What Is Moral Pluralism Theory

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

Kennan breaks moral responsibility down to two entities: government and individual. He argues, “Government is an agent, not a principal. Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience” (Kennan, 34). Kennan also argues that morality is only conceptually possible

Pluralist theory views politics and decision making as a competitive phenomenon where different groups and individuals have different views and that there is no single elite group that exercises influence (Davis & Go, 2009). The theory holds that power is relatively broadly distributed among different interest groups. These groups hold different views of the same aspect and compete with each

As someone who is passionate about issues of social justice; who enjoys engaging in a healthy debate; and whose life experiences have fostered an appreciation for legal protection, I am drawn to the academic study of law. Since graduating from my first degree, I have held a variety of jobs including some within the food service industry. It is in fact through my experience working in a field unrelated to law that has reinforced my interest in the study and practice of law. While employed as a waitress, I witnessed countless cases of employers unlawfully deducting workers' wages; ignoring workplace harassment; and refusing to acknowledge an employee's right to take breaks. Having personally submitted an employment-standards claim to the Ministry of Labour, I know how much time is involved in filing a claim against an employer.

In Normative Ethics there are three distinct schools of thought, and each differentiate through moral intentions. Consequentialism relies on the consequences of an action in order to distinguish whether or not something is morally acceptable. Deontology considers the morality of an action by one’s reason for doing a certain deed. Lastly, virtue ethics bases morality off of virtuous character, and how a virtuous person would act given a certain predicament. Ultimately, consequentialism provides the most practical explanation for morality due to the notion of providing the best possible result. Contrarily, deontology and virtue ethics do not always provide an individual with the most sensible course of action, and therefore prove to be

In Balzac and The Chinese Little Seamstress, a historical fiction by Dai Sijie, the Little Seamstress is transformed as Luo and the narrator tell the stories of the French books. Before she leaves, the Little Seamstress first alters the Mao jacket for herself and asks her father to buy a pair of white tennis shoes in Yong Jing. At the end, she even changes her hairstyle to be like a city girl. She says, “a woman’s beauty is a treasure beyond price. (178)”.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

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.

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.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

The ethical theory of moral absolutism has raised many arguments since Plato produced the Theory of the Forms. Philosophers have argued over it for centuries; whether it is correct, whether we should be absolutists or relativists or whether we bypass both of these theories and decide our actions based on virtuous people.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

Q15) Answer, C Wright Mills R-4 Def.- Charles Wright Mills was an American sociologist, and a teacher of sociology at Columbia University from 1946 until 1962 which is when he died. Mills was made widely in popular journals, and is remembered for some books that he had written, among them The Power Elite, which introduced that term and describes the relationships and alliances among the U.S. political, military, and economic people. He was the one of the major contributors for the subject of sociology he 's done so much for this it 's unbelievably so much. He was the one of the major contributors for the subject of sociology he 's done so much for this it 's unbelievably so much. His papers on the power elite showed us having too much

The roll of ethics in public administration is based on the administration; administrators should be value-free when they implement public policy. I will discuss why ethics should be based on the administration and, why it should not be based on each individual worker in the administration. I will discuss Weber’s stance on values in bureaucratic organizations, what Macintyre suggests, and what Hummel and Goodsell would conclude about values in public administration. Most people do not understand what an administration deals with everyday on an individual basis. They might think that an administration is supposed to make the best ethical choices, but that is not the case. People who are outside the administration might think that administrators are supposed to use everyday values when implementing policy, but that is also not the case.

Those thought to be ethical or moral are described in terms of their values in regards to honesty, integrity and good character. Our ethical conduct originates from our values which are greatly influenced by our morals; they provide guidance and are our standard for the ways in which we carry out and view right and wrong decisions. For these reasons, personal ethics are said to be our foundation and, as such, often influence how we administer ethical codes of conduct in our personal lives, and the ways in which we carry out our organizational duties. The normative foundations of public service ethics are those standards used to justify and defend one’s conduct, i.e. reasoning about obligations, consequences and ultimate ends in specific situations. In addition to personal codes of conduct, leadership in the public sector requires the ability to apply ethical reasoning based on formal controls and technical standards.