Briefly outline Plato's definition of justice and morality and compare it to Thrasymachus and conventional ideas of this concept.
Briefly outline Plato's definition of justice and morality and compare it to Thrasymachus and conventional ideas of this concept. Plato's definition of justice in society is when everyone is doing their own tasks, mind own business to witch they are naturally suited to, when injustice is person's trying to do others job. He is explaining how exactly society is structured and how people could now what their best place and job in society is in his "magnificent myth". Basic idea is that people born with bronze, silver or gold in their soul and each of them defines wether this person is a producer, auxiliary or ruler. Therefore doing your own job right and being in the right class of the society is a justice for Plato. Similar definition for justice and morality is for individuals. Plato assume that our soul has 3 parts (reason, spirit and desire) in witch reason is in control of two others. All 3 parts should work together without interfering with each other and if they all do their own "job" well person will be just, moral and with balanced soul. So, if the reason should be in control it is not justice if one of the other parts of soul tries to do reason's job and starts controlling person's life. For Plato justice obviously is a good thing, when in Trasymachus theory justice is for the naive people who are controlled by the stronger,
"Moral absolutes are unhelpful when making decisions about medical ethics."
"Moral absolutes are unhelpful when making decisions about medical ethics." Some doctors would reject this claim, arguing that moral absolutes help decision making in medical ethics. For example, the rule 'Do not kill' is part of the oath taken by doctors. Some doctors would agonise over a decision whether to kill a terminally ill patient who has asked to die. These doctors might then feel guilty if the family turned out to have different wishes, or if a cure was later found for the illness. Having absolute moral rules helps doctors, because they don't have to think about the individual circumstances or worry about possible consequences that are impossible to calculate or predict. Others claim that this oversimplifies modern medicine. It is not clear, they may say, what would count as killing someone. Doctors disagree about the definition of death as 'brain-stem death'. Some doctors would consider withholding food as killing a patient, while others would disagree. Doctors may say that, rather than trying to apply inflexible moral absolutes, it is better to focus on the well-being of the patient. If giving a high dose of painkillers prevented a patient from dying in agony, doctors might say it doesn't matter what rules were or weren't broken. Others would disagree, saying that clear rules are essential to protect patients and doctors. Doctors who had to kill Mary
Kants Theory cannot be used to make decisions about abortion. Discuss.
Kant’s Theory cannot be used to make decisions about abortion I will be discussing the above statement by discussing the reasons in support of the statement and reasons that are not in support of the statement Firstly some may say that Kant’s theory cannot be used to make decisions about abortion as Kant does not recognise moral dilemmas. A dictionary definition of a moral dilemma is this - ‘A moral dilemma is a complex situation that often involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another’. Abortion can be categorised as a moral dilemma as it involves the individual making the decision to be involved in some sort of mental conflict between what is morally correct in that situation and what is not. Kant believes that when making a moral decision you should not let your emotions contribute to the decision. When looking at something such as abortion, which solely is based on the factor of emotions, it is virtually impossible to not let it interfere when making such decisions. By contrast others may disagree with the above statement as they believe that by using Kant’s theory they will be able to make a straight forward decision which does not involve emotions and confusion to contribute to the decision made. Kant believed that all moral decisions could be made from his ideas about categorical
Outsourcing Ethics.
Outsourcing Ethics What are the Outsourcing Ethics financial benefits to the organization and, ultimately, to the customer regarding the benefits of outsourcing in private industry? Does outsourcing improve responsiveness, quality, flexibility, and even provide a better focus on core business functions? For managers in private industry considering the benefits of in-house vs. outsourcing, the answers to these questions weigh heavily when making a decision on whether to outsource and that too with highest Outsourcing Ethics. Within government, the guidebook to federal outsourcing is Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, Aug. 4, 1983, which are in close agreement with these precepts of business and speaks specifically of achieving economy and enhancing the productivity of non-core functions. Why Outsourcing Ethics? All of these considerations are wonder-fully objective metrics in the world of business and government and greatly facilitate the decision on whether to out-source or not with full Outsourcing Ethics. However, these considerations are also somewhat cold and lack a humanistic element, especially for those employees who are being outsourced. The plight of the people being laid off are cause to wonder whether other considerations of Outsourcing Ethics, traditionally omitted from the balance sheet, should be examined
Explain how Natural Law is both teleological and deontological.
Explain how Natural Law is both teleological and deontological. Natural Law, according to Cicero is, “right reason in agreement with nature.” In other words, Natural Law is a set of five distinct principles which every human being is naturally inclined to live their life by. These five principles are known as the primary precepts. It is said by many that Natural Law is purely deontological considering the fact that you have a duty not to go against the primary precepts. However, if one delves deeper into the origins of Natural Law they will find that in fact, it comes from an Aristotelean teleological worldview and therefore, Natural Law is both teleological and deontological. Deontological ethics is a normative, ethical position which judges morality on one’s adherence to the rules. Deontological ethics in most cases are not interested in the consequence of obeying the rules but instead on one’s duty to the rules themselves. According to Aquinas, Natural Law is the divine will of God and thus, one is sinning if they do something which goes against Natural Law. For example, Aquinas would say that contraception is intrinsically wrong and is an apparent good instead of a real good due to the fact that it goes against the primary precept of reproduction. The fact that Natural Law focuses much on the ethicalness on an action and on the duty to a set of rules shows that
What is it meant by 'moral relativism?'
Situation Ethics 'What is it meant by 'moral relativism?' Moral relativism is the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this ethical theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa, there are no moral absolutes. The individual form of moral relativism is called subjectivism; this is where each individual has his or her own moral principles. An idea or opinion is limited by own experience, that opinion is true to the person even though another person may not agree. Conventionalism is an observable fact that moral values differ from society to society, for example, in the United Kingdom we believe that hanging is wrong, where as in China they do. The dependency thesis, moral values are created by society, they are a product of culture. The young experience and internalize values, they then conform to society; stick to the values and in the end everyone is conventionalist. Situation ethics deals with the situation. It's the action that brings the greatest number of love (agape) to the greatest number of people, which is good. With situation ethics you cannot prescribe rules but must make decisions to deal with the situations. It is a way of imitating Jesus or Gods love. The strengths of moral
Explore the view that morality without religious belief is impossible
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Explore the view that morality without religious belief is impossible (15) Many would agree with the statement that morality without religious belief is impossible, because religions provide an unchanging moral code whereas secular morality varies depending on society and culture. Documents such as the Decalogue transcend time, but constitutions and laws of man are constantly being amended and reviewed. Morality without God is merely subjective; two people will have different ideas on what is to be considered moral. This will only lead to confusion. For example, some cultures today still regard the beating of wives and children to be moral even though our western society would disagree. Without a religious standard, who is to say we hold the correct opinion? It is worth noting that majority of people that are revered for their good works and ethics are religious, such as Mother Theresa and the Dali Lama. Correspondingly, some of the most notorious criminals such as Hitler and Stalin were staunch atheists - this is not to say that all atheists are on the level of these men, but it is evident that when a society attempts to crush religion rampant immorality will soon follow. You cannot look to a leader of a country for your morals because they are fallible humans just like you. You need a perfect standard to look up to: God. Atheists lack this
Relativist theories offer no convincing reasons for people to be moral. Discuss 25 marks
‘Relativist theories offer no convincing reasons for people to be moral.’ Discuss Relativist theories do offer convincing reasons for people to be moral for several reasons however the main one is due to Joseph Fletchers ‘Situation Ethics.’ Relativism is the idea that nothing can be said to be objectively right or wrong; it depends on the situation, the culture, way of upbringing etc. People would disagree with me because they are absolutists. This is an objective moral rule or value that is always true in all situations and for everyone without exception. Absolutists would believe that relativism offers no convincing reasons for people to be moral because morals can be manipulated by society which is always changing. An example of this is abortion. They would say that it is wrong and relativism is the reason why it has been made legal due to the changes in society. Secondly, they would say that the dependency thesis is too tolerant because different cultures/society’s would allow for different things (i.e. slavery could be allowed in one country but not another). From an absolute point of view, this is bad because there should be one universal moral law stating weather slavery is morally right or wrong. In my opinion, relativism offers convincing reason for people to be moral because of ‘agape.’ This is acting and thinking on the most loving thing to do.
"Do you agree that Cathy O'Dowd and here fellow mountaineers had no choice but to leave Fran "to die"?"
"Don't leave me here to die" "Do you agree that Cathy O'Dowd and here fellow mountaineers had no choice but to leave Fran "to die"?" In the newspaper article Cathy O'Dowd clearly tries to make the reader believe that she did the right thing. She identifies this in the sub heading "she faced a brutal choice: to risk her own life in a doomed rescue", noticeably the word "doomed" shows there was a severe risk of danger in any rescue attempt. I believe that in a way writing this article has allowed Cathy O'Dowd to exorcise some of her guilt, Cathy wants to explain her experience in full and get the reader to empathise with her. Finally, it may also be possible that Cathy wants to show the story in a feminine perspective. The article does undoubtedly give many good reasons why not to attempt to save Fran. But I am not completely shore that they had "no choice but to leave Fran". The fact that there were nine people on the mountain and that together they couldn't even try to help rescue Fran is rather peculiar. I don't know what others would do, but I would at least try to help, rather than to just leave her "to die". Also, Cathy states that they had been with Fran "for nearly an hour" pondering over what to do, this completely wastes time and any chances of saving her. Cathy is in a moral dilemma, and I believe the moral thing to do would be to attempt a rescue. The three
Mass Media Ethics
Mass Media Ethics Journalism and the Code of Ethics Introduction: What? Thesis - Current code is irrelevant to journalists Why? Importance of ethics in mass media How? A qualitative look Areas of concern . Current Code of Ethics 2. Responsibility of Journalists 3. Forces that motivate Journalists and how this impacts the truth Analysis: Current Code of Ethics creates a false perception that Journalists are unbiased. Conclusion: There is no need for the current Code of Ethics. We need to redefine the code in order for it to be effective. Mass Communication Mass Media Ethics Major Essay Topic: Journalism and the Code of Ethics Introduction Define Ethics Impact of Journalism in Society What? The current code is irrelevant to journalists, for they are agents of the mass media employed by those most powerful and influential in society. Why? Ethics is important in every aspect of life especially important in our communications with others. An exploration of the ethics and the motivations that underlie journalists (influential agents of mass media) is fundamentally important in understanding the mass media as an agent of those dominant in our society and the forces that motivate them in their exploration of the truth. How? A qualitative analysis of the issues pertaining to journalism and the current Code of Ethics, utilizing information from a variety of