Ethical Norm Analysis

In chapter 2 of the Ethics Primer Svara discusses many important ideas. Some of these included the importance of people who work for the government doing their civic duty , 3 types of ethical reasonings brought up by a student, and Lawrence Kholbergs model of moral judgement. In the book Svara brings up how people in certain roles have a job to do. They must meet the expectations expected of them or they aren’t serving the public in a full capacity. As you read on the 3 types of ethical reasonings are discussed. They are virtue, principle, and to be a public employee. This student I feel has a pretty spot on idea of how people should act. Honesty and following the law are just things ethically sound people should be doing. It doesn't take a genious to understand right from wrong. Finally a major point of the chapter discussed Lawrence Kohlberg and his model of moral judgement. “Lawrence kholberg (1981) offers a model of moral judgement to help understand how the capacity for ethical reasoning develops and explains the motives for acting at different stages of development”.(23) More specifically he gives the six stages of maturity children go through. These being punishment and obedience, instrumental relativist, good boy;nice girl, society maintaining/law and order, social contract, universal ethical

Norm violations are a form of actions that do not seem right to some people. Let’s say that you are in a public place, you are expected to act respectful and normal. Norms describes the expectation of a behavior. (James M. Henslin) One can perform a norm violation by doing the opposite of that, like invading personal space. There can be different reactions to violated norms which sociologists call sanctions. (Henslin) Mores, folkways, and values revolve around norms as well.

As we are moving in to a society of more and more people being diagnosed with some form of mental disability, the ethical boundaries that are set as a guide line for professionals are just that. A guide line. The article “The Conversation Continues… Historic Shifts in the Debate on Ethical Boundaries.” Ofer Zur uses real life scenarios about roads we as professionals might travel while dealing with clients in the Human Service industry.

Pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct (Dictionary.com).

For this excerise, my partner and I decided to go with option A. The norm we decided to violate was staring at someone's screen. Simar and I went to the IC on Tuesday afternoon and took turns watching over peoples backs. While Simar stood behind our subject and waited for them to notice her, I sat close by to observe the subject's reaction. We decided to minimize the conversation and give one word replies if we were spoken to. We did not initiate conversation and avoided making eye-contact to ensure we dont laugh. Regardless of how the subjects reacted, we stared at each screen for 30 seconds to ensure consistency.

It is agreeable that some solid, well-considered ethical philosophies person only change their mind by convinced reasons or proofs, meanwhile others make decisions based on feelings. It depends on application of different circumstances, beliefs, which will drive people’s certain actions, and behavioural ethics, which help answering how and why they have those ethical or unethical decisions. Some people followed reasonability set by their close ones or society, even though they have own well-intentioned standards, called conformity bias. Particularly, they are tendencies of having similar behaviours or actions with the group under influence of group norm despite the contrary to their own judgment (Asch 1956). Another possibilities could be influence

What does it mean to be morally right or wrong, and how does one tell the difference? Morality is society’s scale for determining good and evil, but over hundreds of years moral and ethical guidelines have changed with a developing society. More and more often, Americans can be found taking shortcuts in jobs, sneaking to get that extra cash, and allowing themselves the moral right to be immoral to others. While this might seem like society taking a downward turn, however, it is usually the environment that encourages them to step out ethical lines. The problem is created by the environment generated by the American desire for success that allows and encourages the increasing moral licensing.

Build a mirror CRM production system over the next two weeks so that a rebuilding of the main CRM system could occur to plug security holes and assure that another DoS attack would not be successful.

Ethics over morals. The NLDC has a systematic formula for analysis; one that can be used in any situation. It can provide an answer to the question the standard asks, like does taking away private property for public use provide the most good for the most involved. This is far more effective and concrete than speaking in general terms of what a person believes, as it goes deeper in showing all the factors that play into the corporations actions. Each standard can be compared to other situations, as much of the ambiguity has been taken out of the analysis.

I've expressed elsewhere that ethics is fundamentally the objectification of one's sentiments onto objects. To provide a brief summation, outside influences provoke a emotional reaction in ourselves, which leads us to project our attitudes onto the world. These attitudes then become reified onto objects as though they were objective, but in actuality it is on the basis of our sentiments. If something produces a pleasing sentiment in us, then we tend to have a magnetic desire towards it. Likewise, a displeasing feeling makes us repulsed. On this basis, we tend to declare something as good if and only if it produces a sentiment of approbation in ourselves or in others. Thus, ethical statements are comparable to statements about colors which exist only in the mind.

Throughout the first chapter it spoke of what is morally right and what is morally incorrect. Something I found interesting was page 11 moral reasoning, why you might ask? Well I feel that it describes "the morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments" (11). I liked this because if someone is going to do something they should have the right knowledge on the situation at hand, without the correct information they will make the wrong choice and that could end up affect either them or others in the long run. Now based on the discussion question which is "Ethics claims that the morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by reason. What assumptions about human beings and ethical decision-making

In the email message, there are two parts to this ethical dilemm. On one hand, you must consider your professional career. If you inform your friend about the information you learned, and someone found out you were the one who told, you could be in serious trouble with the hospital you work for. There is also the issue of company loyality, do you like working for that hospital? Have they treated you well? I would feel some since of loyality to protect their information. On the other hand, don't you have an obligation to be a good friend, I mean she just bought a house, losing her job could most defiently put her in a fiance bind. A head's up about the changes in the company might be nice so she is better perpared to deal with loss of her job.

What is a right or obligation? What is good or bad? These two questions are examples of why mete-ethics and normative ethics exist. To be able to create an environmental ethic, one must have a sense of moral conclusion. Whether these morals are categorized through self-interest or obligation, meta ethics and normative ethics try to decipher these notions. To derive a normative ethic, meta-ethics needs to explain the language of morality, and how do humans come to a consensus of specific actions and thoughts. Ethics, by short definition, is how we (humans) relate to other beings (humans, animals, environment, etc.). Language such as, “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad”, and “obligation” are defined in different ways by different people,

Ethics surrounds many emotions which are not accepted by morality as not important what is discussed about it at the moment. It is also regularly used in same manner as with morality. Ethical concern having largely taken place with friends, family and society as well, preparing a place for ideals such as social justice. Such Ethics able to exist or occurs together without conflict, like ancient Greek explanation of the good life as found in Aristotle and Plato.

Ethics are a standard of right behaviour controlled by our moral principles. Our ethics control our actions, what we believe in and say is somewhat affected by our ethics. Although our ethics play an imperative role in our lives it sometimes may be limitation, especially when it comes to knowledge our ethics may become an obstacle. Some say ethics there to protect us, some argue they are a hindrance. Our ethics come from two major ways of knowing which are emotion and reasoning. This essay will tackle the knowledge issue which is “Is our ethical judgements hindrance on our knowledge a good thing?” I will be focusing on two areas of knowing which Natural Sciences and the Arts.