An Example Of Categorical Moral Reasoning

Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one’s actions are the superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who “everyone” truly is and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non-human animals, who are both susceptible to suffering, are morally equal.

Values are defined as the importance or preciousness of something. A long time ago, around the early 16 century the puritans came to the America they live with the Native Americans and had a set of values they both believed in and lived by. One may not expect to find many similarities between both of these groups, but there are many. The Native Americans were not very different than the Puritans. Native Americans valued many things like religion, family, and the concept of things being balanced. Specifically, they strongly appreciated their family. Puritans similar to the Native Americans, the Puritans were more civilized and valued family, life, religion.

Values help people determine what is right and wrong. They provide our moral compass in life.

Values create motivation within a person to act in a situation for someone who does not seem to be asking for it. An example of this is shown in the novel, “There Will Be Wolves” by Karleen Bradford. In this book, Ursula, the daughter of an apothercary, Master William, was accused to being a witch for healing an injured dog with Bruno, instead of being punished, Ursula was forced to join the Crusade for a complete absolution. In their journey, people will learn how to show importance to anyone. Some people do not realize the things they do are wrong that have good intentions for someone.

Values can be a person’s ideal way on how to behave in certain places or their principles, just like ethics, beliefs, or standards (Henslin). Values can vary in cultures or religions as well. For example, when it comes to the LGBT community, which is also known as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, I believe that everyone deserves to be happy

As per its author of Alienation, Consequentialism, and Society, Railton’s opinion of what a sophisticated consequentialist is:

Values relate to our personal principles, morals, and ideals—that is, what we consider to be important.Each person is unique, with their own personal values and beliefs shaped by a number of factors that include culture, religion, and personal experiences.We value each person as an individual, respect their aspirations and commitments in life, and seek to understand their priorities, needs, abilities and limits.

Analyse your own value base and describe its relationship to social care values and the goals of your agency. Values are our views and beliefs about what we feel is important to us, useful and are of worth, we hold our values in high regard. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com, (2016) Like all people in society I have learned my values through primary socialisation, which begins at childhood, it is based on family and it’s where we learn our cultures, language, values and expectations for socially accepted behaviours. We can follow on our parent’s values and turn them into our own or we can hold our own personal values throughout life. The next part of the socialisation process which can have an influence on an individual and has had an influence

It is difficult to justify consequentialism in certain situations. Reason is a way of knowing that relies heavily on premises as its foundations. The premises are always considered to be the truth, and have evidence or justification to support these premises. This justification is really important in ethics when it comes to deciding on the course of action. For example, if person A was going to commit mass murder (he has not done so yet) and person B catches him, would the right thing be to kill person A before he commits the crime or to let him be and wait until he commits the crime and then punish him? This is when consequentialism fails to provide a solution to the dilemma. Using consequentialism, the first solution would be considered right. If person B were to kill person A, he would be saving the lives of person A’s victims. It benefits the most number of

Analyzing this case through the lens of Consequentialism Theory (CT) will have two different results from two different points of view. CT says all acts are good if they produce a good result, but bad if they produce a bad result. It seems that redirecting money to pay off the medical expenses from the point view of Mr. GH and Mr. JB is an inconsequential behavior particularly Mr. GH immediately started to return back the money. However, on the other hand, this behavior had bad consequences for the TMI as Mr. GH despite of his fraud has received all his benefits, and will have bad consequences as TMI will lose public reputation and trust.

Values are beliefs and standards that an individual holds. In social work, many decisions will be based upon the values a generalist

For decades, moral psychology had been heavily influenced by theories emphasising on the role of reason and emotion in making moral judgements. Moral reasoning was thought to be defined as a slow, conscious and deliberative mental process that involved effortful and controllable manipulation of given information to arrive to a judgement (Haidt, 2001). On the other hand, moral emotions involved an intuitive emotional process that occurs impulsively and effortless without the person having conscious awareness of the mental processes that led to the concluded judgement (Haidt, 2001).

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system in which it is posited that the most ethical thing for a person to do is to maximize the happiness within their society. Utilitarianists believe that the consequences of actions can be calculated so that it can be seen that the consequences that produce the most good are the best for most of society. This can be done by basing all of one’s own decisions and actions on the increase of overall happiness of one’s society. If a particular action would produce more bad or evil for the society, then that action would be superseded by an action that either causes the least evil, if no good can arise, or the action that causes the most good which is most favorable. Generally, utilitarianism tells

In the case of humans, the hedonistic utilitarian can also point to indirect reasons, such as the fear the killing may bring into the rest of society (if they find out about the killing, other members of society may fear they will be too), and the suffering the death may bring to the friends and relatives of the victim. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that none of these reasons refer to the loss of the victim herself. Typically, we do not condemn the killing of an innocent being due to the effects it may have on others (although it could be an aggravating factor), but due to the loss suffered by the victim herself.

Now that both sides have been established, those stakeholders who favor and those who oppose the policy in question, each of their argument 's evidence and reasoning will be analyzed. The corresponding pages which follow will provide an understanding of each side through three developed sections: a critical analysis, moral reasoning, and a tentative solution. The critical analysis will thoroughly measure to what level an argument 's authoritative, accuracy, reliability, precision, applicability, and etc. is able to represent their claims. At the same time the critical analysis includes a judgement call on whether or not a side 'wins ' or 'loses ' each of their arguments based upon the strength and weakness of the argument 's claims and evidence. The moral reasoning section will then secondary the value of each side 's evidence, and focus on analyzing each side 's moral reasoning, or rather, evaluating what "values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles" present reasonableness to their position on morality. Following these two sections of analysis, a conclusion will be made on which of the two sides makes an overall stronger, more conclusive and moral argued solution to the normative question.