More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of moral decision making
Moral reasoning and moral decision making
Personal reflection about morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
(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 …show more content…
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
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
My personal code of ethics outlines the values and principles, which I believe in and rely on in life; the code determines the decisions I make concerning my daily activities and my association with family, colleagues, and the society. The values and principles also act as my main point of reference when I am faced with a dilemma and need to make a sound dec...
The Teleological Ethical Theories are concerned with the consequences of actions which means the basic standards of our actions being morally right or wrong depends on the good or evil generated (Business Jargons, n.d.). More specifically this campaign relates
First and foremost, the Greatest Happiness Principle focuses on two main ideas: one’s actions and their resulting utility. An individual is considered moral correct if their actions promote universal utility. However, the principle doesn’t simply require individuals to make any choice that promotes utility. A person is considered “morally correct” when and only when their decision promotes the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain.
As a result, three general characteristics were constituted as the basics of his philosophy: the greatest happiness principle, universal egoism and the artificial identification of one’s interests with those of others. The first discusses about producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, the utility principle is completely dependent on the amount of happiness brought about. It can be inferred that actions which don’t produce a content amount of happiness is morally
Which source/ sources from the Ethical Compass (see class slides for a reminder) do you think influence you the most in your interpersonal ethical decision-making? Why do you think you most rely on that pointer? Where does it come from?
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
In complete contrast to teleology, which considers the end result to be the sole factor in determining rightness, deontology isn’t all that focused on the end results, only on the means to get there. A deontologist, unlike a utilitarian, would be unable to take any action that violates his or her individual code, regardless of the atrocity such a violation could prevent. The deontologist would become a martyr before compromising their code, while a utilitarian would accept getting their hands dirty and paying the ultimate cost in order to dispose of a tyrant, as long as it freed the rest of society. Deontologist behavior can only be, at best, mimicked by an egoist pretending to follow what it generally accepted to be right in order to obtain a self-serving ends or if the ends are to gain favorable perception from others; a deontologist could not disregard the actions required in order to fulfill some self-interest. Deontology is too strict for relativism, as the deontologist’s code of behavior is defined by the individual’s interpretation, without influence from others.
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”
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.
Normative theories of ethics do not have much descriptive strength, so they have been modified in an effort to explain differences in moral judgment. Researchers have since moved from examining the outcomes of decisions towards exploring different processes individuals use when making decisions among various possible outcomes (Strong & Meyer, 1992).