The Phenomenon Of Effectuation

Similarities and key differences in theory, practise and value base between the two approaches will

These two methods are based on different principles, and there are major differences between the two systems.

In this paper I will discuss the differences

Common experience and empirical evidence continually verify the causal principle, and falsification has not occurred. These considerations lead Dr. Craig to conclude, “It is somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it [the first premise], for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself, and, as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious.”

Also, authors in both the books have provided a solution approach to those problems. Though focus area of authors in both books are somehow closely related, some difference can be found on their analysis of the problem and the way they presented.

There are times when doing the right thing can lead to bad consequences. For example, if your family is about to be killed by a criminal and the only thing you can do to protect your family from being murdered is to kill the person who is threatening them, you would feel it necessary to commit an evil in order to prevent a greater misfortune. On the other hand, the actor in cases such as this faces a moral dilemma of having to kill someone. This is where the Doctrine of Double Effect comes into play. The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is a principal which aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in the pursuit of a positive outcome with the full knowledge that the action will also bring about an evil consequence. (Solomon, 2014). Although the Doctrine of Double Effect is viewed as a positive theory by man, it is unjust in that it gives people a justification to commit heinous acts if they merely claim that they intended some sort of good outcome to result from their actions.

The sixth patient also belongs to a family and has dreams that are to be achieved. Causing preventable death to such an individual does not only cause pain to the family but it is also an injustice and an unfair way of ending life. It is logical to save five lives by eliminating one but it is morally right to save them all. There are other ways of getting organs for

Causality as relates to Free Will, Determinism, and Interdeterminism. Suggest that we don’t always have an explanation for a cause. There can be multiple factors

When it comes to using morphine to relieve pain in a dying patient, one might be faced with a conflict. Although morphine helps to manage pain and prevent suffering, morphine is also a strong drug that could cause premature death. What makes someone more prone to a hastened death is the addictive component of morphine, which leads to frequent use and suppression of respirations. However, the Doctrine of Double Effect helps to determine if the act is permissible.

While the United States of America has been known as the “Land of Opportunities”, one act ruined the lives of many people for decades. On August 6, 1945, the United States landed an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later after the bomb hit, the United States attacked the city of Nagasaki with another nuclear weapon. What makes this act unusual in history is that this is the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used in war. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been several people who have had the debate of whether the bombing was morally permissible or impermissible. In order to determine an answer for this question; readers have to be knowledgeable about ethics, research the history leading up to this event,

I start by deconstructing studies that have already been performed on both approaches. First, I looked at the DDACTS process using

Cause and effect, two mutually dependent actions that happen from revolving decisions being made. Without a cause, effect cannot happen, and if there is a cause then there has to be an effect. Life progresses through time, but moves forward by cause and effect changing life’s routine by constant controversial decisions. Thoughts on who and how those decisions are made lead to the question, “Do we make our own decisions or does fate control them.” This question can be broken down into social class, religion, historical references, and different sources to be analyzed, debated, and contemplated to come to the conclusion that fate does not control the decisions we make.

Counterfactual outcome models are used to define four paths based on causal theory 2-6, 16, 25. This model denotes the hypothetical outcome (in this article it is also called “counterfactual level” of a certain

1989). The difference betwe en the two approaches can be viewed in ter ms of

Based on Knight’s economics view (1921), risk-taking is crucial to entrepreneurism. This view is supported by many classical theorists like Cantillon and Richard (1755) who explore that entrepreneurs bear risks or uncertainty to keep supply-demand balance. Phan (2008) also support this positive relationship and assert that entrepreneurs are risk-takers, not gamblers. However, Bula (2012) argues that