Assess Critically the Claim that Situation Ethics Provides a Better Method of Solving Moral Problems than Any Set of Moral Rules.
Hayley Thomas 12CR Assess Critically the Claim that Situation Ethics Provides a Better Method of Solving Moral Problems than Any Set of Moral Rules. In 1966 an Anglican theologian, Joseph Fletcher, developed Situation Ethics, challenging original methods that submit a rule or principle that should be applied in every situation. He tried to show that it is the individual and the particular situation that it is of paramount importance. He argued that the only moral principle that could be applied to all situations is to do whatever is the most loving thing. By using an agapeic calculus, one can calculate what would be the most loving thing to do. There is only one duty and that is to love 'thy neighbour as thyself'. Basically, Situation Ethics encompasses the following six ideas; first, as Joseph Fletcher stated: "only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all." Secondly, the overriding principle of decision making is love (agape) and nothing else. Thirdly, "love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else", in other words, Fletcher believed that justice is simply love at work in the community. Fletcher also held that "love wills the neighbours good, whether we like him or not." His fifth presupposition basically states that only the end justifies the means, i.e. love is the end, never the means to something else. Finally,
Our freedom to make ethical choices is only an apparent freedom. Discuss
Our freedom to make ethical choices is only an apparent freedom. Discuss Agent Smyth: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constrects of a feeble human intellect trying to desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?! Neo: Because I choose to. In every person the most basic desire of all is to be free, being able to act at will, not under compulsion or restraint. As I democratic society, we like to think of ourselves of being 100% free, but we are not. In every choice we make there are compulsions and restraints inflicting on the choices we have ever made from the beginning. The older and more independent we appear to be the more of these constraints we are compelled with. These choices we make can be applied to morality. There are many ways in which our freedom, in reality, is limited.
history of philosophy and ethics
Philosophy + Ethics The term philosophy derives from a combination of the Ancient Greek words. The word itself is of Greek origin: philosophía, a compound of phílos and sophía. Philos; meaning friend or lover and Sophia; meaning wisdom. What philosophy is, or should be, is itself a philosophical question that philosophers have understood and treated differently through the ages. Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live, what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures, what counts as genuine knowledge and what are the correct principles of reasoning. Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy. Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason. There are essentially philosophical propositions which it is the task of philosophy to prove. Ancient Greek philosophy came from the pre-Socratic period through to the Hellenistic period, focusing on the development of Greek views of the cosmos, the soul, and
Is there a link between Morality and Religion?
Is there a link between Morality and Religion? "Religion and morality go together like boiled beef and carrots. You often find them together but it is perfectly possible to have one without the other" Willett For centuries there has been this constant on going debate on whether there is or is not a link between morality and religion. Plato was one of the first to face the question laying the grounds for the Euthyphro dilemma. A discussion between himself and Socrates was based on a young man, Euthyphro. He had planned to prosecute his father after he had tied up drunken peasant involved in a fight. His father had intended to report him to the authorities however he forgot about the peasant, who of course eventually died. Euthyphro dismayed by the events, then set out to prosecute his father. The discussion leads then on whether that, "what human beings are morally oblige to do rest on what the gods command, or whether the gods only command what is good independent of their commanding it" It follows this idea of is x right because God wills it (This statement I will use for there being link between the two), or God wills x because it is right (This statement I will use for their not being a link between the two). If x is right because God wills it run this view that God is projected as the creator of morality- the instigator of ethical principles, therefore his
Moral and Ethical Views on Forest Fires
Morals and Ethics: While speaking of the moral and ethical views of forest fires, there are several aspects that can be held considerable; one of which is: Who is responsible for forest fires? Who should we blame? Is the government the cause of these fires, are they not investing sufficient money? Or is it the publics fault - are they carelessly creating fires? Blame and responsibility can be considered a key aspect in this topic, as despite the fact that many times forest fires may be a natural process, but nowadays, it is generally caused by human activities. In many ways, there is no possible way to "point the finger" at someone and censor them for being responsible for this global problem, as each and every individual plays a role in the occurrence of forest fires. However, i believe that the Government should be to blame, as they are responsible for what goes on in Portugal, and if they see that there are a higher number of forest fires in Portugal than in other countries, then they should present concern. Not even that, because of the large number of casualties, instability and rate of fire spread, they should take more action, such as buying more advanced equipment, keeping more men to assist in the event of a forest fire, making sure that the people of Portugal are prepared for the event of a forest fire - by providing free education and survival techniques - or even
Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition.
. What is ethics? a.) Ehics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml) b.) "Ethics" refers to the moral values that govern the appropriate conduct of an individual or group. "Ethics" speaks to how we ought to live, that is, how we ought to treat others and how we ought to run or manage our own lives. Ethics as systematic thinking "Ethics," as a branch of philosophy, is a systematic attempt to understand the nature and foundations of morality and its effect on our conduct. This involves considering questions of justification, such as, What are the foundations of morality? How do we know them to be true, or good, or right? It also involves questions of motivation, such as Why should we obey the demands of morality? Or, what motivates us to behave ethically? Ethics as action-guiding Ethics is concerned with norms - with standards of conduct - therefore it is concerned with what ought to be the case rather than merely what is the case. Thus, ethics is normative: it is concerned with how we ought to act and what results we ought to try to bring about.
How can we justify beliefs?
How can we justify beliefs? People believe we can justify beliefs in the following ways: Quantity and quality of evidence Anything that is believed based on evidence and seen at first sight and which you can be fairly sure about is something which you can be justified in believing. A number of things could be counted as "good evidence" and be taken seriously, e.g. eveidence like DNA samples and tests in a court of law. In different circumstances this evidence may not be adequate but the requirements that we would expect before a claim is justified is what is important, this point of quality and quantity of evidence is an obvious point to make but is undeniable and important. Predictive and explanatory power Justification of beliefs may have been made but the different degrees that the justification has been met have to be taken into account too. You may believe in a belief but this may be justified to certain degrees. A highly justified belief however, may also not be true and fail to be knowledge and a true belief you hold with insufficient justification may be true but not may be knowledge. True belief and knowledge do not have to necessarily coincide. This leads on to believe that belief allows us to makje predictions about very day events or explain certain phenomena. E.g. if I say that I have been painting my room red you would probably expect to see some red paint
utilitarianism and kant
Explain the main differences between Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant. (33) Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant are two opposing theories with two different outcomes. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. It maintains that it is the total consequence of an action, which determines is rightness or wrongness. It means that the morality of an action is to be safely determined through an assessment of its consequences. With utilitarianism it is not just personal happiness or self interest that counts, but the happiness and interest of everyone concerned. The basic principle of utilitarianism is 'an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.' In utilitarianism actions have no intrinsic value. In utilitarianism all people, ethically speaking are equal but the morally right action is the one, which produces the greatest overall positive consequences for the greatest number. This means in utilitarianism the majority are more important than the minority. There are two utilitarianist approaches, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stewart Mill (1806-1873). Jeremy Bentham, who stated that we should act in a way, which would maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This position is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Its aim is to lower overall pain and increase overall pleasure. What is produced form the consequence of an action is
Emotivism - Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion.
a) Explain what scholars mean when they say that ethical statements are no more than expressions of opinion. (33) Different groups of people have different opinions as to what moral statements are and how we arrive at them. Naturalists claim morals are part of the world and discovered using reason. Intuitionists believe we use our senses and consider the facts-intuition. However, emotivists believe moral statements to be nothing more than feelings and opinions. Some scholars believe ethical statements and moral judgements to be no more than emotive responses such as expressions of preference, attitude or feeling. It comes down to the 'Hurrah/Boo' theory. If I was to say, "Abortion is wrong", all I am really saying is that in my opinion, I believe abortion isn't right-"Boo to abortion". Even if I give reasons why to back the moral statement up, those reasons are just my emotions to support a feeling. Some emotivists are logical positivists and they believe that all language is analytic, synthetic or meaningless. That is, the different parts of the sentence can arrive at the truth or falsehood OR it can be proved through i.e. experiments and senses OR it is just meaningless. Meaningless is what some scholars believe ethical statements to be. When they say they are no more than expressions of opinion, they mean that there can be no way in which we could verify the right or
You are aware of a colleague who is misrepresenting him or herself regarding credentials. What are you required to do? Cite the ethical violation in this case giving the code number from the APA code of ethics.
You are aware of a colleague who is misrepresenting him or herself regarding credentials. What are you required to do? Cite the ethical violation in this case giving the code number from the APA code of ethics. Does your state or province impose any requirements on you in this situation? According to the APA code of ethics (2002), a colleague who is misrepresenting themselves regarding their credentials, is violating code number 5.01, "Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements". This code states: "(a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive, or fraudulent concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated. (b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association