The problem of dilemma, as presented by Philippa Foot in her writing, “Moral Dilemmas Revisited”, is the problem of whether it is possible to be in a situation where you cannot avoid making a wrong choice. Foot argues that it is always possible to avoid making a wrong choice in a difficult situation. She presents the ideas of multiple philosophers and their defense of the thought that there are situations where you can and will make a wrong choice. Foot defends herself further in the explanation of her point. She is presented with many views that involve a person still feeling guilty after a decision has been made. In this paper I will show and defend Foots argument that it is always possible to avoid making a wrong choice in a difficult situation because feelings of guilt do not have to coincide with actual regret or symbolizing a bad decision.
To better understand Foots stance on regret, one must first understand the problem of dilemma in itself. A situation that was exemplified in her paper stated a story in which you have promised a friend you would meet them, but instead have to drive someone to the hospital causing you to break your promise. The idea here is that you are forced with the decision to break a promise you made to a friend, or to leave someone who needs a ride to the hospital to fend for themselves. Foot believes that, ‘obviously he or she ought, all things considered, to do the driving rather than the meeting.’ (Foot 3). This is an obvious response for Foot, because she believes that there is always a right choice in a situation, and that you should not feel guilt, sadness or regret about making your choice so long as you made the right one. Foot mentions multiple philosophical writers who agree that it is poss...
... middle of paper ...
...d she believes that those who do believe in negative emotions after a decision would also believe that an apology after breaking a promise is always necessary. Foot does not believe that you should have to apologize for your choices because you believed that they were the right ones; she does not believe you owe the person anything more than an explanation as to what happened to break the promise. (Foot 3). So as long as you had a justifiable reason to break a promise, you did not make the wrong choice, and thus should not feel a remainder emotion of regret or sadness leading to you actually regretting the choice. Foot shows that the remainder emotions that other writers spoke about are unnecessary, and shows that the choices presented may be difficult, but there is a right choice, and if one is sure in that right choice, they will not feel bad about the decision.
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
In our lifetimes, we meet many people. And, hopefully, with each of them we follow a certain protocol when we first meet them. When one is greeted sweetly, or even sourly, the receiver is expected to graciously accept it and return the favor politely. In other countries, children are taught to show their respect towards elders at all times. Young ones in the Philippines are conditioned to grab an elder’s hand and bring it up to their forehead in a bowing motion, this practice is known as “blessing”. However, no one has ever given a more in depth answer for the reason of these practices other than, “Because you should.”
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
a dilemma is taking place due to its content. Based on moral obligations, the action to coming to
Without Conscience: Book Report Psychopaths all have something in common, and that's luring unexpected people in their traps. Its part of human nature to wonder and question the unknown. Psychopaths are a clear example of the unknown with their personalities and behaviors that are far from the norm on a continuum. We wonder what makes them do some of the unimaginable and horrific things to people and/or animals.
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
Williams’s and Nagel’s concept of moral luck encounter more disagreement than being agreed since moral luck is not universally applicable in every situation. The existence of either motive or agent-regret will, in some cases, be enigma since they are private matter and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck has been yet remains unsolved due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if motives and intentions (of being moral) are not counted and/or agent-regret does exist, it will be unfair to the person who is incorrectly treated since the result is actually out of their control. Thus, the moral luck is a sensitive matter and should be applied per case based on the presented facts. There is no such universal formula for relevance of moral luck in each situation.
Furthermore, free will has been closely connected to the moral responsibility, in that one acts knowing they will be res for their own actions. There should be philosophical conditions regarding responsibility such like the alternatives that one has for action and moral significance of those alternatives. Nevertheless, moral responsibility does not exhaust the implication of free will.
In the “Declaration of Conscience,” Margaret Chase Smith addresses the American public and the United States Senate during a time of political unrest. Communist accusations and a “national feeling of fear” has brought upon this speech. Even with an upcoming election, the Republican Party decides a freshman woman senator would speak to the public, an uncommon practice at the time . In this paper, I will argue that Margaret Chase Smith’s “Declaration of Conscience” proves her credibility as a woman politician. Smith uses a masculine tone, simple diction, and repetition to prove to Americans and the Senate that she is a strong political figure.
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
One particular human emotion can cripple humans mentally and physically. It can cause people to do things they do not want to do. It can lead them to twist the truth and lie not only to themselves, but people around them as well. It is something that they cannot hide. It is more like a disease, however, it is better known as guilt. Along with guilt, comes dishonesty, shamefulness, peculiar behavior, and even suicidal thoughts. Guilt is a recurring theme in both Robertson Davies’ Fifth Business and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Every individual will experience guilt sometime in their life, but it is how they cope and handle it that defines who they are. Humans must face the feeling of guilt, accept
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
In this assignment we will be identifying an ethical dilemma an individual has experienced. We will begin with a short introduction of what an ethical dilemma is, moving on to providing brief details of the dilemma an individual has experienced. We will then go on to selecting one ethical theory, to show how it can help an individual understand and deal with the situation when placed within, followed by a conclusion.
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the consequences of a person’s action to determine if their actions are right or wrong (Slote 34). According to the theory, a morally right act is one that has more good outcomes than bad ones. In this ethical theory, the end justifies the means; hence, it argues that people should first determine the good and bad consequences of actions before they do them. After determining the total outcomes, it is important to investigate whether the total good consequences are more. If the good ones outweigh the bad ones, then that action is morally right, but if it is the reverse, then the action is morally wrong.
The study that Gino and Mogilner have conducted is conclusive in its evidence. Their methodology to find a convincing link between self-reflection and morality is reliable and understandable, however, we should not assume that there is a link between time, money and morality, as there may be other variables, which affects ethical behaviour other than time. Further, the results are not substantial enough to stand alone in generalizing the results to an entire population.