(1) Question:
Are some acts morally obligatory regardless of the consequences for human benefit or harm?
In my own words:
Are certain actions mandatory given that the larger majority could either gain benefits or be harmed?
(2) Conceptual Clarifications:
Morally-With respect to moral principles
Obligaatory-Binding, mandatory
Consequences-The outcome following an action
Benefit-Enhance to well being
Harm-Damage to well being
(3) Answer:
Within todays society, it is certain that almost every action that one commits, will somehow either directly or indirectly affect someone else. The question is whether some acts are morally obligatory regardless of this phenomena. I strongly believe that many acts are mandatory, despite yeilding good or bad consequences. "Everybody acts in accordance with inner necessity". Looking back at history, some of the greatest achievements were conquered by people who were morally obligated to attain unimaginable goals, at the cost of human harm. After all, progression within the human race is only possible if we accept the harmful consequences that may be delievered as well.
I believe that if one is forced into a situation that conflicts with their beliefs, then he would almost always choose to obey the morally correct choice. However, choosing to act in a manner that is morally obligatory within ones own values is not always going to bring about benefit. Thus, although there is a chance that one's actions could bring about harm, if the act is for the greater benefit of society, i believe that it is still defined as morally obligatory.
I also believe that many acts are morally obligatory and bring about nothing more than benefit, leaving the word regardless out of the argument entirely. Almost all of our actions are bound up and coincide with the actions of other human beings. When a farmer is obligated to grow food in order to earn a profit and provide for his family, he is in turn benefiting the community by providing numerous other families with food. Such a connected society enforces the idea that some acts are morally obligatory (farmer providing) regardless of the consequences for human benefit or harm.
(4) Example:
For the past two years i have worked at Tire Kingdom as a technician performing oil changes and other basic maintenance operations on cars. Every day I help atleast 8 customers, and am required to give an honest estimate of what the work will cost, given the time it takes and the materials used. Seeing as there are never any managers around, and many customers pay in cash, i find it would be quite easy to make a few extra dollars a day by inflating the estimates I give on cars. Although tempting, I am morally obligated to be honest, and give the customer a fair, true price. By the end of the day, there has been no harm done and i can sleep with an easy head.
My final example involves going to school everyday. I am morally obligated to attend class seeing as my parents pay so much. Since i am stuck with this obligation, I find the most efficient way of getting to and from school is by car. Cars in turn emit carbon dioxide, which depletes Earths ozone layer. The depleting ozone layer directly harms many people all over the world. Although my act of attending class is morally obligatory, i must do it with disregard for human harm.
(5) Word Count:
499
(7) References:
Ruggiero. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. McGraw Hill.
Einstein. (2006). The World As I See It. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Blog Assignment #10
(1) Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 1 - 28 (pages 114 - 117). Indicate which inquiry you chose, and then briefly explain it in your own words: I chose to use inquiry number 25. It concerns a restaurant cook who drops food and calls for it to be served after only picking it up and putting it right on the tray.
(2) Stakeholders: The cook could be fired if someone saw him, the customer getting the floor-food could get ill, the restaurant that employs a cook who is unclean can obtain a bad reputation if anything is wrong with the tainted food.
(3) Are the details given sufficient? Why or why not? The evidence of the cook's unprofessionalism and bad judgement regarding whether or not to serve steaks that fell on the floor is pretty apparent even without much stated detail. Serving food in a restaurant that touched a floor is unhealthy and unappetizing; he made a mistake.
(4) What additional questions does this inquiry raise? Everything the cook did was wrong. No question.
STEP TWO: THE RELEVANT CRITERIA
1. Obligations (aka "duties"): Optional this week
2. Moral Ideals (aka "virtues"): See breakdown of ideals below
3. Consequences (aka "outcomes" or "results"): Optional this week
NOTE: Not ALL of the following ideals will apply! Only consider the main ones that you believe apply, in the inquiry you chose. Don't just pick the easy ones to consider, because you didn't take the time to thoroughly read the chapter and learn what each one of these actually means. I will quiz you when we do group work on Thursday.
* The action taken by the cook had no moral behind it to back it up, however he could have had conflicting ideals which made him choose what he thought was right, but was actually not the most ethical decision.
* Conflicting ideals--I notice in the inquiry that a conflict of honesty and temperance. The cook probably thought about throwing out the steaks, but decided to take control of the situation and not get in trouble for it on the basis that no one saw him. He makes his decision based on his own status at his job and without taking into account the stakeholders, his decision is not morally justified.
STEP THREE: POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
Alternative #1: The cook could have just made new steaks and taken the heat for messing up like a mature person. He would then at least have the virtue of honesty on his side.
Alternative #2: He could have been low on steaks and if that was the issue he could have asked the customer to re-choose an entree and he could make sure not to mess it up.
Alternative #3: He could have offered a discount for messing up the steaks and made them new entrees.
STEP FOUR: THE MOST ETHICAL ACTION
Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (the most widespread "respect for persons")...if it does not, choose one that will, from your alternatives. Where the choice of actions is such that no good can be achieved, choose the action that will result in the lesser evil.
The action taken by the cook is undoubtedly wrong and the only way it could be right is if he re-made the food or offered the customers something else. The customers are paying for the meal and for the cook to work there and he is not taking his most important supporters' health seriously at all. If he had just been courageous and owned up to his mistake the outcome would be only uncomfortable for him. Now that he has involved other's health and the entire restaurant's reputation, there is no greater good that he could have been reaching for. He was selfish and unprofessional. Of the twelve virtues (pp.107-109) he could have based his decision on, he chose to not, and risk more than just a few steaks and a repremanding about carefulness around the expensive entree preparation stations.
SELF EVALUATION
1. In your own words, describe something new that you learned from this week’s assigned reading material and guidance. --I learned how doing something wrong can be a product of conflicting virtues and someone can try to be doing good but it won't always be the greatest good that is reached or it won't always be right in one sense, but right in another relevant sense.
2. In your own words, describe in detail some insight you gained, about the material, from one of your classmates' blogs this week. In NS-ethics blog, I read an answer that said that as the parties involved in a situation grows, so does the possiblity that the best answer is not the most moral. It was insightful.
3. Did you post a thoroughly completed post to your blog on time this week? I believe based on my choice of inquiry that i was as thorough as possible and genuinely understand the readings.
4. Did you ALSO print this out, so you can bring it to class and earn total points? Of course.
5. Of 25 points total, my efforts this week deserve: I will bring it to class and i have been very thorough in my work this week and I feel it is represented well. I deserve all possible 25 total points.
(2) Stakeholders: The cook could be fired if someone saw him, the customer getting the floor-food could get ill, the restaurant that employs a cook who is unclean can obtain a bad reputation if anything is wrong with the tainted food.
(3) Are the details given sufficient? Why or why not? The evidence of the cook's unprofessionalism and bad judgement regarding whether or not to serve steaks that fell on the floor is pretty apparent even without much stated detail. Serving food in a restaurant that touched a floor is unhealthy and unappetizing; he made a mistake.
(4) What additional questions does this inquiry raise? Everything the cook did was wrong. No question.
STEP TWO: THE RELEVANT CRITERIA
1. Obligations (aka "duties"): Optional this week
2. Moral Ideals (aka "virtues"): See breakdown of ideals below
3. Consequences (aka "outcomes" or "results"): Optional this week
NOTE: Not ALL of the following ideals will apply! Only consider the main ones that you believe apply, in the inquiry you chose. Don't just pick the easy ones to consider, because you didn't take the time to thoroughly read the chapter and learn what each one of these actually means. I will quiz you when we do group work on Thursday.
* The action taken by the cook had no moral behind it to back it up, however he could have had conflicting ideals which made him choose what he thought was right, but was actually not the most ethical decision.
* Conflicting ideals--I notice in the inquiry that a conflict of honesty and temperance. The cook probably thought about throwing out the steaks, but decided to take control of the situation and not get in trouble for it on the basis that no one saw him. He makes his decision based on his own status at his job and without taking into account the stakeholders, his decision is not morally justified.
STEP THREE: POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
Alternative #1: The cook could have just made new steaks and taken the heat for messing up like a mature person. He would then at least have the virtue of honesty on his side.
Alternative #2: He could have been low on steaks and if that was the issue he could have asked the customer to re-choose an entree and he could make sure not to mess it up.
Alternative #3: He could have offered a discount for messing up the steaks and made them new entrees.
STEP FOUR: THE MOST ETHICAL ACTION
Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (the most widespread "respect for persons")...if it does not, choose one that will, from your alternatives. Where the choice of actions is such that no good can be achieved, choose the action that will result in the lesser evil.
The action taken by the cook is undoubtedly wrong and the only way it could be right is if he re-made the food or offered the customers something else. The customers are paying for the meal and for the cook to work there and he is not taking his most important supporters' health seriously at all. If he had just been courageous and owned up to his mistake the outcome would be only uncomfortable for him. Now that he has involved other's health and the entire restaurant's reputation, there is no greater good that he could have been reaching for. He was selfish and unprofessional. Of the twelve virtues (pp.107-109) he could have based his decision on, he chose to not, and risk more than just a few steaks and a repremanding about carefulness around the expensive entree preparation stations.
SELF EVALUATION
1. In your own words, describe something new that you learned from this week’s assigned reading material and guidance. --I learned how doing something wrong can be a product of conflicting virtues and someone can try to be doing good but it won't always be the greatest good that is reached or it won't always be right in one sense, but right in another relevant sense.
2. In your own words, describe in detail some insight you gained, about the material, from one of your classmates' blogs this week. In NS-ethics blog, I read an answer that said that as the parties involved in a situation grows, so does the possiblity that the best answer is not the most moral. It was insightful.
3. Did you post a thoroughly completed post to your blog on time this week? I believe based on my choice of inquiry that i was as thorough as possible and genuinely understand the readings.
4. Did you ALSO print this out, so you can bring it to class and earn total points? Of course.
5. Of 25 points total, my efforts this week deserve: I will bring it to class and i have been very thorough in my work this week and I feel it is represented well. I deserve all possible 25 total points.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
blog assignment #9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART ONE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Briefly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.
Unwarranted Assumptions: a conclusion about an issue or question based on little evidence or our unconscious choice to believe or disbelieve based on what was meant by something being left out of the situation. We insert our own thoughts into left out spaces that we notice in a situation, making our conclusions not evidentially based and therefore quite biased.
ex.) I bought tickets to a concert and spent the extra money for VIP. There wasn't information on how VIP was different, but since it was more expensive I assumed that it would be the best way to go. At the concert, in VIP, the water ran out and everyone was crammed under a small tent. I left and had a great time on the regular priced ground where I could actually move and even dance. VIP was a waste of money and I definitely fell victim to an unwarranted assumption.
Oversimplification: a common error found in today's discussions when a party leaves out a vital criterion for a study or situation to make it seem simple, when the error actually reduces the situation to a distorted slice of the actual issue.
ex.) My girlfriend asked me to help her move into a new house and I did move stuff in, but I didn't know that meant unpacking the boxes and cleaning her room with her until after I was sweaty and tired from lifting couches and mattresses all day.
Hasty Conclusions: a conclusion that has been arrived at through analyzing facts relevant to the study but ignoring alternatives so to make the conclusion closed-minded and erroneous.
ex.) I have heard racist comments from people saying things like "In India men oppress women, they are woman haters." Some are, but there are indian men in the world who do not oppress women, so not all indian men are oppressive to women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefly answer the following "chapter opening" questions, in your own words, based on what you learned by studying chapter eight:
1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? The best solution to deciding between two conflicting obligations is to weigh the relative importance and give the more important one presidence. Also, if half of each obligation can be done, one should do both, but if only one is possible, it shoud be the more important one that is carried out.
2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? One should attempt to satisfy both if ethically and morally important, but if only one can be done, then one should choose based on moral and ethical importance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I took from this assignment that people can slip and fall into false conclusions if the parameters for thought aren't clearly set out in front of them. It made me think about not judging a situation without having all the facts. Also, I learned that if conflicting obligations are giving me troubles it is alright to say no to one that isn't morally and ethically important and yes to one that I believe is the most fulfilling and has the most potential importance.
2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life? I will be more thorough with my thinking especially when I feel the threat of a fallacy. Also, I will know how to choose which obligations I should stick to and ones I should stear clear of.
3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer. After completing the assignment in it's entirety, I believe that the time and effort put forth is deserving of the full twenty-five points. I learned a lot about distorted conclusions and learned how to manage obligations based on honest, general importance. I'd say i fulfilled the requirements!
ASSIGNMENT PART ONE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Briefly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.
Unwarranted Assumptions: a conclusion about an issue or question based on little evidence or our unconscious choice to believe or disbelieve based on what was meant by something being left out of the situation. We insert our own thoughts into left out spaces that we notice in a situation, making our conclusions not evidentially based and therefore quite biased.
ex.) I bought tickets to a concert and spent the extra money for VIP. There wasn't information on how VIP was different, but since it was more expensive I assumed that it would be the best way to go. At the concert, in VIP, the water ran out and everyone was crammed under a small tent. I left and had a great time on the regular priced ground where I could actually move and even dance. VIP was a waste of money and I definitely fell victim to an unwarranted assumption.
Oversimplification: a common error found in today's discussions when a party leaves out a vital criterion for a study or situation to make it seem simple, when the error actually reduces the situation to a distorted slice of the actual issue.
ex.) My girlfriend asked me to help her move into a new house and I did move stuff in, but I didn't know that meant unpacking the boxes and cleaning her room with her until after I was sweaty and tired from lifting couches and mattresses all day.
Hasty Conclusions: a conclusion that has been arrived at through analyzing facts relevant to the study but ignoring alternatives so to make the conclusion closed-minded and erroneous.
ex.) I have heard racist comments from people saying things like "In India men oppress women, they are woman haters." Some are, but there are indian men in the world who do not oppress women, so not all indian men are oppressive to women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefly answer the following "chapter opening" questions, in your own words, based on what you learned by studying chapter eight:
1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? The best solution to deciding between two conflicting obligations is to weigh the relative importance and give the more important one presidence. Also, if half of each obligation can be done, one should do both, but if only one is possible, it shoud be the more important one that is carried out.
2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? One should attempt to satisfy both if ethically and morally important, but if only one can be done, then one should choose based on moral and ethical importance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I took from this assignment that people can slip and fall into false conclusions if the parameters for thought aren't clearly set out in front of them. It made me think about not judging a situation without having all the facts. Also, I learned that if conflicting obligations are giving me troubles it is alright to say no to one that isn't morally and ethically important and yes to one that I believe is the most fulfilling and has the most potential importance.
2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life? I will be more thorough with my thinking especially when I feel the threat of a fallacy. Also, I will know how to choose which obligations I should stick to and ones I should stear clear of.
3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer. After completing the assignment in it's entirety, I believe that the time and effort put forth is deserving of the full twenty-five points. I learned a lot about distorted conclusions and learned how to manage obligations based on honest, general importance. I'd say i fulfilled the requirements!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Blog Assignment #6
--------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION #1: If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?
ANSWER 1A:
Yes it is correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in. For instance many cultures around the world think that school administrators are justified to hit kids if the kids are misbehaving in any way, but in America any form of corporal punishment within the education system is strictly forbidden. Also, in some African tribes being overweight as a woman is a symbol of her family's great wealth and high social status, while in America if a woman is over weight it is looked down upon. Culture is vastly diverse depending upon the location, so right and wrong cannot be determined based on another culture's location.
ANSWER 1B:
P: Cultural activities represent history and often times others don't see history as an ever popular influence on modern life.
P: People within a culture only know the morals they were raised with and most of the times never experience or think about other cultures beliefs.
C: Therefore, it is correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in
QUESTION #2: Isn’t it a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one culture is better than another?
ANSWER 2A:
Yes it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one cultures is better than another because unless you know and have experienced exactly all of the lifestyles of every culture in the world, you are highly unqualified to judge any culture better than another culture. Claiming that any culture is superior is simply ignorant because every culture has different values. Since every culture has different values it is impossible to judge if one culture has better values than the next. Everyone belongs to or was raised in a certain culture and therefore there is always a biased opinion if judging anothers culture.
ANSWER 2B:
P: There is always a biased opinion when judging anothers culture due to judger's own culture or cultural upbringing.
P: Every culture has different values which makes it impossible for anyone to judge if one culture is better than the next.
C: Therefore, it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures
--------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO
In America it is widely believed that a person should not be punished for something that they have no control over. Within our culture it would be morally wrong to withhold money and to hit your spouse because you believe she is the reason for the birth of a daughter rather than a son. Although this is very different from china's culture where it would be acceptable because they hold high values in having a son to maintain the family line. Still, I do not believe it would be morally right to punish a wife for giving birth to a daughter when she obviously has no control over the sex of her child.
Arguable issue: Whether or not a wife should be punished for giving birth to a daughter.
P: A parent should love a child no matter what the sex of the child is. (moral principle, Value of life).
P: A person should not be punished over something they have no control over. (Fairness)
P: A spouse should never be hit without provocation.
C: Therefore, a wife should not be punished for giving birth to a daughter.
PART ONE
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION #1: If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?
ANSWER 1A:
Yes it is correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in. For instance many cultures around the world think that school administrators are justified to hit kids if the kids are misbehaving in any way, but in America any form of corporal punishment within the education system is strictly forbidden. Also, in some African tribes being overweight as a woman is a symbol of her family's great wealth and high social status, while in America if a woman is over weight it is looked down upon. Culture is vastly diverse depending upon the location, so right and wrong cannot be determined based on another culture's location.
ANSWER 1B:
P: Cultural activities represent history and often times others don't see history as an ever popular influence on modern life.
P: People within a culture only know the morals they were raised with and most of the times never experience or think about other cultures beliefs.
C: Therefore, it is correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in
QUESTION #2: Isn’t it a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one culture is better than another?
ANSWER 2A:
Yes it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one cultures is better than another because unless you know and have experienced exactly all of the lifestyles of every culture in the world, you are highly unqualified to judge any culture better than another culture. Claiming that any culture is superior is simply ignorant because every culture has different values. Since every culture has different values it is impossible to judge if one culture has better values than the next. Everyone belongs to or was raised in a certain culture and therefore there is always a biased opinion if judging anothers culture.
ANSWER 2B:
P: There is always a biased opinion when judging anothers culture due to judger's own culture or cultural upbringing.
P: Every culture has different values which makes it impossible for anyone to judge if one culture is better than the next.
C: Therefore, it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures
--------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO
In America it is widely believed that a person should not be punished for something that they have no control over. Within our culture it would be morally wrong to withhold money and to hit your spouse because you believe she is the reason for the birth of a daughter rather than a son. Although this is very different from china's culture where it would be acceptable because they hold high values in having a son to maintain the family line. Still, I do not believe it would be morally right to punish a wife for giving birth to a daughter when she obviously has no control over the sex of her child.
Arguable issue: Whether or not a wife should be punished for giving birth to a daughter.
P: A parent should love a child no matter what the sex of the child is. (moral principle, Value of life).
P: A person should not be punished over something they have no control over. (Fairness)
P: A spouse should never be hit without provocation.
C: Therefore, a wife should not be punished for giving birth to a daughter.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Blog Assignment #1
1. How would you have explained the meaning of the term "ethics", before taking this class?
Before taking this class I thought ethics was strictly what a person should or shouldn't do. The first day of class got me more acquainted with ethics and now I would describe it as the general nature of morals a person has. It is the way people act when they feel something is morally right or wrong.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
I feel honesty and loyalty are very important to me. I think a friends or family members should not try to use you if there is an already established bond of trust. Honesty is also very important to me because it is hard to trust someone if they are not honest. When a person is dishonest it seems most likely like they are trying to take advantage of someone or a situation.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
I try to live my life as non violent as possible. Through my experiences growing up I came to the conclusion that almost anytime I was in or around a fight nothing was solved. Of course there at time when violence can not be avoided but when a meaningless argument escalates into a fight, nothing is solved from it.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
I mainly look for honesty in others. If a person is dishonest you really don't know who they are as a person because all they you have heard are lies. Also I feel if someone is not telling the truth it usually comes off like he or she is trying to take advantage of you.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
All of my principles were developed through my parents teaching and my life experiences. I feel that my values and principles were more developed though my life experiences as I would frequently think about I was effecting others feelings. I feel my parents helped me develop the base of my principles but my life experiences helped me fully develop them.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
As I was growing up I would not care as much about how I was effecting other peoples feelings. As I grew up I realized it is very important to consider others feelings and to make sure not to intentionally hurt others. I am glad I turned out the way I am today because I feel I am a much more fair and honest person.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I feel I deserve 15 points out of 25 because I answered all of the questions truthfully and to the best of my abilities but I didn't complete the assignment on time. Thank you for giving me a chance to make up some of my missed work but I did complete it the best that I could.
Before taking this class I thought ethics was strictly what a person should or shouldn't do. The first day of class got me more acquainted with ethics and now I would describe it as the general nature of morals a person has. It is the way people act when they feel something is morally right or wrong.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
I feel honesty and loyalty are very important to me. I think a friends or family members should not try to use you if there is an already established bond of trust. Honesty is also very important to me because it is hard to trust someone if they are not honest. When a person is dishonest it seems most likely like they are trying to take advantage of someone or a situation.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
I try to live my life as non violent as possible. Through my experiences growing up I came to the conclusion that almost anytime I was in or around a fight nothing was solved. Of course there at time when violence can not be avoided but when a meaningless argument escalates into a fight, nothing is solved from it.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
I mainly look for honesty in others. If a person is dishonest you really don't know who they are as a person because all they you have heard are lies. Also I feel if someone is not telling the truth it usually comes off like he or she is trying to take advantage of you.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
All of my principles were developed through my parents teaching and my life experiences. I feel that my values and principles were more developed though my life experiences as I would frequently think about I was effecting others feelings. I feel my parents helped me develop the base of my principles but my life experiences helped me fully develop them.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
As I was growing up I would not care as much about how I was effecting other peoples feelings. As I grew up I realized it is very important to consider others feelings and to make sure not to intentionally hurt others. I am glad I turned out the way I am today because I feel I am a much more fair and honest person.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I feel I deserve 15 points out of 25 because I answered all of the questions truthfully and to the best of my abilities but I didn't complete the assignment on time. Thank you for giving me a chance to make up some of my missed work but I did complete it the best that I could.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
blog assignment #5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n_O74wvsbSs
"For all its imperfections, conscience is the most important single guide to right and wrong an individual can have"(45, Ruggiero). Morally, our conscience will be the best means to an answer concerning most life decisions. The text states that listening to your moral conscience may be the most plausible answer but other choices can be good too if the consequences are well analyzed, but most people shy away from gut feelings anyway in exchange for orders from an authority figure. We are situationally influenced as the video I have chosen to represent this chapter shows. Whether or not we know that the action taken is in moral standing or not, most will ignore their own code of ethics to satisfy authority or complete a job. In the video I have chosen an experiment that was done by a man named Milgram in the 1960's. Experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" In the experiment two out of three tested stuck to orders to continue shocking despite screams coming from the subject being electrically shocked. Our conscience and our ability to relentlessly follow orders, despite our conscience, clash on a day to day basis.
4. In a separate paragraph, tell me how many points you believe your efforts deserve--in argument form! For example:
Arguable issue: whether or not this post deserves points...if yes, how many?
Conclusion: I believe that this post deserves 25 points.
Premises: this post deserves 25 points because:
(1) I followed all instructions given.
(2) I found an interesting video that related to the chapter on conscience.
(3)I described how the video related to the chapter to the best of my ability with specific examples.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Blog Assignment #2
1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?
- I felt most of the questions from the Moral Sense Test were difficult to answer because the questions were only brief summaries of incidents. It was hard for me to score 1 to 7 on how morally wrong someone acted when the summaries didn't go into depth with the incident. I felt my responses to the questions stayed consistent within the 3 to 5 range. This does matter because it showed me that it is hard for me to determine a situation as very bad or not bad at all without looking into the situation in great depth.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
- People should definitely not always follow the law. I feel the law helps keep people from doing the wrong thing most of the time but definitely not all the time. I feel it is justified to not call the police every time there is a minor traffic collision. The law states that the police should be notified any time there is a traffic collision. I think if both parties can come to an agreement peacefully on what to do about the damage on each of their cars, the law should not be involved.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
- Social convention is common customs or rituals that are different or non-existent throughout different parts of the world. Greetings are a great example of this since throughout many different regions people would wave, shake hands, kiss, hug, or bow. An example of one i have noticed in America is how males are supposed to hold doors open for females as they enter or exit a building.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
- I think people should respect the conventions of their society but not always follow them. The conventions of society are so ingrained in some people that they do these conventions without even knowing so they should be respected as they are to a point a part of someones personality. They should not always follow these because a person should have the freedom to do as they want and if they do not feel like wearing a Muslim headdress, they should not be required to.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
- I feel everyone should follow their own principles. It should never be mandatory for anyone to do anything if they feel it is morally wrong. If someone believes that it is morally wrong to mutilate their body with piercings but live within a culture where they preform rituals of piercings, the person should not go through with the piercings. Personal beliefs and principles should always be very important to every individual.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
- Socially acceptable is when a society of people think an act is acceptable. Some examples of this would be ritual piercings or 1st cousin marriages. Legally acceptable is something or an act that is allowed within the parameters of the law. Morally acceptable is mainly a persons moral belief if something or an act is right or wrong.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
- I feel I deserve 25 points for the work I did on this assignment. I worked hard to plan out each answer for each question and all the answers were more than 2 to 3 sentences long. I feel all of the work I did for this assignment was well thought out and to the best of my abilities.
- I felt most of the questions from the Moral Sense Test were difficult to answer because the questions were only brief summaries of incidents. It was hard for me to score 1 to 7 on how morally wrong someone acted when the summaries didn't go into depth with the incident. I felt my responses to the questions stayed consistent within the 3 to 5 range. This does matter because it showed me that it is hard for me to determine a situation as very bad or not bad at all without looking into the situation in great depth.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
- People should definitely not always follow the law. I feel the law helps keep people from doing the wrong thing most of the time but definitely not all the time. I feel it is justified to not call the police every time there is a minor traffic collision. The law states that the police should be notified any time there is a traffic collision. I think if both parties can come to an agreement peacefully on what to do about the damage on each of their cars, the law should not be involved.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
- Social convention is common customs or rituals that are different or non-existent throughout different parts of the world. Greetings are a great example of this since throughout many different regions people would wave, shake hands, kiss, hug, or bow. An example of one i have noticed in America is how males are supposed to hold doors open for females as they enter or exit a building.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
- I think people should respect the conventions of their society but not always follow them. The conventions of society are so ingrained in some people that they do these conventions without even knowing so they should be respected as they are to a point a part of someones personality. They should not always follow these because a person should have the freedom to do as they want and if they do not feel like wearing a Muslim headdress, they should not be required to.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
- I feel everyone should follow their own principles. It should never be mandatory for anyone to do anything if they feel it is morally wrong. If someone believes that it is morally wrong to mutilate their body with piercings but live within a culture where they preform rituals of piercings, the person should not go through with the piercings. Personal beliefs and principles should always be very important to every individual.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
- Socially acceptable is when a society of people think an act is acceptable. Some examples of this would be ritual piercings or 1st cousin marriages. Legally acceptable is something or an act that is allowed within the parameters of the law. Morally acceptable is mainly a persons moral belief if something or an act is right or wrong.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
- I feel I deserve 25 points for the work I did on this assignment. I worked hard to plan out each answer for each question and all the answers were more than 2 to 3 sentences long. I feel all of the work I did for this assignment was well thought out and to the best of my abilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)