Friday, April 30th
Which ethical theory that we have discussed (utilitarianism, deontology, categorical imperative, cultural relativism, ethical relativism, moral intuitionalism) best reflects your own ethical system? Why? How has it served you in deciding the correct course of action?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Out of the ethical theories that we have discussed, I believe that ethical relativism best reflects my own ethical system. I think this because it is the most logical of all the theories in which we have discussed. For example some of them, like deontology, are a great thought and if the world today could all go by that philosophy that would be amazing but that is unrealistic. Ethical relativism has severed me in deciding the correct course of action many times. I use it everyday to decide if I believe that a particular something is ethical to me and with ethical relativism I know that just because it is one way to me that it can be a different way to someone else. I believe that ethical relativism helps to create diversity in the subject of morals, and diversity is what makes the world a great place.
The deontological system I think best reflects my type of ethics in everyday life decisions, but I give utliitarianism some weight when discussing international political issues. I believe that deontology represents the highest moral standards for everyday decisions and it does the best job of keeping everyone's feelings and thoughts at an equal level. Calculation in low risk situations seems kinda silly because it places arbitrary factors into decisions that can please everyone such as stem cell research and legitimizes acts of terrorism and violence in some cases with suicide bombing. In the global crisis with Iran and other international violence scales however, I'm more empathetic to the thought of utilitarianism because to me it makes sense for American governments to work first for the best interest of America, even though the "work" done is highly skeptical at best sometimes. I believe my ethical system helps me make a lot of everyday decisions and it affects my viewpoint on certain issues politically and psychologically. The deontological method allows for me to understand all viewpoints on decision making, not just my own.
Out of the ethical theories we have discussed in class, I most relate to utilitarianism. I believe some eggs do need to be broken along the way, but in the end will end up being the right decision. I am terrible about making decisions, but what always has helped me is making a pro/ con list. Usually whatever decision has the most pros I go with. It would be amazing if no one or nothing could get hurt in the process, but that is not always the case. My ethical relativism always effects what I believe is a pro or a con, but that is in everyone's case. Philosophy ethical theories just tries to better explain what naturally occurs in our minds.
The ethical theory that I agree with most is utilitarianism. The reason I agree with this most and use it is because I think it has the best path to find an answer. When you make a decision using utilitarianism, you think with the end in mind. You know what the end result will be and you also know what the consequences of actions taken to get there are. This theory definitely serves me best. I can think of a lot of times where I have used this type of thinking. I think about what will happen in the end and what actions I will have to take get there, and I weigh the positives and negatives of each situation in my mind. Utilitarianism also serves me best because it allows you to do some unethical things if you end up doing the right thing in the end. I agree with the saying “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” I think this best describes my way of thinking, taking the best course of action even if you have do some questionable things to get there.
Moral institutionalism is most relevant to my ethical system. I like the fact that it's based on common sense. A person could make it through life using the other ethical systems, but they are more philosophical than realistic. By using moral institutionalism, I can be more knowledgeable with my decisions. The best piece of advice me parents have given me is to use my head and make my own choices. This reflects that ethical system well. It may not help the greater good like a utilitarian, deontologist, or critical imperative person, but it is the most successful for me.
I like to think that I am a very practical person. Thus, my philosophy leans towards utilitarian, because I see it as the most practical ethical theory. It may seem harsh to do whatever is necessary for the sake of the greater good, but I believe that this is the most ethical. Whatever brings people the most happiness is what should be done. I believe this theory would apply in any culture, regardless the belief system. If everyone aspired to work toward providing happiness for the greatest number of people, everyone would tend to do the right thing. All this being said, I believe that the end happiness must outweigh whatever moral crimes were committed in the process of getting there. If the means create more harm than the ends create happiness, the ends are not justified.
I would say that out of all ethical theories we have discussed utilitarianism would be the theory that most reflects me. I tend to look at things as what would be the best or in other words cause greater happiness. I would tell a white lie to keep someone happy because it would have greater happiness in the outcome. That is just a small example of how utilitarianism influences me.
Of the ethical theories we have discussed i think that the theory that best reflects my own ethical system is utilitariansim. Utilitarianism aligns mostly with what i agree with because i think that sometimes people have to make hard choices and sometimes those decisions wouldn't be made if the circumstances were different but they need to be made. Its hard to say that you should always do whats best for the greatest number of people, or that some actions that are wrong should be done if its for the greater good, but in life you aren't given perfect options and i think that the best way to deal with them is from a utilitarian view. I think that is okay to sacrifice a little bit to gain a lot if its for the best for everyone.
I think that all of the ethical systems that we have discussed have their own insights but each one has its own limitations. In the real world it is hard to use a universal rule because even a theoretical situation cannot take into account all of the external realities of a situation. The ethical system that fits me the best is Kantian categorical imperative. Even before I heard of Kant I had always thought that my ethics revolved around doing unto others as I would want them to do unto me. I think that there are those who claim that ethics don't really exist (ethical relativists) who use the backing that humans are only looking out for their own good. I think that there is some reality to this argument: before society humans were involved in the primal struggle for survival. Therefore, intrinsically humans would want to do the best things for them. That said, being ethical shouldn't be a hard thing if we intrinsically know what WE want. As long as we can apply all of the things that we know that WE want to everyone else, it seems like the best ethical system. So with that understanding, the selfishness of doing what is best for ourselves, turns into the most selfless ethical system. You can think about others by thinking about yourself. This helps me in my everyday life when I'm making decisions because I can use the "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" mentality when dealing with other people. How would I feel if someone said what I"m about to say to me? If it's not good than I shouldn't say it. I think these kind of everyday life examples are much stronger than fantastical scenarios that involve bombs and unethical actions, these don't really have anything to do with what I do in my everyday life. Also, its bigger than hip hop.
From the different ethical theories that we have learned of and discussed in class, the one that guides and is most applicable to me is ethical relativism. Ethical relativism isn't subject to certain regions or cultures, it's more like universal morality. I believe that just because the majority believes something is right, doesn't mean that it's the ethical thing to do. For example, the war in the middle east. Just because the majority and leaders of the countries involved thing that war is a justified means to an end doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. In my eyes violence is never the correct option. This principle of ethical relativism is applied by myself to many situations in my everyday life as well.
It is hard to say what is the most similar to my own ethics. There are times when I agree with all systems. I agree with ethical relativism that ethics are different to all people, but at the same time, we all have ethics that relate to each other. And culture can obviously play a part in that as well. Moral intuitionism is also true because there are certain things that as humans we just know. When it comes down to utilitarianism, deontology, and the categorical imperative, it is harder to discern between the three. Certain situations call for certain viewpoints. Sometimes I take the utilitarian and sometimes deontological viewpoints. I don't think that anyone is really one hundred percent anything. We all are a combination of all these ethical systems. The combination are different in all of us, but a combination nonetheless. This is just how we are built. As far as helping decide the correct course of action, I think that it all mixes together subconsciously to take any course of action I have ever taken. It's all a matter of ethics and instincts in the end.
I would say that the utilitarian view most accurately describes my ethical stand point. It definitely isn't the only way I act but I do find it to be the most sensible to me. The reason why is because most of the time, the consequences of my actions is what decides what action I take. If I realize that what I'm about to do is not going to benefit a great number of people and is going to harm some people, I most likely will not do it. To me, utilitarianism seems like common sense. However, using ethical relativism I do understand other points of views.
One thing I like about utilitarianism is that it does allow room for rules of thumb. It's not a theory that says you should lie all the time. In fact, it says you should try and tell the truth as much as you can. The only time a lie should be told is when it will cause a greater happiness than if you told the truth.
There are some parts of Ross' theory and Kant's theory that I agree with. I think a combination of the theories is probably best. Not every situation is the same, that's why I have a problem with committing to one theory for all ethical and moral judgments. However, if I had to chose a theory I would chose utilitarianism. Although I may not agree with the theory in every single case, it is the most appealing to me.
I think that the ethical theory that best describes the way i think is categorical imperative. I just believe that when Kant says that you should treat people the way you would want to be treated just goes along with everything my parents taught me about manners when i was growing up. I just think that it is important to treat people with respect and I try to show them the same amount that I wish to receive. I think that Kant's ideas have almost formed the way some people live their lives. I usually do not even have to think about how i need to treat people or talk to them before i say something to them. Kant's categorical imperative ethical theory is definitely the ethical theory that best describes how i think and go about life day to day.
Many of the theories we’ve learned about make sense to me. Each one I can relate with, so it’s hard for me to choose which one reflects my own ethical system. But out of all of them, I agree and relate the most with cultural relativism. If we did not have different cultures, our ideas about humans and morality would all be homogeneous. But since the world has many different cultures, people believe different things about morality and what is right or wrong. This is what makes us different from each other (though there are some moral beliefs that tend to be universal).
In my own personal life, I adapt a “do as the Romans do” approach when concerning ethics. In foreign countries I try to assimilate into the culture, including practicing what they consider to be correct, and refraining from any practices that they consider to be immoral. This has been most beneficial to me because it has really helped me to learn about different places and people, and how they live their lives. I would rather respect people and do as they do rather than condemning any practices or beliefs that I personally disagree with.
I personally believe that there are some things ingrained in the human brain that we just plain should not do. Therefore, I classify myself as an ethical intuitionalist. No other species on earth kills members of it's own species at the rate we do. Nature would never allow such a character trait to exist, simply to reassure it's own survival. Additonally, it's not like most cultures on earth are on the fence about whether murdering someone is a good or a bad thing. It's pretty generally agreed upon that killing is bad. I therefore have a hard time hearing people argue that some things that are considered a horrifying crime in one culture would be fine in another. Even if you were brought up in a culture that glorifies certain things, we have a moral obligation to ourselves to go against such teachings. An example of this would be the Vietnam war, in which there was a massacre where U.S soldiers opened fire and slaughtered hundreds of innocent Vietnamese citizens. The soldiers that committed this crime were accused of murder, and they argued that they were simply following orders. This is a ridiculous argument. Especially in a culture like ours where killing someone will get you 25 to life if jail, it's ludacris that someone would say they didn't know it was wrong to kill an innocent civilian. There are some things that we as humans just know not to do.
I think that the categorical imperative makes the most sense for me because it focuses on the fairness aspect of deontology while also considering if the action creates harm. I think fairness is very important, because then sometimes fairness can allow an action that might do harm but is considered fair. It seems slightly more concerned with the practical aspects of morality. I think this is important for something that is used everyday. I think utilitarianism has some value because sometimes harmful actions can be necessary. However, for the most part I think the categorical imperative is very useful. It also is generally fairly simply to understand by applying Kant's version of the golden rule. It can be used in daily situations to find the ethical choice by considering if you would want everyone else to do the same action all the time. This maximization rule makes it easy to understand and apply in daily situations.
In many cases the ethical theory that is most applicable to me is ethical relativism or categorical imperative. In many cases when I address a situation the situation is what determines my moral judgement. For instance when I think about the death penalty I feel that it is illegal if the person has committed one or two murders but should be used when an extremely violent crime or when multiple people have been killed. I like how ethical relativism allows for diversity, and by allowing diversity we are able to look at other people's view points and assess what their ideas really mean. I think that it is important for people to have different ethical view points because it allows for a more in depth conversation and a deeper understanding of all people. When I am dealing with other people I use categorical imperative as my "moral compass". I always think about what the other person may think or believe and try to see how I would feel if I was in their shoes. While analyzing decisions takes lots of time, I'm confident that the extra time is well worth it if I end up making a more informed and intelligent decision.
Of the ethical theories that we have gone over in this class so far, what fits my own system best is that of Deontology. It does this as I believe in not causing harm or stepping on other's wills or rights to achieve an end result. To me, the end does not justify the means, whether that comes from my Christian faith, where in the bible, Jesus exclusively talks about the importance of the means, not the end, or from my own personal experience where I feel morally wrong causing any type of harm to another person or being simply to achieve an end result that benefits me or a group of people. Throwing people under the bus, selling people out, or putting people in a position of having less than they started with against their will is something that I believe is morally wrong. My views, paralleling with Deontology has served me in many of my life decisions, and I believe that by not stepping on others and choosing to go against causing harm that I have many of the friends that I do today, and have actually had MORE opportunities open up for me in my life through people realizing that due to my philosophical and moral view points, I can almost always be trusted to do everything I can except cause harm to another involved in order to achieve an end result.
I think that Ross speaks to me the most. I for one never want to hurt people, although it does happen, and dont want people to hurt me. If i were to choose which theory relates most to me and the way i decide things on a day to day basis it would have to be Kant's theory. Kant believes basically that you shouldn't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to you. I figure i use that on a every day basis when deciding what i should do about how i feel and how others feel, and actions i should take. So i think that this mind setting can really improve peoples actions by making people think about them on a personal level.
The one that is most ethical to me would be ethical relativism. The reason I chose that one is because that's the one that fits me the most. Ethical relativism is used in my every day life because I have to make some kind of decision on a daily bases that could be ranging from a big life changing decision or a small decision that has little to no affect on me. One of the examples for ethical relativism we used was abortion. Some are for it and some are against it. We are able to make these decisions with ethical relativism.
I think I agree most with utilitarian out of all the ethical theories. This is because you do have to do what some may call unethical because it's the right thing. Sometimes the ethical things won't work in some situations. We like to think it is, but say were holding someone hostage and need information to save thousands of lives. If they are willing to let that many people die, you should have to take anything until you give the information. You can't really talk to him and try to work things out, some people are silent. If you're going to try to save 1,000 lives, you're going to have to break a few eggs.
I believe deontology best reflects my belief system. It seems logical to me to base decisions off of whether or not they are ethical, not about what the outcome is. If killing someone is unethical, then it's an action that shouldn't be taken in the first place. However, I can see how utilitarianism might be more logical in the face of world issues that affect everyone. Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice a few things for the greater good. Deontology would work best in my daily decisions though. I'm not out to save the world, but to be an ethical person and make decisions that reflect that in my everyday life.
The philosophy that I believe best reflects my personal views is that of ethical relativism. I believe this because I generally take my beliefs from the American culture, but I have never restricted myself only to this culture. If one of the values of this culture doesn't feel right, I will simply not follow it. My belief system is a bit of a mishmash of opinions taken from any source I feel is relevant. The other ethics systems are too general and monolithic. Everybody is different, it makes sense to me that their morals should be different. Utilitarianism is too mathematical for a concept that operates by feel, while deontology allows for no exceptions. Kant's categorical imperative is better, but it still isn't very tolerant of exceptions. Cultural relativism is again very broad. My beliefs certainly aren't 100% in line with those of my culture. Moral intuitionalism seems to imply my beliefs are the same as those of everybody else, but they aren't. Hence, ethical relativism is the most appropriate for me.
My beliefs have served me well. I generally do what feels "right," safe in that under my system, if it feels "right" to me, then for me, it is right. It also states that others are entitled to their own opinion, a concept which I am pretty big on. When I need to make a difficult decision, I take the situation, compare it to past situations that were similar, and decide on my priorities. Then I make my own decision. My beliefs are the only beliefs I feel I need to worry about- my opinions are my own.
I think that ethical relativism best reflects my point of view on ethics. This view makes the most sense to me because I have certain standards, but there are times when sometimes the "bad" ethical crime someone has committed is justified because of the circumstances surrounding the situation. Ethical relativism also makes sense to me because I think your ethical views are strongly effected by your surroundings and how you are raised. Although a suburban student at Jefferson may think that polygamy is totally wrong, if you were raised in such a way that that was considered normal life and morally correct, you could have a completely different view on the topic. This course of thinking has served me well in deciding courses of action. Because of my upbringing and my ability to compare ethics with things around me in my world, I have been able to make informed decisions that fit with my world and the people around me. Overall, ethics play a large role in my life and really everyones lives and regardless of system you may believe in ethics is very important decision making tool.
I feel I'm a mixture of all the ethical theories(Utilitarian, Deontology and utilitarianism). I feel you should treat others the way you wish to be treated, to always remember to keep the best interest at heart but to also realize you cant make everyone happy. There will be haters and all you can do is grab info and come up with the best plan. I feel you have to be a bit selfish because the world will walk on you if you let it but to not forget were all human and should help as many as you can once were at the top.
I think that moral intuitionalism is the one that best describes my own ethical system. I use a bit of every ethical theory mentioned in the post (utilitarianism, deontology, categorical imperative, cultural relativism, and ethical relativism). Moral intuitionalism sounds closer to my ethical system because it is about self-conscious choices that I make about things in my life based on my gut instincts. I feel that most of the rules and laws I live with I would be able to realize that it is bad for me and others around me. My instincts are pretty good at telling what is right or wrong. Many times, I make a decision about what is right or wrong based on more than one of these ethical theories. I feel, though, that my instincts, though, bring about these other forms of thinking about what is right or wrong when I have time to think about it. Otherwise, when I have no time to think about the morality of my actions, I usually just use my instincts. My instincts have brought me where I am, where I stand, which is not a bad place to stand.
Post a Comment