Ethical responsibility is the duty to follow a morally correct path, to correct a wrongful situation that may affect you, your surrounding and other people. One becomes responsible for the possession of knowledge when they become aware of any destructive scenario. The title itself carries a direct assumption that knowledge carries an ethical responsibility. One can understand the consequences of a scenario by having the knowledge of it which then makes him/her carry the weight of responsibility (ethical). The Knowledge issue question is how can we determine that having the possession of knowledge about something should lead to ethical responsibility?
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
Part I – Sarah’s Argument The moral theory that I choose for Sarah is contractarianism. Contractarianism, which has its roots in Hobbes’ line of social contract thought, views morality as being based on contract or agreement. This moral theory states that people are self-interested, and f ollowers of this theory consider that moral norms are determined by a maximization of joint interest, and consent to the beliefs of the society. Contractarianism argues that people are motivated to accept morality because they are vulnerable to the depredations of others and because they are deemed to benefit from cooperating with others. In the said scenario, Sarah views acting morally as the basis for public acceptance in trying to fulfill the desires to
So, Taylor assumes that moral responsibility is reflected in free choice of a person. I support his point of view and think that not only the laws of heredity and nature determine our behaviour – this approach decreases the importance of rational factors. In other words, I adhere with the libertarian view which “maintains that there are acts which are not completely determined by preceding events and the laws of nature, but which are not just random” (Free
The argument of abortion is based on the moral permissible standard on whether a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. Anti-abortionist defends their principle of their analysis. On one hand, the wrongness of killing tend to be broad in scope of if fetuses at an early stage of pregnancy will fall under it. Pro-choicers believe that fetuses are not persons or rational agents. The general argument for this claim is to deliberate abortions as seriously immoral.
Furthermore, the counterclaim explains the fact that the way an individual chooses to act based on their possession of knowledge, undoubtedly carries an ethical responsibility also. Anyone with the possession of knowledge is forced to assess the potential consequences of their actions. My overall outlook on the referenced claim is that if you possess the knowledge to determine right from wrong from other types of knowledge gained, you have the responsibility to make ethical decisions. Thus, any individual with the possession of knowledge must assess the possible consequences of their actions. Hence as an overall outlook, we can safely conclude that if an individual posses any sort of knowledge, he must evaluate the rights from the wrongs and choose ethically, what to do with the knowledge he possesses.
The two moral reasonings are consequentialist and categorical. Consequentialist means the consequences that will result after whatever you do, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. Somethings are just morally wrong even if it brings good outcomes. According to Mill the principle of utility means realizing a consequence of something before you do it,whether your intentions are good or bad.
The base of the test relies on the idea of a “conception of a person.” This concept encompasses two normative theories, the conception of human worth and a conception of a person’s true interests. By analyzing the answers to these two ideas, the test will determine if exploitation is occurring. One of the problems in moral theory that this test addresses is the
The authors frame these justifications through the thesis that “these commissions sacrifice the pursuit of justice… for the sake of promoting other social purposes” (Gutman & Thompson, 22). First, the authors state that truth commissions should be moral in principle; commissions “should explicitly appeal to rights… that are moral and therefore are comparable to the justice that is being sacrificed.” (23) They also claim that truth commissions “should be moral in perspective” in that those commissions should maintain a
Opponents of euthanasia argue that the duty based theory is not interested in results, rather than the initial thought of being right or wrong, and it could lead to a reduction of happiness. It may be in the best interest for a patient to not further treatment, with a possibility of it leading to more issues or causing an unwanted physical weakness. By looking at the bigger picture it may be best in certain cases for the physician to do the right thing by not continuing treatments and allowing the patient to decide whether or not they would like to end their life or expand it, the choice is up to them. The divine command theory is the ethical theory that something can be known to be right and good when it is in compliance with God’s will and wrong when God condemns it. We must obey the