Post-conventional morality is consisting of social and individual rights and universal principles. This stage of morality brings a hedonistic view of self and other as well as pure-justice. Where am I truly standing on? Utilitarian? Kantian? Or in between of both? Previous ethics papers have put me into thinking who I really am and where I truly stand in moral code. I have dug my deepest self and explored types of ideas and beliefs that I embraced. Thus, before I had actually thought about what I truly care and role I want to play in this society, I believed that I was utilitarian. Although, being utilitarian and my decisions did not exactly matched. The nurture part of the life have shaped my moral code in more complicated form. Therefore, the conclusion that I have come up with my moral code is heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant, Buddhism, and my personal religion: Spiritualistic Agnostic. First, as growing up I was told to not to harm others physical and psychological states. Kant also believes in the idea that not to use anyone for a means to an end. As I make post-conventional moral decision, I found myself leaning more onto Kantian ethics of not to use someone for a means to an end and the golden mean. Basically, decisions I make in society reduce and/or no harm applied onto others while doing things in moderate pace or amount. Kant believed that by having “moral personality” we are superior among other species. Psychologically speaking, intelligence can be enhanced
In this paper, I am going to explain what two moral theories I mainly use to make a moral decision. In this paper, I used the textbook to help me figure out what moral theories are and it helped me decide which moral theories to use that best fit me when I make moral decisions. The two moral theories that I chose to highlight in this paper are utilitarianism and cultural relativism because I believe that they are the two that best fit me when I make a moral decision. The definition of morals is “a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is or is not acceptable for them to do”. Morals are an important thing to have because it is good to know what is and isn’t
As a social work undergraduate, we have several queries regarding why it is so important to follow the NASW code of Ethics and values that relate to human diversity, with regard for the worth and dignity of all persons, as applied to a specific case where we are delivering social work. It is very essential to recognize the five core values of social work, service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, and integrity and competence on our occupation of social work. Today, we have chosen two areas and situations of how we are going to deal with our biases and our challenges while working as social workers, by employing the NASW code of Ethics and values that relate to human diversity, with regard for the worth and dignity of all persons.
This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.
Ever since the early 17th century, the Jews in Philadelphia have been striving to become an important part of the American society, while staying true to their roots. Although the Jews faced exile from their homelands of Portugal and Spain, they were able to build and sustain a strong Jewish community within Philadelphia and pave the way for future generations through extensive actions throughout the community. They built hundreds of Jewish schools, Community Centres, synagogues and established many congregations. They became strongly involved in the American society and paved the way for many of America’s moral codes (Telushkin). There are currently 275, 850 Jews in Philadelphia, making it one of the strongest Jewish communities in the United States (Levine).
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.
First, I would like to address the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his studies of deontology, or duty ethics, which is “an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (virtue ethics).” (Mastin) Kant specializes in many ideas, but the ideas I will focus on are: the will, good will, the categorical imperative, and the principle of humanity.
Centered on psychological, sociological and philosophic principles such as virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism and intuitionism, for instance, many theorists argue that our decision making ability or ethical judgements are based on our own experience, or the nature of our standards of reason. Ethics, whether personal or professional, is about our actions and decisions. Moreover, it is acting in a way that is consistent with our values and choices, not just simply following the rules. Our Code of Ethical conduct originates from our values which are greatly influenced by our morals; they provide guidance and are our standards for the ways in which we carry out and view right and wrong actions; these standards are derived from our fundamental beliefs. Ethics are usually the principles we use to form decisions on what is right or wrong, good or bad and are typically cultivated from our culture, environment, and religious beliefs. Moral responsibility is said to be innate and/or instilled within an individual outside of themselves, however, studies also suggest that moral attitude and action are also affected by
It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not
It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not
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).
Social justice is a long debated subject that continues to prove controversial and divisive all over the world. Opinions on what constitutes social justice vary on a continuum from more conservative opinions which note individual responsibility to a more liberal stance which promotes a moral responsibility to support social equality (Mapp, 2008). Despite the varying opinions of what establishes social justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as the first step in promoting social justice by outlining the basic rights that should be afforded to humanity (United Nations, n.d.). More specifically, Article 22 of the UDHR states that all people should have access to social security protection that works to provide essential needs, provisions for preserving dignity, and freedom to pursue personal interest (United Nations, n.d.). In spite of the established declaration, social justice remains unavailable for too many people. Worldwide, the lack of social protection leads to 1.4 billion people struggling to meet their essential needs due to lack of access to resources which promote a decent standard of living. Another 100 million fall into poverty due to unforeseen complications (GIPSPSI, 2011). Therefore, there is a crucial need to recognize social protection as a human right in order to guarantee equal access to basic services and equal opportunity to all of humankind.
Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.
Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background
Your company is considering opening a branch in a very low cost, low rights country. You are asked to provide a discussion paper on whether the company needs to worry about human rights in that country: