ThinkingAbout Ethics Hypothetically
Thebest option in this case would be Brenda. The possibility thatBrandon’s moral advice will be the right one is limited since thewhole process of giving advice requires careful thinking about theright course of action to take and the possible consequences of theaction and other alternative actions. The fact that Brenda is veryclear and a careful thinker means that she will be able to quicklyunderstand the problem at hand and point out the right course ofaction to take based on critical thinking. Additionally, she will beable to give the advice in such a way that it will be easy tounderstand what she thinks. The fact that she is clear and carefulthinker means that she will avoid fallacies in her statements asopposed to Brandon whose tendency to get mixed up when thinkingcarefully may undermine the validity of his advice. Thesentimentalists view about feelings and moral decision making is thatthey are an important part of the moral decision making. WhileBrenda’s limited feelings and affections may impact the way shegives the moral advice, her clarity and careful thinking capacitymeans that the advice she will give in this case is likely to be theright to follow as opposed to Brandon’s advice that is likely to bewrong because he easily gets muddled up.
Peoplewho are dedicated to their jobs are always motivated to perform tothe best levels they can. In this case, I would go for Dekisha who ismotivated, meaning that she will perform her duties well. Christinais joyous, but it this does not mean that she is dedicated to herwork. A dedicated person does not only show committed towards his/herduties and roles, but they are also willing to handle tasks that aretedious or tough. In addition to that, they pose the quality ofmaking others around them better. A dedicated person is governed byprofessionalism, meaning that their ability to maintain strong workethics is strong. The choice has relevance on the question of whichone is morally better since it shows that dedication is morallybetter when compared to being joyous. Someone who is dedicated islikely to happy even when performing complex duties. On the otherhand, being joyful does not mean that an individual can diligentlyand effectively perform his/her duties.
Thequestion of what is morally right and what is morally wrong has beenwidely debated. Describing what is morally right and why a personshould act morally has proved to be a challenging task. Anindividual’s rational self- interest often conflicts with morality.Rational self-interest governs our action to a great extent.Societies are governed by certain moral principles. While somemembers of the society find it easy to abide by these principles,others find it hard to abide by them and often act against the setmoral principles.
Peoplefrom different backgrounds have different perception of what ismorally wrong and what is morally right. While some actions such astaking about sex with children is morally right in some societies,other societies consider it wrong. This means that the differentopinions that people have about what is morally right and what ismorally wrong might impacts the ease with which they go on with thesaid action. It is universally accepted that stealing is a moralwrong. Experienced thieves and robbers find it easy to steal. Theyare also comfortable with the act of stealing. The ease and comfortwith which they steal does not justify stealing as ‘actingmorally.’ We can also use an example of serial killers. They oftenhave an urge to kill people, but the ease and comfort with which theykill people does not justify their actions. Acting morally does nottherefore means that the action should be carried out with ease andcomfort since immoral actions can also be performed with ease andcomfort, especially if the doer of the said action has pastexperiences of doing so. The statement is therefore not true.
Morallyright actions might sometimes generate a bad feeling to the doer ofthe action. When a person commits a crime such as robbery or drugpedaling, it is considered morally right to report such an incidenceto the right authority. However, when the party that committed thesaid crime is a close friend or a close relatively, a person mighthesitate to report the said crime in order to protect the saidoffender. Given the strong bond that exists between the two partiesand the possible consequences of reporting the said crime, one mightdecide not to report the crime. If they decide to report the crime,they are likely to feel bad despite the action of reporting to theauthorities being morally right.
Takefor instance when a son witnesses his father committing a crime. Thefather is later arrested and being the only person who was presentduring the crime, the son has to testify against his father. Despiteit being morally right for the son to give a full account of whatactually happened, he will definitely feel bad if the information hegives will lead to his father being locked away for many years. Closebonds often make us to be protective of those we are close to, evenwhen they commit crimes. The close relationship between son andfather in this case gave rise to strong feelings of affections. Whileit is morally right for the son to testify against his father, afeeling of guilt is likely to develop if the testimony results tosevere punishment. This shows that engaging in morally right actionsin some circumstances often results to the doer of the action feelingbad.
Weare all responsible for our actions and every action has its ownconsequences. In such a situation where someone in an authoritativeposition tells me to do something because they said so, I willdefinitely refuse to do the said action. This because the reason forwhy is should do the said action is not concrete enough in fact, itsounds rude. What if the said action is morally wrong? I would bejustified to reject the said command. If the action at handconstitutes sexual harassment, I would forward the issue to therelevant authorities or department for the right course of action tobe taken against the individual. Adults individual have the moralobligation of choosing what they want to do and what they don’twant to do. If the reason as to why I should act is a certain way isnot reasonable enough, I have the ability and power to refuse toengage in the said activity.
Peoplehave an obligation to follow the rules and principles set in thesociety. These rules and principles are meant to bring order and makeit easy for people to carry out various tasks. Going against the setprinciples is not only rude, but it shows that one lacks in morality.With regard to the rule “Do not Cut line” I would be obliged tofollow the rule since cutting the line will not only offend others onthe line, but it will also show the I am against the social order. It will also prove that I think more about myself and that I don’tcare about others. I will thus follow the rule in order to avoidoffending others on the line. By following the rule, I would beacting morally. Not only will it show that am patient enough, but itwill also show that I am selfless and orderly.
Murder,stealing, raping and other crimes are universally accepted as beingimmoral behaviors since they go against certain set principles in thesociety. A moral person does not only avoid such actions due to thepossible consequences if they get caught, but should also keep inmind the possible impact the actions will have on other members ofthe society. It thus follows that a person who only does the rightthings in order to avoid being caught is not moral. A moral persondoes what is virtuous and good, but not only based on theirwell-being only, but also on the well-being of others in the society.Making moral decisions depends on external influences. This meansthat what people have learnt to value affects their moral decisionsas well as views. Individuals brought up in an environment withstrong religious influences, their morals and perception of what ismorally right and wrong will largely influence their moral stands.
Moralitylargely entails what is good or right. A person who does the rightthing is considered to be moral. However, doing the right actionsshould be self-driven as opposed to being governed by set principles.A moral person does the right or good thing out of his own will. Since the person being discussed here only does the right thingbecause he wants to avoid getting into trouble, he is not moralbecause his actions are not driven by his own willingness to do them,but by the possible consequences that they might suffer if they actotherwise. A moral individual should not only value himself, butshould also value others and act to improve his wellbeing as well asthat of others.
Themost interesting aspect of this week’s lesson was the discussion onethics and critical thinking. The discussion mad me aware of the manyfallacies that I often see people commit. The discussion made mereflect back on past instances where I and my friends engaged inheated debates, only for one party to bow out as a result of thedebate changing from focusing on the issues raised to the personraising the issue. The lesson described this as the ad hominenfallacy in which the arguer is attacked instead of the argument beingattacked. The discussion on ethics and critical thinking pointed outhow avoiding such fallacies impact our thinking and the way we argue.One important impact that the discussion had on my moral outlook isthat it made me realize the important of ethical thinking and how itimpacts the way we engage with other people.
Williams,B. (2011). Ethicsand the Limits of Philosophy.Taylor & Francis.