Reflection 2 philosophy PDF

Preview

Summary

open ended questions...

Description

CURRENT MORAL & SOCIAL ISSUES:

Reflection 2: Ethical Writing Diagnostic 1. DEONTOLOGY VS. CONSEQUENTIALISM In philosophical discussions of ethics, philosophers differ on the proper approach to making ethical judgments. On the one hand, deontologists argue that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. An example of this would be Kant’s theory that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty. According to this view, in order for something to be the highest good, it must be good in itself. In other words, according to Kant, something is “good in itself” when it is intrinsically good. On the other hand, consequentialists contend that a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. An example of this would be the ethical egoism theory. From this viewpoint, the consequences for the individual are taken to matter more than any other result, thus, resulting in actions that may be beneficial to the welfare of others. In sum, the issue is whether the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions are justifiable based on the character of the behavior itself or the outcomes of the conduct. My own view is with the deontology theory; the morality of our actions should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong. For example, as discussed in class, suppose that John baked nut brownies for his class friend to express his admiration for her without knowing that she was allergic to nuts, which results in her having a threatening allergic reaction; John’s actions should not be judged as morally wrong based on the unforeseen outcome. In my opinion, it’s the thought that matters, his act came from a good place. Though I concede/recognize that many of our actions can lead to bad outcomes, despite having all the right intentions, I do believe it should be frowned upon to judge someone judge one’s actions sans any malicious intent as that would deter individuals from trying to do good. Although, some may object that his actions were morally wrong because he should have asked beforehand, my reply is that he was in the right because he’s a child and his actions were inherently good. Support with reasons and/or evidence [Pg. 12] 2. THE QUESTION OF ETHICAL OBJECTIVISM VS. SUBJECTIVISM In philosophical discussions of ethics, philosophers differ on whether or moral judgments refer to something objective or are, instead, simply reports of our subjective feelings and dispositions. On the one hand, objectivists argue that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. An example of this would be Ayn Rand’s belief that reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. From this viewpoint, what one observes would be observed the same by anyone else; that is because to look at something objectively is to not let one’s opinions on the matter affect the way one sees it. On the other hand, subjectivists contend that truth, in effect resides only in the mind and there are no objective moral truths. For example, the way one person looks at an object may be different to another person’s view of it, therefore subjectivists would conclude that they are in fact looking at two different objects. In the words of modern philosopher David Hume, one of this view’s main proponents, “moral distinctions are not derived from reason, moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of

approval and disapproval felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action” (citation). According to this view, Hume agrees with the subjective point of view because in order for moral distinction to be derived from the moral sentiments means that moral distinction is based on one’s subjective feelings. In sum, the issue is whether actions are either right or they’re wrong without being open to interpretation or the distinction between right and wrong of a specific matter is dependent on one’s interpretation. My own view is with the objectivists who are very factual as oppose to the subjective belief that to be right or wrong is based solely on one’s mental choices or emotions. Though I concede/recognize that our interpretation of something can many times help determine our opinion on a matter, I still maintain that simply because one may interpret something one way, perhaps right, that does not make it right. Support with reasons and/or evidence [Pg. 8] 3. HACKING INTO HARVARD CASE STUDY: A controversy recently erupted when applicants at Harvard business school had the opportunity to know their fate through an anonymous hacker and peeked. Keep in mind that the applicants did not need to hack any system as they were accused of doing, but rather just change the end or the URL used to gain access, but still using their own log in credentials. This stirred an ethical debate as to whether the prospective students acted immorally or not. On the one hand, egoists argued that their action was encouraging their long-term interest. From this perspective, the applicants can be said to be morally right. On the other hand, objectivist could argue that the act of hacking without legal permission is inherently wrong. In philosophy, egoism is the theory that “one’s self is, or should be the motivation and the goal of one’s own action” (citation). According to this view, the applicants can be said to be morally right since their action was encouraging their long-term interest. Still, others even maintained that the act can be considered as being immoral, from a utilitarianism point of view if the consequences have more advantages, the then action should be performed. From this point of view the argument is that their act affected many applicants, parents, administration and overall student body. Though their action may have put their anxiety at rest, it brought suffering to others. In sum, the issue is whether hacking into an unauthorized site to view application results beforehand was immoral or not. My own view is that it was not immoral, they did not in fact hurt others as their actions did not in any way change or alter the results, they did however cause a breech a in trust which should have some kind of punishments but not as harsh as getting denied entry. Support with reasons and/or evidence

4. CHOOSE YOUR OWN CONTEMPORARY ISSUE TO ADDRESS: A controversy recently erupted on the disagreement of abortion. This stirred an ethical debate as to whether or not abortion is morally wrong. On the one hand, pro-choice advocates, whom can be described to have a subjective point of view argue that the right to seek an abortion is a personal decision that amounts to retaining control over one’s body. From this perspective, it would be immoral to take away women’s rights to seek abortion. At the time of seeking an abortion only the woman in question knows why she is taking those actions, perhaps she was raped, or the father walked out, or perhaps she can’t afford to give the child a good life, these are just some of many possible scenarios;

from her point of view she is in the right and doing what’s best not only for her but her the fetus inside her. On the other hand, pro-life advocates who comparatively from an objective point of view, argue that abortion is morally wrong under all circumstances because life begins at the moment of conception. In other words, an abortion is equivalent to murder. In the words of Rene Descartes, one of this view’s main proponents, “I think, therefore I am” (citation). In a not so literal translation, this belief would argue, that what one believes is what is. Applying this belief to the case of a female seeking abortion, if in her mind she is doing it with the best interest in mind, and in her mind, she is in the right, then she is. Still, others maintain that though an abortion may be in the female’s best interest, it is not in the best interest of the fetus whom is considered a life from the point of conception. Their argument is that the fetus has a right to life. In sum, the issue is whether an abortion is moral or immoral and therefore should be regulated by government control. Though, based on my religious background I concede/recognize that taking a life under any circumstance is immoral under all circumstances because it is a sin, I still maintain that women should have to freedom of making their own choices over their bodies. Support with reasons and/or evidence...