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
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Blog Assignment #9
Assignment Part 1
In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Breifly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.
Unwarranted Assumptions: The problem with unwarranted assumptions comes when a person unconsciously take things for granted. Unwarranted assumptions ussually occur when a person doesnt read something carefully enough, and dont realize what is actually said, like they think it says one thing when it actually says something else. For example, I make unwarranted assumptions in math class far to often. I read a word problem, and think it says one thing when, if I had read more carefully, it actually said something completely different.
Oversimplification: The problem with over-simplifying something occurs when people try and simplify something so much it actually changes what they were trying to simplify in the first place. For example, again in math class, simplifying an algebraic equation, or even when croos multiplying, its easy enough to do, it just whne you try and make it too easy and do to much you change the problem, you get the wrong answer.
Hasty Conclusions: The problem with hasty conclusions occurs when people fail to fully consider every aspect of a problem and jump to a conclusion. Again in math this happens to me quite often, as I rush through problems because I think I already have a good enough idea of whats going on, and I usually leave out a step or two, and come up the wrong answer because of this. As you can tell im not very good at math.
Assignment Part 2
1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? The most important thing a person must do when facing a situation involving multiple obligations is to choose as best as possible in what order/which ones, you should handle.
2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? You have to do what is most sensible for you. You cant be in two places at once, at most people cannot handle multiple responsibilties at once. So an easy way to resolve it, is do what is best for you.
Assignment Part 3
1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I learned I rush my decision making process far to often. I learned by slowing down and considering every aspect I would be in much better shape.
2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life? Again, by slowing down my decision making process in my everyday life. By doing so I feel I would be a much better student, and a much calmer person.
3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer. I believe I deserve the maximum amount of points. Because I actually read the chapter, and I feel like my answers to the questions reflect my understanding of what I read.
In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Breifly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.
Unwarranted Assumptions: The problem with unwarranted assumptions comes when a person unconsciously take things for granted. Unwarranted assumptions ussually occur when a person doesnt read something carefully enough, and dont realize what is actually said, like they think it says one thing when it actually says something else. For example, I make unwarranted assumptions in math class far to often. I read a word problem, and think it says one thing when, if I had read more carefully, it actually said something completely different.
Oversimplification: The problem with over-simplifying something occurs when people try and simplify something so much it actually changes what they were trying to simplify in the first place. For example, again in math class, simplifying an algebraic equation, or even when croos multiplying, its easy enough to do, it just whne you try and make it too easy and do to much you change the problem, you get the wrong answer.
Hasty Conclusions: The problem with hasty conclusions occurs when people fail to fully consider every aspect of a problem and jump to a conclusion. Again in math this happens to me quite often, as I rush through problems because I think I already have a good enough idea of whats going on, and I usually leave out a step or two, and come up the wrong answer because of this. As you can tell im not very good at math.
Assignment Part 2
1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation? The most important thing a person must do when facing a situation involving multiple obligations is to choose as best as possible in what order/which ones, you should handle.
2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations? You have to do what is most sensible for you. You cant be in two places at once, at most people cannot handle multiple responsibilties at once. So an easy way to resolve it, is do what is best for you.
Assignment Part 3
1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment? I learned I rush my decision making process far to often. I learned by slowing down and considering every aspect I would be in much better shape.
2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life? Again, by slowing down my decision making process in my everyday life. By doing so I feel I would be a much better student, and a much calmer person.
3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer. I believe I deserve the maximum amount of points. Because I actually read the chapter, and I feel like my answers to the questions reflect my understanding of what I read.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Blog Assignment #6
PART 1
QUESTION #1: If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?
Yes, it would be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in. I cant imagine that we in the USA would consider human sacrifice, or cannibilism to be okay or in any way correct, but in many cultures throughout the world it is common practice. On the same token though, in the USA, we have the Constitution, which for the most part lays out what is or is not "okay" to do in this country. But for most other countries in the world, this could never work, they think we are crazy for even having our government set up the way it is. That is why I think all moral values are relative to the culture you live in.
P. All cultures have different opinions of what is right or wrong
P. The morals of any culture are comprised of the people in that culture, not people outside of it
C: Therefore, it is correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in
QUESTION #2: Isn’t it a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one culture is better than another?
I absolutely believe one person cannot and should not judge another person. So obviously if I believe one person cannot judge another, then one cannot judge another's culture. There are too many difference's in people, and their cultures. The majority of people are ignorant to other people and their cultures, so not only would passing judgement on a culture you, in all likelyhood know nothing about, be ignorant it would be outright dumb, and reflect negatively on you, and potentially your culture. Trust me this is a revelation for me, as I am no angel, and have done my fair share of passing judgement on people and their cultures, the past few weeks for whatever reason I have done a lot of growing up, and my change in opinion on this topic prove's it to me.
P. People are uneducated about other people's cultures
P. Some people refuse to learn about other cultures
C: Therefore, it is a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures
PART 2
Under no circumstance is it ever okay to simply abandon a child, in our culture. However in those ancient cultures such as Sparta, Rome, or China, it may have been completely acceptable, and a widely used practice, something a parent would never even think twice about. But in our culture, I dont believe it would ever be morally acceptable to abandon a child, even though it happens seemingly often, it is never right, and should never happen.
Arguable Issue: Whether or not it is morally acceptable to abandon a child.
P. Children cannot fend for themselves
P. Without a parent a child will die( Moral Value, Based on valuing life)
P. Children cannot defend themselves from predators
C. Therefore it is Not morally acceptable to abandon a child.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Blog Assignment #5
Garth Brooks: Shameless
Well I'm shameless
When it comes to loving you,
I'll do anything you want me to,
I'll do anything at all.
And I'm standing
Here for all the world to see,
Oh, baby that's what's left of me,
I don't have very far to fall.
You know now I'm not a man who's ever been
Insecure about the world I've been living in.
I don't break easy, I have my pride,
But if you need to be satisfied
I'm shameless.
Honey, I don't have a prayer.
Every time I see you standing there
I go down upon my knees.
And I'm changing,
Swore I'd never compromise,
Oh, but you convinced me otherwise.
I'll do anything you need.
You see in all my life I've never found
What I couldn't resist, what I couldn't turn down.
I could walk away from anyone I ever knew,
But I can't walk away from you.
I have never had anything have this much control on me.
I've worked too hard to call my life my own.
And I've made myself a world, and it's worked so perfectly,
But it sure won't now, I can't refuse,
I've never had so much to lose.
And I'm shameless...
You know it should be easy for a man who's strong
To say he's sorry or admit when he's wrong.
I've never lost anything I ever missed,
But I've never been in love like this.
It's out of my hands.
I'm shameless.
I don't have the power now,
And I don't want it anyhow,
So I gotta let it go.
And I'm shameless.
Shameless as a man can be.
You could make a total fool of me.
I just wanted you to know
That I'm shameless.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/shameless-lyrics-garth-brooks.html
These lyrics relate to the Conscience and Shame section of chapter four. They define shame from the Oxford dictionary, as "the painful emotion arising from the consciousness of something dishonouring, ridiculous, or indecorous in ones own conduct or circumstances". The Garth Brooks song above is talking about having no shame for loving someone, even though he probably shouldnt, he doesnt care. It is, in a way, the exact opposite of what the chapter is talking about, but thats why I chose this song.
A.I. Whether or not this post deserves the full 25 points or not?
Conclusion: This post deserves 25 points.
Premises:
1. I followed your guidelines and criteria.
2. I made it more fun to read, because I chose the opposite of the text.
3. I completed the assignment on time.
Well I'm shameless
When it comes to loving you,
I'll do anything you want me to,
I'll do anything at all.
And I'm standing
Here for all the world to see,
Oh, baby that's what's left of me,
I don't have very far to fall.
You know now I'm not a man who's ever been
Insecure about the world I've been living in.
I don't break easy, I have my pride,
But if you need to be satisfied
I'm shameless.
Honey, I don't have a prayer.
Every time I see you standing there
I go down upon my knees.
And I'm changing,
Swore I'd never compromise,
Oh, but you convinced me otherwise.
I'll do anything you need.
You see in all my life I've never found
What I couldn't resist, what I couldn't turn down.
I could walk away from anyone I ever knew,
But I can't walk away from you.
I have never had anything have this much control on me.
I've worked too hard to call my life my own.
And I've made myself a world, and it's worked so perfectly,
But it sure won't now, I can't refuse,
I've never had so much to lose.
And I'm shameless...
You know it should be easy for a man who's strong
To say he's sorry or admit when he's wrong.
I've never lost anything I ever missed,
But I've never been in love like this.
It's out of my hands.
I'm shameless.
I don't have the power now,
And I don't want it anyhow,
So I gotta let it go.
And I'm shameless.
Shameless as a man can be.
You could make a total fool of me.
I just wanted you to know
That I'm shameless.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/shameless-lyrics-garth-brooks.html
These lyrics relate to the Conscience and Shame section of chapter four. They define shame from the Oxford dictionary, as "the painful emotion arising from the consciousness of something dishonouring, ridiculous, or indecorous in ones own conduct or circumstances". The Garth Brooks song above is talking about having no shame for loving someone, even though he probably shouldnt, he doesnt care. It is, in a way, the exact opposite of what the chapter is talking about, but thats why I chose this song.
A.I. Whether or not this post deserves the full 25 points or not?
Conclusion: This post deserves 25 points.
Premises:
1. I followed your guidelines and criteria.
2. I made it more fun to read, because I chose the opposite of the text.
3. I completed the assignment on time.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Blog Assignment #4
Assignment Part 1:
1. Moral Relativism is a philosophical view, that suggests that all ethical statement's are equal. There is no right or wrong, and no opinion is better than the other. Moral relativism, however, is subjective, because it is based on a persons opinion. That is what they believe is right or wrong, good or evil. So there can be no standard by which to compare two different moral statement's to determine which is more correct.
2. In the online resource I used, It showed many different sites definitions of Moral Relativity. They basically all said the same thing, Moral relativism is a philosophical view that what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation. They also placed great emphasis on the cultural aspect of it, saying what a culture or society believed to be right or wrong, good or bad was conditional.
http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-relativism
3. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not Moral Relativism is a good view to hold.
Conclusion: Moral Relativism is not a good view to hold.
Premises:
(1) All human laws involve some principle being enforced by threat of consequences
(2) Can only be used to excuse or allow certain actions
(3) It can never be used to condemn an action
Assignment Part 2:
The Role of Majority View
1. Technically the majority view would be at least fifty one percent of a group of individuals, according to the Ruggiero book, and almost every mathematician in the world. That's not to say that the majority view is the best view though, as those individuals may have little to no knowledge of the subject. For example, if the majority of the people in a test group voted for a certain politician to be elected, he may not be the best or most qualified candidate for the job, that's not to say he wont do the best job, but just because the "majority" voted for him doest mean he will pan out to be the best elected official, so the majority could have been wrong in who they elected.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: The majority view is NOT a reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Premises:
(1) People may have limited knowledge of the subject
(2) People would have listened to and considered facts differently
(3) People will judge topics based on their own pre-concieved notions
The Role of Feelings
1. As Rousseau said " What I feel is right is right, what I feel is wrong is wrong." Feelings are conditional, they are what an individual wants. Feelings make you live your life in a way that expresses who you are as a person. If you feel something is wrong a healthy, you shouldnt do it, where as if you feel something is right you should. That, however, does not mean you are in fact right or wrong in what you do. Hitler and Stalin for example killed millions, but they were following their feelings. So just because your following your feelings, it doesnt mean your doing whats right or wrong, just what is right and wrong for you.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: Feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Premises:
(1) Feeling's are desire's.
(2) Desire's are not always socially acceptable (I.E. Killing people)
(3) May conflict with other people's feeling's.
Assignment Part 3:
1. The ability to express yourself in your own words is essential in this class. Did you put everything in your own words this time?
With the exception of the quotes I used, yes I believe I put everything in my own words. However my own words were based of the text, so they do seem simialr to what I read.
2. What was easiest / hardest about this assignment?
The easiest part of the assignment was the reading. The hardest was making time to do it. I did however find this to be an interesting assignment, it seemed to really make me think, I actually enjoyed it.
3. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?
I will try and use what I learned in the Role of feelings chapter and take into consideration other people's feelings more often.
4. How well do you think you did on this assignment? Explain.
I think I did pretty well on this assignment. I feel like it challenged me a bit, but I think I stepped up to the challenge. I cited sources when asked to and put everything into my own words. Plus, I actually read the chapters, so that should count for something haha.
1. Moral Relativism is a philosophical view, that suggests that all ethical statement's are equal. There is no right or wrong, and no opinion is better than the other. Moral relativism, however, is subjective, because it is based on a persons opinion. That is what they believe is right or wrong, good or evil. So there can be no standard by which to compare two different moral statement's to determine which is more correct.
2. In the online resource I used, It showed many different sites definitions of Moral Relativity. They basically all said the same thing, Moral relativism is a philosophical view that what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation. They also placed great emphasis on the cultural aspect of it, saying what a culture or society believed to be right or wrong, good or bad was conditional.
http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-relativism
3. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not Moral Relativism is a good view to hold.
Conclusion: Moral Relativism is not a good view to hold.
Premises:
(1) All human laws involve some principle being enforced by threat of consequences
(2) Can only be used to excuse or allow certain actions
(3) It can never be used to condemn an action
Assignment Part 2:
The Role of Majority View
1. Technically the majority view would be at least fifty one percent of a group of individuals, according to the Ruggiero book, and almost every mathematician in the world. That's not to say that the majority view is the best view though, as those individuals may have little to no knowledge of the subject. For example, if the majority of the people in a test group voted for a certain politician to be elected, he may not be the best or most qualified candidate for the job, that's not to say he wont do the best job, but just because the "majority" voted for him doest mean he will pan out to be the best elected official, so the majority could have been wrong in who they elected.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: The majority view is NOT a reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Premises:
(1) People may have limited knowledge of the subject
(2) People would have listened to and considered facts differently
(3) People will judge topics based on their own pre-concieved notions
The Role of Feelings
1. As Rousseau said " What I feel is right is right, what I feel is wrong is wrong." Feelings are conditional, they are what an individual wants. Feelings make you live your life in a way that expresses who you are as a person. If you feel something is wrong a healthy, you shouldnt do it, where as if you feel something is right you should. That, however, does not mean you are in fact right or wrong in what you do. Hitler and Stalin for example killed millions, but they were following their feelings. So just because your following your feelings, it doesnt mean your doing whats right or wrong, just what is right and wrong for you.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: Feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Premises:
(1) Feeling's are desire's.
(2) Desire's are not always socially acceptable (I.E. Killing people)
(3) May conflict with other people's feeling's.
Assignment Part 3:
1. The ability to express yourself in your own words is essential in this class. Did you put everything in your own words this time?
With the exception of the quotes I used, yes I believe I put everything in my own words. However my own words were based of the text, so they do seem simialr to what I read.
2. What was easiest / hardest about this assignment?
The easiest part of the assignment was the reading. The hardest was making time to do it. I did however find this to be an interesting assignment, it seemed to really make me think, I actually enjoyed it.
3. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?
I will try and use what I learned in the Role of feelings chapter and take into consideration other people's feelings more often.
4. How well do you think you did on this assignment? Explain.
I think I did pretty well on this assignment. I feel like it challenged me a bit, but I think I stepped up to the challenge. I cited sources when asked to and put everything into my own words. Plus, I actually read the chapters, so that should count for something haha.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Blog Assignment #2
1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?
I felt the questions on the test were easy to answer. I am very opinionated person, who has a very strong belief system, the questions asked were very basic and thus were easy to answer. I feel my answers were very consistent, and yes I thought all of the questions asked were basically the same in concept, so consistency was very important, or else your answers weould not really have made sense, plus it could mess up the experiment results.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
I think there are times when breaking the law is definetly acceptable, because sometimes people are put in extraordinary situations that require extra ordinary actions. Such as if I were in a friends house and another person shot and killed my friend and then put his gun away, I would without hesitation fire a shot at that person and kill him. According to florida law this would not be okay, as I was in no immediate threat. I would still do it though.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
I believe it is basically a general consensus regarding what is socially acceptable. It is like a standard of behaviour. Like if you were in a restaurant and stood up and flashed everyone, this is not socially acceptable, because first off you are disrupting everyones meal, and second off it is just plain gross. However if you were in that same restaurant and stood up to propose to your significant other, while you are still disrupting everyones meal, this would generally be considered acceptable.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
As I said with following a governments laws, there is always a time to go against it, just as I think there is always a time to go against a social convention. Like if it was socially acceptable to jump off a bridge, and everyone you know seemed to be doing it, should you do it? No, that would be dumb, in times likes this, you should go against the grain and toot your own horn, so to speak.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
I believe that yes, there is a time to go against your own principles, because in some cases you may not have a legitimate reason to believe what you believe. You could just be following along with what everyone else is doing or you could believe it just to be different. If you were a hardcore rascist, and you saw a car accident involving the race you didnt like, and you have the chance to save them before the car goes up in flames do you save them? I believe yes, you should, because while you may not like those same people they are still human beings and deserve the chance to live just as you do. So you should go against your own principles and save them regardless.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
Socially acceptable has more to do with what a group of people consider to be right and wrong, regardless of what the laws are. Legally acceptable is very similar to socially acceptable, because a group of people decide what is right or wrong, but they are deciding that based on what is best for the country, state or whatever they are making the law for. Morally acceptable is what you consider, in your mind, to be right and wrong. Regardless of the laws or what other people think.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I believe I deserve 20 - 25 points on this blog assignment. I felt like I responded to the questions accurately and gave good examples when asked too. I felt my answers were on topic with what the questions asked, and my examples made sense and had a direct correlation to the question.
I felt the questions on the test were easy to answer. I am very opinionated person, who has a very strong belief system, the questions asked were very basic and thus were easy to answer. I feel my answers were very consistent, and yes I thought all of the questions asked were basically the same in concept, so consistency was very important, or else your answers weould not really have made sense, plus it could mess up the experiment results.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
I think there are times when breaking the law is definetly acceptable, because sometimes people are put in extraordinary situations that require extra ordinary actions. Such as if I were in a friends house and another person shot and killed my friend and then put his gun away, I would without hesitation fire a shot at that person and kill him. According to florida law this would not be okay, as I was in no immediate threat. I would still do it though.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
I believe it is basically a general consensus regarding what is socially acceptable. It is like a standard of behaviour. Like if you were in a restaurant and stood up and flashed everyone, this is not socially acceptable, because first off you are disrupting everyones meal, and second off it is just plain gross. However if you were in that same restaurant and stood up to propose to your significant other, while you are still disrupting everyones meal, this would generally be considered acceptable.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
As I said with following a governments laws, there is always a time to go against it, just as I think there is always a time to go against a social convention. Like if it was socially acceptable to jump off a bridge, and everyone you know seemed to be doing it, should you do it? No, that would be dumb, in times likes this, you should go against the grain and toot your own horn, so to speak.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
I believe that yes, there is a time to go against your own principles, because in some cases you may not have a legitimate reason to believe what you believe. You could just be following along with what everyone else is doing or you could believe it just to be different. If you were a hardcore rascist, and you saw a car accident involving the race you didnt like, and you have the chance to save them before the car goes up in flames do you save them? I believe yes, you should, because while you may not like those same people they are still human beings and deserve the chance to live just as you do. So you should go against your own principles and save them regardless.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
Socially acceptable has more to do with what a group of people consider to be right and wrong, regardless of what the laws are. Legally acceptable is very similar to socially acceptable, because a group of people decide what is right or wrong, but they are deciding that based on what is best for the country, state or whatever they are making the law for. Morally acceptable is what you consider, in your mind, to be right and wrong. Regardless of the laws or what other people think.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I believe I deserve 20 - 25 points on this blog assignment. I felt like I responded to the questions accurately and gave good examples when asked too. I felt my answers were on topic with what the questions asked, and my examples made sense and had a direct correlation to the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
