Ethics Is A Hard Idea Of Ethical Reasoning

Equality of opportunity does not exist in the world as we know it. To believe otherwise, however optimistic, is ignorant and misguided. Social equilibrium is built upon a balance of equality and inequality where harsh ethical standards must be upheld to reach maximum potential. Garrett Hardin’s essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” sets the precedent of these ethical standards to determine the nature of a society which favors the wealthy. Hardin’s definition of ethics is a harsh reality that calls for complete utilitarianism where the moral implications of an action are solely dependent on how the outcome affects the greater good; a concept which can be applied to the Syrians seeking refuge in the United States.

Ethical reasoning, to me, is exactly what it sounds like: using one’s own ethics and moral standings in order to reason through a controversial situation. Or, in fewer words, using one’s sense of right and wrong to make a decision. The factors which weigh into ethical reasoning are endless; one’s background, education, personal experiences, religious and political standings as well as their personality and the people they surround themselves with can all make an impact on how someone uses ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning is different from other types of reasoning in that it uses both emotion and logic in order to make a decision. Rather than be based purely on how someone feels or the facts of the situation, ethical reasoning involves using both the logistics of the situation as well as one’s personal emotions and morals.

Wittgenstein hardly speaks about ethics in the Tractatus, and what he does state is that ethics is a proposition which is not able to be placed into words. Ethics is not a mass of wisdom, even though it is consistent with the Tractatus. Ethics presents a common perspective, and given that it is possible to render no universal statements regarding the nature of the world, essentially, it emerges itself in the manner in which the world is dealt with the. Using this, our ethical perspective defines the world we live in. Ethics is of unparalleled significance for Wittgenstein distinctly on this basis, additionally, it may not be conveyed with words. Alice Crary argues in Beyond Moral Judgement that Wittgenstein’s On Certainty is an

For our weekly discussion, we have been asked if profiling is moral ethical or neither. Chapter four covers the various ideas of ethics and their absolute status. For the purpose of our discussion, the individual author will break down the different ideas from the text and authors he has studied to define morality, and in the second to use those findings and apply them to profiling.

An ethical issue is where an individual or a party have to undertake a moral judgement in which his or her morale values are being challenged (Hannafey, 2009). Is it right that Chris Knox befriended the CFO of Armadillo Gas and Power with only one reason on his mind? For him to try to land his account at this company (SFS). To mention that he was “not that familiar with Armadillo Gas, but maybe don’t need the high-level services [SFS] offer. Maybe [SFS is] is more expensive than what [Armadillo Gas has] now”. Through circumventing the CFO and talking with his wife with accidental encounters, he was able to finally land Armadillo Gas. But was he ethical in the ways he managed to land the account?

Ethics is the study of practical reasoning. What could be considered ethical by one person’s perspective can be quite different from another’s perspective. Healthcare providers and healthcare team should always think ethically when delivering care. Providing ethical healthcare means care is provided which is good, rational, and overall effectively increases health and wellbeing. Being ethical in healthcare is extremely important since our patients and their families are counting on us to be responsible in the decisions we make which effect their loved ones and them. As healthcare providers or members of the healthcare team we are faced with ethical dilemmas at increasing rates and with new technology and research in medicine evolving it is enabling the terminally ill to survive many serious illnesses. Many questions can arise from the ethical point of view including should or shouldn’t I. In this case we focus on the question; At what age should a child be able to make decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment ?

What is the right thing to do when you’re faced with corruption in the work place? Should you simply condone the behavior, participate in it, or remove yourself from the situation? Is there more at stake here than just your own interests and prosperity? This essay will look at a case study involving corruption in a local county government. In this case, Jenny must decide whether or not to expose the rampant corruption prevalent in her workplace. Should Jenny turn a blind eye thereby avoiding any negative consequences, or should she expose these actions and possibly compromise her career aspirations? In considering her case, I believe the best choice Jenny should make involves her exposing the corruption. I will argue for this position through the utilitarian theory of ethics.

Ethics plays a part in almost every aspect of one’s life. Ethics is defined as: “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture” The school you attend, your favorite restaurant, and your favorite sports team all have a code of ethics to follow. Those organizations as well as many other things including any group, especially a group for counseling, has a code of ethics. They also have ethical issues within each program. In counseling, some ethic issues that could arrive are, informed consent, involuntary membership, and freedom to withdraw from a group. However, the ethical issue that caught my attention in the Corey’s textbook is Involuntary Membership. This particular ethic issue grasped my attention because I haven’t thought about the involuntary groups that could come about. I knew there were certain circumstances where group counseling wasn’t voluntary but, until reading this section, it hadn’t crossed my mine.

According to Lawrence and Weber (2014), in Business and Society, “Ethics is the conception of right and wrong” (p.69). Basically, it is a person’s perception of what is good, or what is bad when dealing with behavior. A persons notions are influenced by many different things. These include: religious institutions, schools, role models, the media, and family members. All of these experiences help to create a persons concept of ethics (Lawrence and Weber, 2014).

Ethics is the code of conduct that is widely known in this society. The ethical theory of Aristotle states that the good moral of human beings is as a result of the rational reasoning of human beings over what is wrong or right. He argued that whatever is thought to be good has to be applied to everywhere. On the other side of the story, Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory states that the individual’s ethical morals are the result of the combination of the ability to reason rationally and the presence of the good character traits in an individual. Both reasonable theory’s nothing wrong with either of them.

Throughout my life I have learned what’s right and wrong and how to treat people. I learned that families that were similar had different ethics. It wasn’t until I joined the military that I actually associated my actions and decisions to being ethical or unethical. I believe that society makes the right decisions on things, even when the decision doesn’t benefit them. Through experience, I learned that this is not always the case. I saw people act selfish and even identified my own flaws when faced with ethical situations. These experiences have shown me that ethics training is important and necessary.

Ethics also known as moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves the classification, defense and endorsement of concepts of right and wrong actions that govern an individual’s behavior. Based on the “Billy and Suzy” scenario from a utilitarian ethical perspective, I would choose to follow Billy to ensure that nothing transpires between him and the lady he left the bar with. The best action to take would be to follow him and ensure that he does not leave for the night with the lady. I would force him into a cab if need be and ensure he gets home. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the morality of right and wrong solely on the consequences and effects of choosing to take one course of action over another. This is in light of taking into account the interests of others over your own.

The two major ethical theories that have the most relevance and prudence to my contemporary views are utilitarianism and those aligned with the concept of a categorical imperative. The philosophy of the former of these was widely pioneered by both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The notion of a categorical imperative was largely popularized by Immanuel Kant. In all actuality, the efficaciousness of these philosophies is widely determined by the particular moral dilemma which one is facing. Still, the true value in both of these theories lies in the fact that they can be applied to a wide variety of situations and help to dictate moral guidance.

Ethics is not relative to the culture that we live in. Ethics is not based on one countries’ morals. If one country believes something is not morally right, but in other countries it is. This does not mean it is based on the culture to make it moral or immoral. Ethics is not based on one specific society, but ideas. Ethics is about discussions and how theories can be put into effect. If the United States disapproves of cannibalism while another country is completely okay with it. This gives us no point for choosing between the two. When we say cannibalism is wrong we are saying the United States disapproves (Singer 6). Singer is saying that ethics doesn’t change by location. People cannot say that just because one location practices cannibalism that it makes it moral for that location. If it is immoral for one place it is immoral universally. Humans become relativists when they have no argument or disagreement, only have interests of preferences that have been stated. Relativists bring no arguments and cannot be wrong because they have only stated their opinions. No argument will happen if there is no disagreement that sparks a discussion (Singer 5-7).

The branch of ethics that talks about the importance and without a doubt the legitimacy of the word good is called Meta-ethics, signifying that beyond ethics lies ethical language. From here there are two separate branches which are, cognitive; where "goodness" can be known as analytic (Moore) or synthetic (naturalists like Mills) properties of the world and non-cognitive; where "goodness" can 't be know as a property of the world. Inside of the non-cognitivists are another gathering called emotivists, who maintain the perspective that the word good is only an expression of feeling. I somewhat concur with the emotivists in that ethical articulations are simply an outflow of feeling, yet I likewise believe that as the 'good ' is so exceedingly questionable (Stevenson), any of the meta-ethical hypotheses have legitimacy to them.