More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral principles ethics case study
Differences and similarities between ethical theories
Moral principles ethics case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Victoria, I like how you stated you came into the class with an open mind. I also came into the class with an open mind and it really helped me understand the theories and how they could apply in our everyday lives. On the last question you answered about the pluralistic approach you stated that it is the answer that we have all been looking for and I couldn’t agree more. It seems that every theory has its pros but to help us in the long run we can’t just live by one theory. Moral pluralism “allows each theory to apply to the kind of moral phenomenon it suits best; it also avoids the unfair demand that any one account can cover all the moral ground (285). “ All theories can contribute to our decision-making. “Each theory emphasizes different
Monistic theories have failed to be sufficiently broad to provide an adequate answer to any moral scenario they are given. Furthermore, of the main Pluralistic theories, Rossian Pluralism 's inclusion of weighting rules makes it a better candidate for a moral theory than Virtue Ethics, which is far too relativistic to be viable. Finally, although Rossian Pluralism 's weighting rules cannot give an adequate answer to all moral conflicts, one must accept that this is simply the nature of morality itself. It seems unlikely that we will ever find the answer to all conflicts between moral duties, just as it is unlikely that we will find out whether or not paintings by Michelangelo are objectively better than paintings by Picasso, or whether or not one should save ten burning Picasso paintings instead of three burning Michelangelo paintings. Because morality is subjective, we will never find answers to questions that require one to draw meaningless lines where one thing becomes more important than another. Therefore, despite this universal issue, Rossian Pluralism still seems to be the most sensible moral
Not only is their positives and limitation of having the students observe my behaviour and take on board for their own purposes, but also the importance of understanding that my personal theory may not apply to all students. After completing this piece, I have developed a higher sense of awareness for the importance of self-reflection, for not only myself, but the way I use my personal theory as a hopefulness to benefit students rather than hinder their learning abilities. Overall, I have gained understanding of how my implicit theory will affect my practice good, bad and
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
1. The pluralist theory corresponds with document one, titled New York Housing Coalitions at Work. The pluralist theory is the theory that in democracy, politics is the competition between groups for their desired votes. Groups with shared interests influence public policy by pressing their concerns through organized efforts. This theory emphasizes that the policymaking process is very open to the participation of all groups with shared interests, with no single group usually dominating. The groups compete through compromising, negotiating, and forming formal or informal alliances, and act in their own interests. This document focuses on how “people who care about affordable housing in New York City” faced a challenge in the midst of a deepening
I felt a little strange the first day I walked into our class, mostly because I was somewhat of an outsider in a group who seemed to know each other. I sat down and listened as class began. I found it hard to focus on what was being said. Words seemed to rise and fill the room without creating any form that I could recognize. I listened hard and tried to engage myself in the dialogue. Some of the other students seemed involved, some resistant, trying to argue their own space into the dialogue. Sometimes ideas would surface that would resonate with me and pull me in; I could see that both students and professor cared deeply about the things I valued most. Yet, somehow we did not tap my core of questions with the theories and frameworks we used. Logical arguments assigning ethical values to objects, abstract theories that universally prescribe for every situation, disagreement and defense, philosophical examples of extreme situations of morality that described violence, incest, rape . . . with all these things I felt more and more alienated from the group. I, an opinionated and outspoken woman, felt silenced. Surely the group would welcome my contributions, but why did I feel so stifled? How could a discussion of ethics so completely embody what to me is unethical? I should have known that even something so intense and personal as values could be pinned down and violated by patriarchal Anglo thought. If I were a survivor of sexual abuse, I certainly would have fled the classroom, never to return, feeling violated once again, due to the needless description of violence and rape in the philosophical examples. This, a perfect metaphor for the use of conceptual frameworks which value patriarchal-style rational...
...lass perspectives. I will make the perspectives broad so that my students don’t end up accidentally creating new stereotypes of the different groups. The last tenant to my philosophy of education that relates to classism in the classroom is to not single out one class represented in my classroom. I will work individually and collaborate to change classroom and school practices that downgrade our students. If I see a student in need or struggling I will work with them one on one to help them complete the assignment or learn a specific subject. If a student comes to me with a concern I will speak to them individually and then speak with the class as a whole to collaborate the situation. No student in my classroom will be hurt or discouraged because of the background and class they come from. Instead we will work out situations and treat everyone with equal respect.
The next prompt I will focus on is the differences in subjectivisms, relativism, and objectivism, which all philosophers use to explain ethical choices. Subjectivism is where there are no trues, no falses, and no facts, but rather is a result of an experience. In addition, subjectivism is how someone feels, how someone sees the world, and most importantly individualistic rather than societal. For example, someone stealing supplies from their employer. If that person believes it is acceptable to steal from work, then it is. Yet, at the same time the employer may believe this is wrong, but again this is the employers opinion. Neither the employee or the employer are right or wrong. The morals of an individual cannot be wrong, just different.
Social Democracy Pluralism By definition - A system of government that allows and encourages public participation, particularly through the activities of pressure groups seeking to influence the government. Traditional socialism has always been associated with an analysis of society that class differences are crucial, in particular the middle classes - those who have gained to the working classes expense - summarised, the two classes interests are in conflict. Social democrats believe society is far more complex than a class interest struggle, and this concept becomes outdated in a pluralist society - a community of individuals and varied interests. Traditional Socialism is arguably intolerant in its outlook with 1) A reluctance to accept that there may be other ways to achieve socialist goals (equality of opportunity, welfare provision etc) 2) Assumptions that all people will benefit from these goals.
Ethics show you how to live a good life. In order to understand the ultimate good life one must evaluate different ethical theories to find one that fits them best. The Moral Point of View provides a structure for what a good theory should encompass. My position of the Moral Point of View is that it is essential; the theory from class that best approaches how to live a good life is the one that follows it closely.
...en. Oakie shouldn’t tell the angry stranger about her roommate because he was angry and that could be a sign he’d hurt them. I believed that the umpire could have made a mistake since it was so clear to others. I thought she should tell her therapist about her roommate because in that context no harm would come from it. Isa shouldn’t get a raise because he didn 't go above and beyond. C-3poakie was not a better role model as it didn’t have to deal with emotions. I disagreed with Aristotle 's virtue ethics in some assignments and leaned toward deontology. I thought connecting to the wifi was wrong as it’s illegal to steal even if it hurts no one. They shouldn’t resort to illegal means to rid of the drifters because it’s illegal. I also had one ultimatism belief I thought Oakie did deserve praise as even though she didn’t know she still saved lives killing a terrorist.
In this paper, I will use an objection that is raised against the theory of ethical pluralism to demonstrate how non-absolutist pluralism is a stronger theory than absolutist pluralism. I will begin by summarizing what ethical pluralism and ethical monism are by Shafer Landau’s standards. My paper already assumes that pluralism is the better theory, but understanding what these two theories consist of is essential to showing how much stronger non-absolutist pluralism is as a school of thought. Next, I will explain the specific argument against absolutist ethical pluralism that I will be addressing. I plan on using the weaknesses in the Argument from Contradiction that Shafer Landau brings up in The Fundamentals of Ethics to demonstrate the overall merits of pluralism, and to prove the superiority of non-absolutist pluralism. Finally, I will solidify that non-absolutism is the stronger of the two camps through the use of W.D Ross’s Prima Facie Duties. Overall, both schools of ethical pluralism are superior to the theory of monism, but it is the non-absolutist camp that has reason to be preferred. This is because its central claims do not crumble under the weight of the arguments that are given to oppose it, and the fact that it provides superior responses to objections than the absolutist school of pluralism.
Discuss how the ethics thread is supported and/or refuted by the ethical theories discussed in class and the professional codes of ethics.
When I first saw the textbook, Ethics about moral issues, I thought woah! What is this class going to be about. The best guess that I came up with is that, it is questioning everything around us and digging deeper into what we might be thinking of. Along with exploring all necessity options through many counter arguments. That is what I as first thought to myself when I was sitting down with a counselor to talk about what summer classes I need to take. I am a person that likes to question a lot of a lot things as if they are right or wrong or how things came about to be, no matter what questions came up I found myself always questioning.
...at previously, sometimes in the midst of a discussion, people forget that there are two sides of a story and not everyone has to agree to yours. What we learn from our books or our studies is not what is necessarily important. What we learn from our peers and our professors is what’s important. Learning is more than absorbing fact, it is acquiring understanding, and it is being passionate about the material you are given. Each piece that we have read in class, and each comment that we make impacts a person no matter how little it seems. The education systems focuses too much about effective methods of teaching and not enough about effective methods of learning. However, this course felt like we were learning something instead trying to finish the curriculum. As Albert Einstein once said, “education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think”.
As a student, I have found that I support several different educational philosophies. These include essentialism, progressivism, and social reconstruct...