Morality, We Should Be Impartial Essay

“The Verdict” is a movie that deals with medical and legal ethics. Frank Gavin is an alcoholic who hasn’t won any of his cases in the past three years. Mickey, his former partner, gives him a medical malpractice case that is sure to settle for a large amount of money. The case of Deborah Ann Kay, a mother who was given anesthetic when she had just eaten inhaled her vomit and is now in a coma. The Donaheys, her sister and brother in law are hoping for a good settlement and Frank assures them that they have a strong case. While the case is going on he meets Laura, a woman at a bar who he falls in love with. Frank goes to visit Deborah Ann Kay in the hospital and is affected by her condition. He meets with the defendants who run the

1. The Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the City but might in the future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.

Directions: Complete the tasks below. Replace the highlighted text with your own answers. Copy and paste your answers to the student comments box in 1.07 and submit for grading.

Conversely, by looking at it from the perspective that morals should not be the basis of decision making, you can see that if we don’t use them, then many people can get hurt as a result. If people make choices without thinking of the consequences or about what is important to them and the people around them, the wrong choice may be made. While morals shouldn’t be the only thing considered, they must be taken into account to ensure the right things are being done. If we only base our actions on morals, then some very important past discoveries may not have been made. If people only consider morals than not only will decisions be biased as each person has different morals, but many things in history may not have been accomplished. For example, the nuclear bomb may not have been invented or people might

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

Pojman asserts that many people self-report as moral subjectivists; he writes that humans fall victim to rashly praising relativism for its tolerance of other cultures. He cautions that when individuals’ morals are subjectively graded, then “notions of good and bad, right or wrong, cease to have interpersonal evaluative meaning” (33). For example, deeds of injustice, such as indiscriminate killing and theft, are forgivable because each individuals are arguably entitled to their subjective morals.

The two articles that will be examined for this paper is, Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written in our Genes and Only the Fair Deserve the Grape. These articles explore the ideas of morality and reciprocity and gives ideas into whether or not they combine. They offer similar views of why people help one another.

The biases, assumptions and interpretations that may affect the seemingly objective observation of events may well be too numerous to completely mention. Put simply and dryly,

In our country, someone who likes to be helpful is considered a model citizen, whereas in his own country he would be considered “abnormal” (Benedict p.2). Benedict used this example.to argue that like behavior, morality is culturally determined and that what can be morally right for one society can be considered morally wrong for another (Newton, Evaluating Cultural Relativism).

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).

In the 19th century Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed this approach - they believed that any ethical actions are those which provide the greatest balance. With this approach you analyze the situation and identify the course of action to take. It can be hard to decide the best benefit and the least harm. Our actions contribute to the good in the life of the community which is known as the common good approach. The intertwining relationships in our society are based on the ethical reasons of respect and compassion for all others especially the most vulnerable. Everyone's welfare is of the most important. This approach focuses on the common values and goals of each person in the community. The justice/fairness approach is based on equal individuals being treated the same/equally. The only way you don't treat people the same is if there is a relevant moral difference between each other.

Making consistently ethical decisions is difficult. Most decisions have to be made in the context of economic, professional and social pressures, which can sometimes challenge our ethical goals and conceal or confuse the moral issues. In addition, making ethical choices is complex because in many situations there are a multitude of competing interests and values. Other times, crucial facts are unknown or ambiguous. Since many actions are likely to benefit some people at the expense of others, the decision maker must prioritize competing moral claims and must be proficient at predicting the likely consequences of various choices. An ethical person often chooses to do more than the law requires and less than the law allows.

Authoritative epistemology occurs when an analyst relies on another person’s authority to make a judgement. Their “basis of knowledge resides in a reference to something more

Using valid peer-reviewed sources on the Internet, update any dated facts in this case with more current information. How do these new facts reflect the current ethical culture of the Red Cross?

I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the