In 1984 Kitchener introduced five moral principles that are viewed as the cornerstone of the ethical guidelines.The principles are each definite truths in and of themselves. The first principle is Autonomy which means people have the right to live their own lives as their actions do not prevent the well-being of others.They also have the right to act as a free agent as well as the freedom of choice. Then there is the principle Nonmaleficence it’s the obligation to prevent physical and psychological harm to anyone. The next principle is to Beneficence which is the responsibility of improving the welfare of others even at the expense of the person who is offering the assistances. Then there is Justice the principle with is to be fair and give
According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately. Much of the Assyrian law concept of justice is comparable to the Babylonian law because both had many very harsh punishments.
The ego is based on the reality principle. The ego understands that other people have needs and desires and that sometimes being impulsive or selfish can hurt us in the long run. It’s the ego’s job to meet the needs of the id, while taking into consideration of the situation. By the age of five, the Superego develops. The Superego is the moral part of us and develops from the moral and ethics shown by the caregiver.
The actions that have the best consequences and thus permissible can sometimes be unjust. Conscience is the decisive sanction for the principle of utility. Mill suggested that every human possesses a natural sentiment of concerning others’ welfare. When such natural sentiment is encouraged, other people’s pleasure would become our standard of moral judgment. 8 By considering the maximum happiness for maximum number of people, we are indeed attempt to place the morality assessment squarely under public observation, instead of being a matter of personal intuitions.
Altruism versus egoism has also lead down to conclusions allowing people to believe that is natural to be both selfish and helpful. However, by narrowing down this subject to the real question: how humans naturally act when given an instinctive opportunity to be altruistic or to be selfish, it is ultimately selfless.
Free will was not created for that sole purpose but Nietzsche's belief is true. Free will allows people to make their own moral decisions based on what they believe. Free will also creates a standard and moral responsibility for people to conform to. Free will causes people to hold themselves and others more responsible for their actions, as they agree that harsh consequences should follow if moral rules are broken. Free will encourages people to take responsibility for their moral actions and the potential consequences encourage more positive moral
Sometimes moral paradoxes are called moral philosophy, moral dilemmas are often called in an attempt to refute or improve an ethical system or moral law to solve the paradox (1) • To deal with an ethical dilemma : 1. Recognition of the an ethical dilemma situation • Identifying the problem is not as easy as it sounds • Ethical problems arise where moral values, principles or imperatives clash 2. Break the dilemma in component parts. Immediately when the problem is discovered, the next step is to collect and identify important information and ethical aspects of the
Duty as in that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. This theory asserts that an action is considered 'morally good ' because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Expressions such as "virtue is its own reward" and Duty for duty 's sake" are used to attest to the believe that in deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Since utilitarian 's believe that all actions must seek to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this would still apply even if that act harms an innocent person. A simple example would be that if a surgeon could save three lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy person, then this is entirely acceptable as it 's helping the greater number.
The other obligations are on a more personal level and vary on every person. People have to act accordingly to their obligations regardless of the positive or negative outcome of their actions. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, and it is right to keep promises and to help people. One should not lie about anything even though that lie could save a lot of lives. In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics).
Although the existence of moral obligation cannot be denied, the question as to whether we have moral obligation to legal norms is controversial. It seems quite true that there is no moral obligation to obey a law simply because it is a law. However, I agree that laws have an important function of social stability and order, in determining what is just and moral. This also brings cases where certain action is not immoral in itself, but laws could make it so. I was especially persuaded by the Raz's claim that the reasons for obeying the law must come from the reasons for having that law.
In society, people should be ethically responsible with helping people. People act ethically responsible when one is in need of assistance because they let their sympathetic feelings of compassion take over their intentions. Ethical responsibility is a duty or obligation to ensure the individual’s well-being through specific commitments; such as saving someone from a certain tragedy. One piece of evidence from the text that demonstrates the sudden acts of ethical responsibility is “Can the Law Make Us Be Decent” by Jay Sterling Silver. Though many may argue that Silver’s argument is invalid, most will agree that his argument is in fact agreeable.
He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).
Secondly, it makes a lot of sense to think of ethics in relation to character as compared to actions or even intentions. Thinking of ethics in relation to character is sensible since an ethical person can best be defined by their tendency to consistently repeat a good behavior. Aristotle is, therefore, right to say for instance that a courageous individual is consistently courageous. One particular action of good behavior, therefore, cannot make an individual be defined as ethical neither can a particular intention. I think the example of tennis is a good one.
In his brief essay, “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives”, Immanuel Kant emphasizes how essential it is to be truthful and how our duty to be truthful outweighs any other duties we have to ourselves to ourselves or to humanity. Altruistic can be described as a genuinely moral act. People who are altruistic take action for the benefit of others and deem other people’s interests more important than their own interests. Kant believes that people should always do what is right, no matter what the outcome holds. I affirm that Kant believes praising truthfulness above all other duties because he believes it is morally wrong to hurt the dignity of others.
Based of the Non Identity Problem reading, it can be classified under three general principles. The first is that future acts that harm the existing or future person are considered morally wrong. Therefore, acts that benefit future people cannot be morally wrong. Next, we must consider if an act does affect any future person, it is considered morally right to let a person exist, rather than let them not exist. If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all.