May one lend money to co-workers who need it to commit sins - Personal Statement Example

In the case of his friend for instance, who wanted the money to ‘commit sin’ with a call girl, he denied him on moral grounds. He argued that by doing that, he would be hurting the wife of this co-worker. However, his morality position can be questioned where he provides his boss with money to purchase a gift. This present was supposed to be given to a woman that the boss was having an affair with, though he was married. Though the individual in question knew about this, he went ahead and paid for the gift for his boss.

The two similar scenarios have elicited two contrasting responses. This therefore begs the question of where he stands as far as morality is concerned. The lack of consistence despite the situation is enough to support the fact that most people would appear moral only when they gain more pleasure in the event. However, if there is any loss perceived, one would rather compromise to safe their status quo. My point of view and premises for that position Consistency in terms of how one responds to issues of morality within the society is imperative.

This is especially on how one conducts him/herself towards the colleagues in the working environment. For one to be defined as morally upright, it would be necessary for them to appear predictable in all situations, in terms of their position on various social issues. Fear of losing certain favors because of one’s action or position should not arise. In the case of the of the individual in question, the fact that he agreed to do his boss a favor opens a door to further compromises in future.

Through one would understand his reason for taking that compromising act, he failed to take initiative of rejecting. For instance, he did not offer his stand on the issue of unfaithfulness on the part of his boss. The fact that he assisted him in paying for the gift could be explained as ‘supporting such an act.’ Secondly, one would also say that his moral position is not grounded strongly. He is swayed by circumstances which should not be the case provided one does what they think is right.

For instance, why did he not fear losing friendship by not lending money to his friend? Secondly, why did he not choose to reciprocate the same act to his boss? The whole issue of morality lacks meaning if how one behaves is determined by pain and pleasure one may incur. One would be in a position to draw a line and say ‘this is right’ and ‘this is wrong’ despite the repercussions. The notion that he would be discharged of his duty by denying the favor to his boss is just a perception that is not based on reality.

For instance, there are laws which protect employees from any unfair treatment. One can seek redress if they feel they are being harassed by their seniors. According to my position therefore, morality should have a specific definition and remain consistent in all scenarios regardless of the consequences. Support by other philosopher such as John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John F. Cosby and Veatch. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham seem to share similar sentiments as far as issues of morality are concerned.

They raise two important social phenomena of pain and pleasure as the main determinants of how individuals behave in certain circumstances (Bentham 58). They indicate that what manners are the final result and not the means taken. Both of them agree on matters of personal happiness as what is imperative in deciding moral