and their relatively similar physical attributes, he could have dissuaded or otherwise physically attempted physically prohibiting Strohmeyer from proceeding with the assault. Cash’s subsequent actions after leaving the bathroom stall further question his ethical subjectivity. He did not attempt to seek help for the girl; neither did he attempt to report the crime. His subsequent thoughts, derived from his subsequent comments on the situation seems to point out that he was more worried about the likelihood of his best friend being sent to prison thus ruining his future potential, and shows little regard for the ended young life (Pekala 18). This is indicative of a morally reprehensible person, given the situation.
Attempting a moral prospective perspective on Cash’s actions and inactions reveals that Cash was morally wrong for not defending or trying to save She...