STEP ONE: THE DETAILS OF THE CASE
(1) Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 1 - 28 (pages 114 - 117). Indicate which inquiry you chose, and then briefly explain it in your own words: A cook drops two expensive steaks during a dinner rush, he then picks them up places them on plates and puts them in the window to be served to the guests.
(2) Stakeholders: The cook, the restaurant, the other cooks, the guests, the managers.
(3) Are the details given sufficient? Why or why not? Yes, it tells you exactly what happened. It gave me sufficient details to form an opinion.
(4) What additional questions does this inquiry raise? How often do the cooks serve food that has fallen on the floor? Is this common practice?
STEP TWO: THE RELEVANT CRITERIA
1. Obligations (aka "duties"): Optional this week
2. Moral Ideals (aka "virtues"): See breakdown of ideals below
3. Consequences (aka "outcomes" or "results"): Optional this week
NOTE: Not ALL of the following ideals will apply! Only consider the main ones that you believe apply, in the inquiry you chose. Don't just pick the easy ones to consider, because you didn't take the time to thoroughly read the chapter and learn what each one of these actually means. I will quiz you when we do group work on Thursday.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Justice: This is usually referring to the traits of an individual. I believe this applies because he is serving guests a dirty product, and they deserve to seek justice upon him.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Courage: The cook should have the courage to tell his boss he dropped the steaks and cook new ones for the guests regardless of the consequences.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Honesty: The cook should have the courage to tell his boss he dropped the steaks and cook new ones for the guests regardless of the consequences.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Forgiveness: If the guests found out what the cook did, they should forgive the cook.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Repentance: The cook should say sorry to all parties involved and abstain from doing it again.
* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Reparation: The cook should instead of serving the food; he should cook them new steaks.
* Conflicting ideals- The cook should definitely repent from doing it again, but the guests should also forgive him, as this makes it better for all parties involved.
STEP THREE: POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
Alternative #1: The cook does not serve the steaks, and cooks them new ones.
Alternative #2: They serve the steaks, but do not charge the guests for the meal.
STEP FOUR: THE MOST ETHICAL ACTION
Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (the most widespread "respect for persons")...if it does not, choose one that will, from your alternatives. Where the choice of actions is such that no good can be achieved, choose the action that will result in the lesser evil.
I do not think the steaks should be served. That is plain nasty. While the guests will be pissed off that their food is taking so long, it is without a doubt the best course of action. I also think because they had to wait so long the food should be free.
SELF EVALUATION
1. In your own words, describe something new that you learned from this week’s assigned reading material and guidance.
I learned a lot of the definitions for the ideals/virtues.
2. In your own words, describe in detail some insight you gained, about the material, from one of your classmates' blogs this week. I honestly didn’t read any of the classmates blogs this week.
3. Did you post a thoroughly completed post to your blog on time this week? Ha ha ha, no I did not. This was a make up assignment.
4. Did you ALSO print this out, so you can bring it to class and earn total points? This was a make up assignment.
5. Of 25 points total, my efforts this week deserve: I will take whatever points you give me. This is a make up assignment, I am just very thankful you allowed me to complete it. So whatever points you give I will take with gratitude.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Final Blog Post
(1) Question:
Do human beings have a natural tendency to good, a natural tendency to evil, or some combination of tendencies? What are the implications of the answer for ethics?
(2) Conceptual Clarifications:
Tendency - a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action.
Good- of a favorable character or tendency
Evil- morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
Implications- a logical relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true and the second is false; a logical relationship between two propositions in which if the first is true the second is true; a statement exhibiting a relation of implication
(3) Answer:
I believe all people are born good, that is all people have a natural tendency to do good, or want the best. I think evil is created through life experience that is of course, a bad life experience. Because I don’t believe there is such thing as an evil child maybe a bad kid, but definitely not evil. Evil is such a strong word that has to be very carefully used. Osama Bin Laden, murderers, rapist’s, yes these are evil people. A person who seems to always be in trouble for the pettiest things, however is not evil, they may not even be a bad person, they may just have bad circumstances. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t born an evil person, but through what he was taught and how he was raised to view others, forced him to be evil. So the only logical answer to the question would be people tend to lean towards a combination of good and evil tendencies. How far they lean towards one or the other however is based on their life experiences, how they were raised, and the circumstances under how they acted the way they did. There are just too many factors to list. The implication of this answer for ethics is tough, because in my mind by saying no one is born evil, they become evil through their life experiences, is almost implying that it is okay to be evil if you have a bad life. It almost justifies a person becoming evil. It works the same way for a good person though, it’s almost justification for a good person to act evil, if something bad happens to them and they have an evil response to it. No one in this world is 100% good, or 100% evil, we are all a combination of the two, just some more than others.
(4) Example:
Like I said before, Osama Bin Laden is a prime example. He was not born an evil child. He in all likely hood wasn’t an evil kid. But through his upbringing, his surroundings, and everyone telling him America is the enemy, destroy them. He became evil, he was force fed these thing from the time he was young till the time he could take over Al-Qaeda. Now look at him he is the most sought after man in American history. He is the most evil person in many people’s minds today. But no one could make a good argument saying he has always been that way.
(5) Word Count: 531
Do human beings have a natural tendency to good, a natural tendency to evil, or some combination of tendencies? What are the implications of the answer for ethics?
(2) Conceptual Clarifications:
Tendency - a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action.
Good- of a favorable character or tendency
Evil- morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
Implications- a logical relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true and the second is false; a logical relationship between two propositions in which if the first is true the second is true; a statement exhibiting a relation of implication
(3) Answer:
I believe all people are born good, that is all people have a natural tendency to do good, or want the best. I think evil is created through life experience that is of course, a bad life experience. Because I don’t believe there is such thing as an evil child maybe a bad kid, but definitely not evil. Evil is such a strong word that has to be very carefully used. Osama Bin Laden, murderers, rapist’s, yes these are evil people. A person who seems to always be in trouble for the pettiest things, however is not evil, they may not even be a bad person, they may just have bad circumstances. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t born an evil person, but through what he was taught and how he was raised to view others, forced him to be evil. So the only logical answer to the question would be people tend to lean towards a combination of good and evil tendencies. How far they lean towards one or the other however is based on their life experiences, how they were raised, and the circumstances under how they acted the way they did. There are just too many factors to list. The implication of this answer for ethics is tough, because in my mind by saying no one is born evil, they become evil through their life experiences, is almost implying that it is okay to be evil if you have a bad life. It almost justifies a person becoming evil. It works the same way for a good person though, it’s almost justification for a good person to act evil, if something bad happens to them and they have an evil response to it. No one in this world is 100% good, or 100% evil, we are all a combination of the two, just some more than others.
(4) Example:
Like I said before, Osama Bin Laden is a prime example. He was not born an evil child. He in all likely hood wasn’t an evil kid. But through his upbringing, his surroundings, and everyone telling him America is the enemy, destroy them. He became evil, he was force fed these thing from the time he was young till the time he could take over Al-Qaeda. Now look at him he is the most sought after man in American history. He is the most evil person in many people’s minds today. But no one could make a good argument saying he has always been that way.
(5) Word Count: 531
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
