Differences Between Weak Impermissibility And The Bystander Cases

In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram reports from his studies of how far an individual can go in obedience to instructions and he pointed out that individuals can go as far as causing serious harm to the other people. Basically, the experiments are meant to test the choice that an individual would make when faced with the conflict of choosing between obedience to authority and obedience to one’s conscience. From the tests, it was found out that a number of people would go against their own conscience of choosing between what is wrong and what is right so as to please the individual in authority (Milgram 317). However, the experiments conducted by Milgram caused a wide range of controversy for instance; according to Diana Baumrind, the experiments were immoral. Baumrind notes in ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that Milgram did not only entrap his subjects, but he also potentially caused harm to his subjects (Baumrind 329). Based on the arguments that have been presented by the two authors, it is apparent that the two authors are concerned with real life situations, authority and ethics but the difference is that they both view these perspectives from different points of view as indicated by their writings. By and large, they also tend to show the importance or the insignificance of the experiments.

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

These groundbreaking and controversial experiments indicate that social influence and constraints can make people comform to untruth or express cruelty. We will see how Asch and Milgram teach us that in a concrete situation with efficacious social constraints our moral sense can easily be trampled.

P2. We make moral judgments about people based on events that are out of their control.

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

To base morality on a system of hypothetical imperatives, Foot begins by explaining Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative can be contrasted with a categorical imperative in that it commands an “action that is good to some

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

In the article, “On the Psychology of the Belief in a Just World: Exploring Experiential and Rationalistic Paths to Victim Blaming” by Kees van den Bos and Marjolein Maas, they used two ways to study the impact of just-world processes on the blaming of innocent victims. In Experiment 1, they assessed stable individual differences in which participants believed that the world is a just place, and in an unrelated part of the experiment, they examined the influence of those beliefs on participants’ blaming of victims of robbery and sexual assault. In Experiment 2, they built on the work by Hafer, who manipulated whether threats to the belief that the world is just whether they are strong or weak. Threats to the belief are strong, for example, when an offender

I read three quotes that caught my attention. “Note that moral judgement must be backed by good reasons-if it true that you ought (or might not) to do such-and-such, then there must be a reason why you should (or should not) do it,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.135) Moral judgement is classified in good reasons only. If a good reason is provided than it’s okay to do it. “The idea that moral rules have no exception is hard to defend,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.129) Moral rules are different in many ways, so little can influence the outcome. “At first Truman was reluctant to use the new weapon.” (Rachel and Rachel pg. 126) So, Truman didn’t like the idea of killing off people who were innocent. But with desperate measure, he made his mind up and agree.

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

Morality is not a device by which individuals decide how to appropriate from wrong, yet an apparatus people utilize either intentionally or unwittingly to serve their own particular finishes. Unmistakably, all-inclusive gauges of good and bad don't exist. The conditions Didion delineated in her article, and additionally current world occasions, show that reality. However, many individuals don't concur with that investigation, and as Didion brings up in her essay, that trends are unsafe. Individuals who hold fast themselves to an as far as anyone knows all-inclusive good code can bamboozle themselves into deduction individuals who don't take after that code are heathens who are not as much as human. As the occasions of September 11, 2001, appear,

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

From the reading, I understand that people think and act differently when faced with ethical issues. For one to make a rational decision, an extensive process of judgment is required (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000). For an individual to be responsible, he or she should put into consideration the magnitude of the consequences of the actions, social

Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of followings one’s feelings. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion. Being ethical is not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are ethical. But standards of behaviour in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is good example of a morally corrupt society. What then, is

Our conclusions on any occasion are direct consequences of any developed concept in our minds. We see the world as we want to see it through our personal perceptions. When we are categorizing anything as desirable or otherwise, we judge using the concepts that we hold to us. Although different concepts may shape different conclusions, they are all influenced by beliefs and experiences. So, to what extent do our beliefs modify the conclusions that we may reach? The knowledge obtained through out someone’s life through their experiences, or belief system direct decision making almost completely. In my essay I will explore how Ethics and Human sciences correlate with this topic. I will also implement and tie in the connections of Reason and link these concepts with belief and experiences.