Michael Sandel Morality

A person’s decisions, whether they are following directions or are making their own choices, will change their lives. The effect of a decision is played out in the movie A Few Good Men. In the movie, Lance Cpl. Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey’s decision to follow the orders of Col. Nathan R. Jessup to perform a code red on Pfc. Santiago, a “sub-par marine”, results in them accidentally killing Santiago. Dawson and Downey are originally blamed for Santiago’s death; however, Lt. Daniel Kaffee is able to convince the jury to drop the charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Despite this, both Marines are given a dishonorable discharge for performing the code red on Santiago (A Few Good Men). In Erich Fromm’s article, “Disobedience

The author also uses things like examples and past experiences to get his central idea about obey and disobey across. He uses the example of a social worker from a hospital. In this example, he goes about it by asking the women if she is against all authority. She replies stating that she is strongly against any type of authority, but she later realized that she was not completely against it because she was allowing the pilot to fly the plane. During this section of the story, the author once again brings up Milgram’s experiment. Dalrymple states that according to Milgram, people are only doing what they are told. He also examines the fact that during the experiment why people chose to keep going with it even though they did not agree. According to the writer, this type of obedience would be blind because the person is not thinking for themselves but instead just following orders. This applies

1. The researcher in this experiment was psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The study took place at Yale University in the year 1963. The researcher’s hypothesis was that if there is a demanding authoritive figure, then the other person will obey that authoritive figure just because of their position, even if it violates their morality and their ethical beliefs. He based this of his theory that people who would never hurt someone purposely, would if told to do so by a figure of authority.

While writing "The Power of The Situation" Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett explains, there are no indicators on a persons reaction given a certain situation ( 149). Ross and Nisbett continue to say, a person 's past cannot determine how a human 's actions will take place in a future scenario, even if the human has a kind heart, they may not always be willing to help a person in need. Leading into this Ross and Nisbett state, " Social Psychology has by now amassed a vast store of such empirical parables" (Ross and Nisbett 149). Many people believe a past of a person will help them to identify or interpret how a person will act; However, Ross and Nisbett believe for this to be a fundamental attribution error (149). The power of a situation causes people to act in ways they may not have ever dreamed of, for instance The My Lai Massacre. "The My Lai Massacre: A military Crime of Obedience" written by, Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton consists of a small series of crimes committed by our own military ( Kelman and Hamilton 131). During the massacre military soldiers were humiliating and dehumanizing the enemies simply because their leading officer commanded them to do so (140-141). As their once simple actions became an everyday routine, the soldiers never questioned the unjust commands given by the authority (140). Dawson and Downey followed the orders given by their superior in command without a hesitation to stop and think whether or not the actions soon to be taken were

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.

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Gruwell taught her class about the Holocaust, the genocide of Jews. While learning about this major event in class the students were able to see how another person’s hatred affected someone’s life. They saw that many of the victims did not survive and were killed simply because of their race. This drew a parallel for the students to see how their hatred and violence against each other was senseless. In the same way Hitler killed Jews because of their race, they were killing each other. From learning about the Holocaust the students were able to step outside from their own personal norms, and examine a situation from a new or different

Strawson negates the pessimist’s argument because it asks us to make our attitudes wholly objective, which isn’t humanly possible, thus making this argument futile. He elaborates on the optimist’s view by introducing the belief that our moral attitudes are facts of our natural human commitment to interpersonal relationships and we are incapable of ignoring them. Regardless of determinism, moral concepts are relevant and they shape all human action, including the practices enforced by social institutions. Strawson says that because human action is guided by moral attitudes which we naturally form and are not constrained by any evident notion of pre-ordination, we are free.

Morality is a subject that society has somewhat the same expectations for, but each individual has their own perception of it. Those who choose to disagree with these personal codes are often seen as outcasts, with seemingly happier lives, as they ae expressing who they truly are, almost as if in an act of bravery. This could be the case with certain individuals. Irving Wallace proposes that disobeying social rules do, in fact, translate into a certain definition of bravery. However, if this is true, having a companion throughout this lifestyle could be devastating, even more so with children. Jeanette Walls uses many types of literary devices in her book, The Glass Castle, to convey her partial agreement to Wallace’s quote about

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

While reading the novel, ‘Ethan Frome’ the idea of morality is tested throughout the entire novel. When Ethan is put into situations as to whether he should drive the narrator to and from, for example, he demonstrates his moral capability. However, the deeper situations he finds himself in, initiate a need to really reflect upon what the moral thing to do is. As people who are well aware of the functions of relationships, fidelity is a common point always drawn back to. This idea of remaining faithful to one person in a relationship has been deemed moral. What determines what is moral? I would guess our conscience would be our reasoning for doing something that may be considered wrong by society. In the novel, Ethan Frome is placed in multiple

Milgram conducts an experiment to examine the act of obeying, and shows concrete instances. He pressures the subjects to behave in a way conflicting with morality. In the experiment, the experimenter orders the subject to give increasing electro shocks to an accomplice, when he makes an error in a learning session. The situation makes the subject

Moral reasoning plays an important role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. A moral that is used frequently is to always have fun and make things not boring no matter the outcome is. A decision made because of this moral was faking his illness to his parents and his school peers/administration. He got Cameron to join him even though he was sick and planned an escape for his girlfriend from school to just have fun out in the world. Cameron’s decision because of this moral was to let Ferris drive his father’s best, expensive, amazing car just so that Ferris could be happy and so they could enjoy their day. Another reasoning due to following the moral was when Cameron destroyed the car. He was tired of his life being boring and perfect. He

The basic premise is that tough choices revolve not around questions of right vs. wrong rather tough choices revolve around questions of right vs. right.

In Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, Bernard Williams aims to question the figure of the amoralist. The amoralist can be characterized as a person who, regardless of acknowledging the world’s claims of moral considerations, does not possess these sensitivities himself. Furthermore, the foundational values of morality, which direct—for the most part—the actions of others, do not influence the amoralist’s judgments similarly. When Williams addresses the amoralist, he wants to show how someone might be able to convince another individual who is insensitive to moral concerns to be swayed in hopes of look at morality as a way of decision-making.