The Importance Of Moral Decision Making Abilities

Then Greene explains the moral brian, and describes it as “ dual mode camera with both automatic settings and manual mode ” (15). this concepts of moral brains is similar to what Daniel Karmanham author of Thinking Fast and Slow calls system one and sysytems two. system one: aperate automaticlly and quickly with little to no effort and no sences of vountry control(Kahneman20).While system two:allocates attentionto the effortful mental activiteis that demand it , including complex computations(20). There who diffrent settings of the brain that help humans make everyday choices. System one or automatic mode is the setting of the brain that usually uses the gut feeling that causes humans to react automatically. while system two or manual mode is usually for practical reasoning in situations usually causes humans to thinking more when solving a problem.The final idea Greene discusses is Common Currency this is when humans begin to search for a metamorality:a global moral philosophy that can adjudicates among competing tribal moralites (15

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

Research is vital in understanding why certain theories are conceived. Essentially, through research I am studying human life and more so studying human

According to Depoy and Gittin, research is a way individuals think about problems in systematic way. Research is generally described as description, exploration, analysis, prediction and problem solving. There are different types of research and these researches are called the experiments, quasi-experiments and non-experiments. The purpose of research is to provide the insight to practice, it also enhance individuals understanding as well as developing new approaches with different topics, get to test your research for effectiveness. Understanding research is important because it helps to build individuals knowledge bases and informs decision making in practice. Research also enable us to make sure that our practice are up to date with relevant information.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Explain how the criminal justice system (Cops, Courts, or Corrections) is establishing and maintaining ethical standards to address unethical behaviors. The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment. Though a number of rights derived from the Constitution protect the accused from abuses and overreaching from law enforcement officer. Much like the law enforcement stage of a case, there are dozens of restrictions on the court's ability to prosecute a case, including the right to confront one's accusers, the right against incriminating one's self.

Patricia S. Churchland 's book entitled Braintrust: What Neuroscience tells Us About Morality, takes us on a walk through the scientific advances in evolutionary biology, genetics and neuroscience that have lead us to the question of wether morality can be explained or justified by science. The goal being an attempt at creating a framework for which to understand human morality. Churchland, a professor at the University of California San Diego in her book asks what is morality? Is it divinely inspired, or instinct, or an abstract set of rules? She argues, that a real understanding of morality begins with an understanding of the brain.

While the participants of this study may have higher NFC as university students, their likelihood of wanting to engage in effortful thinking does not reflect a high cognition in dilemmas. In addition, having the participants to rate their response does not engage cognitive thinking or moral emotions as much as being forced with a yes-no option in a situation. One would feel urgency to make an instantaneous decision, rather than to take time and weigh their affective or rational judgement. According to Haidt’s Social Intuition Model(2001), moral emotion fuels moral judgement, giving moral responses while reasoning is a post-hoc process to provide rational support to responses. Reasoning process may not be activated until after utilitarian response is made which is slower and requires effort; responses are then made by

Mill 's Utilitarianism and Ross ' Intuitionalism both use moral intuitions as core components of their moral theories, but their valuation of these intuitions in making morally sound decisions differ. I will argue that it is this misevaluation of moral intuition in the Utilitarian tradition that makes the moral theory unstable and prone to criticism. Ross ' deontological approach to moral intuitions provides a more believable, and morally acceptable account of the role these intuitions play in making ethical decisions. In this paper, I will begin with underlying both Ross ' and Mill 's valuation of moral intuitions in the framework of their moral theories, followed by a brief explanation of each philosopher 's view of “what makes an act moral”. Having established these I will, with the aid of a brief anecdote, describe my difficulties with Mill 's utilitarian approach to ethics. Finishing with an assessment of some utilitarian complaints about Ross ' theory. Ultimately Utilitarianism provides a commendable theory for widely applicable and practical moral action, but its inability to address conflicts with strong moral intuitions weakens its argument. Ultimately Ross ' more flexible, yet not relativistic, deontological intuitionalism becomes a more attractive moral theory.

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

Research allows us to develop and refine our theories and to continue making new breakthroughs

Researchers found that although both children recovered completely from their injuries, they were shown to, "suffer from severely antisocial behavior later in life, resulting in criminal activities, behavioral problems, and physical abuse of others. " (1). These two subjects were both found to have normal I.Q. levels and were cognizant of ethical rules and standards, however were seemingly unable to inhibit themselves or show any signs of moral reasoning (1). The teenagers were unable to apply rules and values to moral dilemmas, although they were aware of what the standards themselves were and the accountability that resulted if these standards were not met (1). While this research has been well received and is interesting on a brain localization level, it still doesn't fully answer the question of where moral reasoning lies. If moral reasoning is the "I" function, or the ability to be accountable for your own actions because they are a result of your own free will, then should those who have an altered "I" function be held less accountable for their actions (2), (3). If the pre-frontal cortex is truly were moral reasoning lies then it should be simple enough to convict all criminals with other types of brain damage and acquit those with this specific type of damage. However, we don't seem to know enough about the brain to make these distinctions. In an entity as diffuse and complicated as the human brain, a secondary entity such as moral

As I reflect on my personal levels of moral development and what drives my decision-making, I must acknowledge that as young children we all go through the preconventional moral reasoning development. We learn at a young age how rewards for good behavior are obtained. We learn to obey and inherently understand the immediate consequences if our actions are not of moral character, even though we can’t quite comprehend the morality of our actions at such a young age. Sosik & Jung (2010) highlights that, Preconventional moral reasoning is based on a self-interested focus on avoiding punishment and seeking rewards. This is the kind of self-centered reasoning that a personalized charismatic leader would possess” (p.140). As a young child I was guided by extremely moral family members, who seemed to instill a religious background as a formal foundation for influencing moral and ethical behavior. I can’t say for sure if this played an intricate part of my early

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).