Ethics And Moral Reasoning

Dignity is a complicated notion but a significance and viewpoint that is critical to nursing. Dignity is at the core of good nursing care. There have been several empirical studies that explored dignity an indignity in healthcare and these studies focused on the standpoints of patients and providers. Recently more attention has been place on the experiences and perspectives of nurses when conducting the studies. Most nurses have high levels of awareness of dignity and how to be sensitive to dignity related situations which combined with a concern in association to dignity defiance and the empowered commitment to dignified care makes room for ultimate ethical treatment (Calnan, Woolhead, & Dieppe, 2007). Health and

“More men graduating from baccalaureate and higher degree programs” is not the best answer because associate degree programs produce the most new graduates.

Business corporations are a dog eat world. Business is made up of many aspects from political, social, and environmental responsibilities to those of ethics and responsibility. Every business and major corporation has to deal with these in a much different way. For example, small business’s need more of the social responsibility in order to have more trade and an increased profit. For the major corporations the focus is on what is going on in politics, social, and environmental due to the economy or the state of their countries.

The authors explore the idea that the use of social media is prevalent among student and new nurses. There are little understood social and ethical implications surrounding this use. In the absence of a concrete understanding of the professional nursing accountability, the work and educational faculties are left to provide needed guidance for these two groups. There is limited research illuminating student nurses understanding of the ANA’s Principles for Social Networking or their accountability for their social media posts and how they relate to the ANA Code of Ethics (Englund, Chappy, Jambunathan & Gohdes, 2012). The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh addressed an increase in the unprofessional

Pacifism movements impact both soldiers and civilians. Pacifism may embrace in some instances self-defense. However, reasons to support the preservation of ourselves does not justify war. War is considered an unpardonable desecration of humanity. Antiwar arguments include that self-defense is not qualified since surrender is an option, soldiers kill other when they are in no danger (Johnson,1975). War may exonerate soldiers from legal liability because, during war, the enemy is expected to be killed however it is morally unjust (Shaw,2014). Lackey states that the excuse of self-defense can be avoided by surrendering. Perhaps the most significant tragedy of war and one opposed by Lackey’s argument is the innocent killing of civilians (Shaw,2014).

There is something known as “The Trolley Problem” that is utilized as a hypothetical situation in the study of ethics and morality. The most famous trolley problem is that: you are driving a trolley and on the track ahead of you, there are five men working who will be killed unless you pull a lever to divert the train to the other track. However, on the other track there is one man working who will be killed if you choose to divert the train. What would you do? In this situation, people based on their moral compass which is a natural feeling that makes people know what is right and wrong and how they should behave (defined by Cambridge Dictionaries) make the choose that they believe right. According to Utilitarian, the Greatest Happiness Principle is the foundation of morality which, is a consequentialist belief that actions should be based on maximizing the amount of happiness for the whole of society. However, one of the most well know philosopher Immanuel Kant states that moral behaviors do not look for rewards, but to be responsible in performing a duty. This is the innate sense of right or wrong, no matter satisfaction and enjoyment exists or not and whether our needs are satisfied and our feelings are eased or not. In his perspective, morals are higher than your mental state and desires. In fact, these two moral theory make a deeper influence of my moral compass during the different time of my life. When I first consider the “The Trolley Problem” in the high school, I

Many people think of their parents or a famous person as their hero however, I chose my husband. He poses the number one ethical principle I rely on the most. Ethical communicators are honest. Despite how much he love and appreciate me, he will always tell me the truth. Honestly there have been times where my feelings were hurt nonetheless, I am grateful to know I can always depend on him to tell it like it is. Not everyone wants to hear the truth, especially if it puts anything they are doing in jeopardy. In addition, being an honest communicator people will cling to you for advice. An audience expects to hear the truth when you are speaking to them (Verderber & Sellnow, 2011). Factual communication allows your listeners to embrace your

There are four main perspectives on moral reasoning and all of them have their positive and negative sides. In the article The Basic Stances of Metaethics the authors define each of the main perspectives on moral reasoning, objectivism, cultural relativism, subjective relativism, and emotivism, and they leave the reader with a good understanding of each of them. In this essay I am going to outline the central arguments of each perspective and give positive and negative critiques.

Ethical dilemmas are common occurrences in the world, especially when it comes to war. They can create situations with very difficult decisions and unknown consequences. Due to the difficulty and necessity for a decision during an ethical dilemma, it is important for soldiers to understand what an ethical dilemma is, and how to proceed in making a decision during such an event. The true story and movie “Lone Survivor” provides an excellent example of an ethical dilemma and the potential consequences of each decision that could be made during the scenario. This paper will go over the ethical dilemma, the possible solutions and consequences of such a dilemma and the choice I would have committed to.

What are morals and ethics? In reality these two words can mean many different things to many different people. Definitively, morals are “concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior” (Merriam-Webster.com). This is where it becomes complicated, because establishing what is really right and wrong and getting rid of the grey areas in an imperfect world is impossible. Ethics are “rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad” (Merriam-Webster.com). So, while they’re fairly similar, they do differ minutely. But, more so, they differ from different countries, different states, different religions, different jobs, different

Introduction: It is hard, and almost impossible to pinpoint a single human universal on ethics and morality. Ethics among different cultures is so vast, even though every culture does have a standard for ethics which they live by. Although ethics is a broad human universal, there is no specific universal ethic. Each world religion holds a different ethic as their highest ethic; it is always a case by case basis.

Laws are a familiar concept, and provide a basic social framework of right and wrong to which the majority adhere. Ethical theories may also be applied to all issues of uncertainty, including those not covered by laws or professional guidelines. They create a mechanism within which issues of moral uncertainty may be questioned and resolved (Jones 1994). One such area of moral dilemma is that of informed consent.

he tension between reason and emotion in the human psyche has intrigued philosophers and psychologists for centuries. Under this theme, moral psychologists have investigated the roles of reason and emotion in making moral judgements, which, in the context of moral dilemmas, involves evaluating the acceptability of an action, given the virtues held by a specific culture (Haidt, 2001). Moral reasoning involves the conscious, effortful, and controllable mental manipulation of information, while moral emotions involve spontaneous, affectively charged judgements that lack conscious reasoning (Haidt, 2001). While earlier rationalist approaches argued that moral reasoning formed the basis of our moral judgements (Kohlberg, 1981), more recent approaches, such as Haidt’s (2001) Social Intuitionist Model, emphasise the role of affective processes, arguing that reasoned judgements are rare, and that most examples of reasoning are simply post-hoc rationalisations of emotionally grounded judgements. The dual-process model (DPM) (Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004) consolidates these two approaches, proposing that reason and emotion are distinct and equally important processes, which are elicited to different extents by particular features of moral situations, competing to form the final moral judgement. Under this model, Greene et al. (2004) made a key distinction between “personal” and “impersonal” moral dilemmas. In the Trolley Dilemma, a runaway trolley will kill five men

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.

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.