Download file to see previous pages...
In addition, the public and the school are also involved because they do not support abortion. Jane has a moral stake of admitting that she has been eavesdropping on the conversation of her best friend, and act that is ethically wrong. She should be a loyal friend to Sue, who does not invade her privacy without her knowledge. In addition, Jane has a moral stake of revealing that Sue and her younger brother have been sexually active and that Sue is considering an abortion. The school has a moral stake because it needs to maintain high levels of morality and a remarkable reputation. Without a doubt, the moral stakes of Jane and Sue are conflicting. If Jane decides to admit that she has been eavesdropping on Sue, their friendship will be compromised due to the invasion of privacy. In addition, if Jane decides to tell the truth about Sue’s plan of carrying out an abortion, she will also be putting the interests of her brother at risk. On the other hand, Sue’s moral stake involves telling the truth that she has been sexually active and taking responsibility of her actions by keeping the baby. Sue also needs to identify the real father of her unborn child. It is Sue’s right to expect her phone call conversations to be entirely private (Fink, 2008).
Assuming you are a deontologist like W.D. Ross, how would you weigh the different moral stakes, interests, or duties against each other? That is, are some moral stakes “weightier” than others? Are some moral considerations or interests or stakes more important than others? Can you rank them?
From the case study, it is evident that Sue’s right to privacy is not as important as a violation of a moral law and taking one’s life through an abortion. In addition, Sue’s right to privacy appears to be less important than her indulgence in irresponsible sexual activity and secretly considering an abortion. In the case of Jane, invasion of privacy appears to be a less important issue than exposing the truth,
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Somehow, health professionals must integrate their views on the patient's treatment with everyone else to provide care that best helps the patient while still abiding by the patient's wishes and requests, and they must do so within a profoundly secular world view.
Name: Instructor’s Name: Course: Date of Submission: Moral relativism Moral relativism is a philosophical theory that morality, principles, ethics are relative which are culturally dependent as well count on an individual’s choice. This morality is not absolute, it does not hold for all people at any place and it depends on time and situation too.
Individuals will then apply such knowledge when faced with complex issues of decision-making. Individuals will have the independence and the strength to do the right thing, even though it might not be the most convenient (Markus& Kitayama, 1991). In children, morality is shaped by various factors, such as their interpersonal experiences they obtain from interacting with their families, peers and other adults.
Trends in global markets change fast irrespective of free international trade or policy of protectionism. When ethical standards fall, corporate scandals rise, and this is true of international business. The business schools, of late, have begun to realize the importance of including ethics in their syllabus.
In other words, it can be called our ethics, virtue, principles and goodness. The multi-cultural world that we live in today, morality has become a very complicated issue. Morality is a system of behavior in consideration with standards of right or wrong behavior.
Sometimes both reason and emotion are important when considering a verdict that implies a moral decision. Some other times emotion is overshadowed by reason when it comes to the jurors to take the decision and state the verdict. In this paper I will discuss whether reason and emotion are equally necessary in justifying moral decisions while presenting both aspects of the issue.
Oscar Wilde, in The Importance of Being Earnest and William Shakespeare, in Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, venture into nature of society and how it effects the individuals within that society. Shakespeare and Wilde assert that deception is a symptom of a corrupt society not a character flaw.
In other words, holding someone responsible for his/her actions even though those actions were taken in circumstances that were foisted upon him/her is considered moral luck. This definition suggests that moral luck and moral responsibility bear a close relationship.
What is also significantly important to understand that individual and collective responses to each action and to judge that action’s moral standing is deeply rooted into the generally held beliefs of rationality of
All the options in this case are mostly unpleasant. Weston’s definition of such ethics has no definite reference to reason (Timmons 12). However, he feels it is a concern that has legitimate expectations and basic needs to others and to us. On the other
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Moral for FREE!