The Ethical Theory Of Ethical Pluralism

Culture is the Backbone of a society, when something/someone tries to alter it or go against it everyone will notice. In this issue pointed out by Ruth Macklin, we look at the problems that can arise when an individual’s culture and autonomy clash. Every year there at least 30 million immigrants from all over the world that move to the United states of America, making America one of the most culturally diverse country in the world. Keeping this in mind, we will focus on Ruth Macklin’s issue of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Critics argue that we associate culture with a society, community and or family, but rarely with a single individual, thus placing it above the individual person. In this paper we are going to look at four different scenarios on from Ruth Macklin’s article.

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

It is important to look at ethical dilemmas in a systematic way, thus increasing the chance of achieving a solution that gives the best possible outcome. An ethical problem solving model taken from American sources (Paradise and Siegelwaks, 1982; Austin et al., 1990) was used to develop a six-step process to follow, in order to achieve this (Bond 2010, pg. 227). This process informs this paper, and I am in the role of counsellor.

The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories are the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

In “Problems and Promise in Pluralism,” Annalee R. Ward argues for academic freedom through the lens of confessional pluralism. Ward challenges the academy to revisit pluralism to ascertain whether various denominations can have an “engagement of differences in creative ways” that allow for coexistence in scholarship” (Eck 9). Although academy insists that pluralism tugs on personal integrity, closer examination show that “authentic peaceful coexistence” is a possible outcome when approached correctly (Ward 5).

Every day we are faced with certain situations that challenge us with how to act in an ethical manner. It can be human nature to feel unsure or conflicted with the correct moral choice. Some can say that one should know how to handle such dilemmas and others may say that there should be a reference of some sort to help guide through such conflicts. Sometimes we know the answers and sometimes we are unsure of how to handle certain situations. Most times we go through life wondering what we should do. As I become further educated on the different theories of ethics, I believe there are answers that are available in guiding one through an ethical dilemma and or judgment. I will discuss Vincent Ruggiero’s three basic criteria, Robert Kegan’s order of consciousness, the three schools of ethics and the correlation between all three.

Different moral theories have their own insights and criticisms. Applying different moral theories to government’s policy-making is important because it may provide guidance for government in implementing a “right” policy. In my opinion, I believe that moral pluralism provides the best guidance for government’s policy-making. This essay will examine the reasons why moral pluralism provides the best guidance for the government while the other three moral theories could not.

Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.

According to William David Ross, there are distinct “prima facie” duties that people can make reference to for guidance when trying to resolve moral dilemmas in life in order to decide the best solution. They are prima facie because they can be overridden. His theory isn’t subjective but Ross believed there was an objective fact of the matter to help you decide what to do. Certain circumstances or features of the conflict decide what one must do after all things are considered. Your judgment really is the only method one has because there is no super principle that helps to justify moral rules and no central intrinsic good stating the plurality of basic intrinsic goods. Nothing is fixed or set in stone because duties can conflict. His rules

Ethical Pluralism is the theory that there is no one single, absolute fundamental moral rule (monism) to follow, but rather that there are two or more fundamental moral rules that people should act by. Ethical Pluralism is split into two groups, the absolutists who believe that it is always wrong to violate the fundamental moral rules and those who believe that it is occasionally allowed to break the fundamental moral rules. W.D. Ross, an Oxford professor, developed the first version centered on the latter belief. Ross called the nonabsolute moral rules the prima facie duties, or excellent, nonabsolute, permanent reasons to do, or abstain from doing, something e.g. keeping our promises. An important point in Ross’s version of pluralism is that

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

There are a variety of different ethical systems that have developed of the course of millennia. However, even though the subject has been covered so thoroughly, it is still heavily debated. The varieties of ethical systems that are in existence look at various ethical problems from different perspectives and can be applied differently in different circumstances. Because of the subjective aspects to applying ethics, they can be as much an art as they are a science. Ethics are something that must be practiced and really cannot be perfected. In this way, studying ethics is a continual process that does not really stop. This paper will argue that ethics are the most important subject that an individual can pursue.

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).