Rossian Ethics Reflection

Introduction Although my moral frame work has been conditioned through thirty-three years of life experience, until this class I had not sought to define or categorize my ethical stance. The journey to finding a more exact definition of my moral compass begins with examination of my basic reaction to ethical decision making. I make habit of considering all perspectives, trying to really consider all sides. I constantly question my own reasoning and weigh all foreseeable outcomes against what I believe to be right and wrong. With the aforementioned process in mind I moved through the central ethical principles and theories to find my direction. Through this process I could see the application of nearly all theories and was only troubled

(wood). Deontological perspective focuses on the inherit right and wrong of an act. In juxtaposition teleological focuses on the rightness and wrongness produced by actions. (wood). My visceral reaction is to the deontological perspective. However, after introspection of the two, I concluded that it is imperative both actions and consequences are mutually considered. Learning of these two dividing perspectives sent me in a sort of tail spin once I began to examine ethical theories. However, I became enlighten to Rossian

The focus of this principle is that outcomes should produce the more happiness over unhappiness (wood). Also motives and intentions carry no value when considering the outcome. I feel that this principle totally flawed. Making the good moral choices does not guarantee happiness. Furthermore, consequences can be totally unpredictable Even though happiness is a characteristic to strive for, it can be a horrible justification for moral decision. At what cost should we strive for happiness without consideration of the action? Both the action and the consequences should be considered in ethical