Recent orders
Ethical Theories in Moral Problems
Ethical Theories in Moral Problems
Author
Institution
Introduction
Decision making is arguably one of the most crucial aspects of any individual’s life. It involves choosing between two or more alternatives that are conflicting in one way or another. Needless to say, individuals make decisions every day of their lives and in almost everything. Of course, there are variations as to the magnitude of decisions and their implications. However, there are instances where, despite the fact that an individual has varied choices to choose from, none of them would appear enviable. These are called ethical problems, whose solution would entail trampling on one ethic or issue of morality or another. This is the case in Jim Story.
Jim must make a choice between killing one of the tied Indians thereby saving the rest or give up the “honor” and have all of them killed by the captain. Of course, there is no option of saving all of them as any attempt at holding the captain and his army to ransom would be more likely to result in the death of all the captured prisoners, as well as Jim himself (Miller & Jensen, 2009). This means that whatever option Jim takes, there is bound to be death of one or more people.
As much as there are varied theories that would guide his decision, utilitarianism comes as the most appropriate in this case. Utilitarianism refers to a moral principle that underlines the fact that the morally right decision or course of action for any problem would be the one that results in the greatest balance of benefits over the harms for all individuals affected by the decision (Hinman, 1998). A decision or course of action, according to the utilitarian theory, would be morally appropriate as long as it results in maximum benefits for all individuals involved, irrespective of whether the benefits were produced through coercion, manipulation and lies (Miller & Jensen, 2009).
Utilitarianism comes with a relatively straightforward technique of making a decision pertaining to the morally appropriate course of action for the situation in which Jim has found himself (Hinman, 1998). To come up with an appropriate decision on the course of action, he would first need to identify the varied course of action available to him. Next, he would undertake an assessment or evaluation of all the foreseeable harms and benefits that the every course of action produces for even person that is involved (Hinman, 1998). Lastly, he would make a choice on the course of action that comes with the most benefits after taking into account the costs or harms (Miller & Jensen, 2009).
While examining Jim’s case, it goes without saying that death is a constant or fixed variable in the equation of his decision. The key or fundamental question would essentially revolve around the number of deaths with which he can live, or rather the number of lives that he can save in this case, especially considering that every decision he makes would essentially result in the death of at least one person. Taking every course of action into consideration, choosing to forfeit the honors of the special mark to the occasion would result in the death of 20 inhabitants, considering that there would essentially be nothing special with the occasion in which case the executions would go on as previously planned. However, accepting the special honor from Captain Pedro, Jim would only have to kill one of the inhabitants captured, thereby allowing the other nineteen to be set free (Miller & Jensen, 2009). In this case, taking up the honor would essentially result in the salvation of more lives and less harm. The ethical conundrum in this case is understandable.
Of course, deontological normative ethical theorists would be likely to disagree. The deontological normative ethical theory underlines the fact that an individual should focus on the morality of the action, not the end result or consequences. In essence, the individual would have to only focus on what the actions represent in themselves. In this case, Jim would have to forfeit the honor accorded to him by the captain as killing an individual would be morally inappropriate. While this is the case, it is imperative that one acknowledges the fact that Jim is presented with an opportunity to kill either by omission or by commission. In essence, death or killing is a constant factor, in which case the question would have to revert to the number. In this case, killing by commission would amount to the death of a single individual while killing by omission would result in the death of 20 individuals. In essence, it would boil down to examining the consequences. In essence, the most appropriate theory right from the beginning would be the utilitarianism where one would examine the consequences and determine the course of action by evaluating the option that comes with the most benefits.
In conclusion, Jim’s story involves a moral conundrum where he has to make a decision on whether to accept the offer to kill one captured individual and save 19 others or refuse the offer and have all of them killed. While there are varied theories that would explain the most appropriate course of action, utilitarianism comes as the most appropriate. All Jim would have to do is determine the varied course of action, their harms and benefits to all individuals and take the one that balances the greatest amount of benefits.
References
Hinman, L. M (1998). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, 2nd Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace
Miller, E. L., & Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter: An invitation to philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Are Families Declining, or are they Resilient in the Face of Change
Are Families Declining, or are they Resilient in the Face of Change?
Alayna Carpenter
Townson University
Professor Margolis.
Introduction
Without a doubt, the institution of marriage and family has gone through a transformation both in structure and it’s meaning to people’s lives. Initially, traditional gender roles dictated how work was carried out both inside and outside the home. Marriage marked entry into adulthood where children were allowed to leave their parents and forge their own lives (Johnson & James, 2016). I hold that the changes experienced in the family set up have made the family unit to decline rather than being resilient. Findings contend that the family unit is falling apart owing to the vanishing family ties that diminishing by the day, the existence of troubling statistics and horrendous divorce statistics. The purpose of this essay is to assess the effects of major shifts in the conceptualization of marriage and family life and to support the stand that these changes are diminishing the family institution.
The Sexual Revolution, Relaxed Divorce Laws, the women’s liberation movement, and mobility of American families
Some societal changes that took place in the 1960s had a significant effect on the structure of the family structure. The changes had to do with the sexual revolution, relaxation of divorce laws, the women’s liberation movement, and mobility of American families. In the wake of the civil rights movement, women were liberated hence changing the perception of the family structure. Women who graduated from college were empowered and now had an opportunity to establish and assert their independent identities (Stallman & Ohan, 2016). There was intense awakening in realizing that recognizing civil rights meant equal rights for every person in the society, including women. As such, women marched for sexual equality and a broad range of job opportunities and careers available to men. Although the movement bore good outcome, it changed the traditional notions of motherhood, marriage, and family unity forever. Even in the most conservative families, women began standing up for themselves by letting their partners know they would be returning to school or work. This was informed by the need for having two incomes to sustain a decent standard of living. Notably, the legal system allowed no-fault divorce meaning that society did not blame either spouse for divorces. This made the dissolution of marriage easy, including shared responsibility of raising children and property division. Also, following increased mobility, family members no longer lived in close proximity to one another. College graduates were able to take up jobs thousands of miles away from where they lived. The relocations made individuals invest time setting up their lives without the help of family members.
Family Conflicts and Estrangements
Other reasons that make families drift apart range from conflicts and misunderstandings, petty grievances, jealousy, inheritance feuds, sibling rivalry, homosexuality outings and family business disputes. Nowadays, family estrangements have become the norm, and they have become more hurtful and intense. It is common to find sisters not speaking to each other since their parents died or brothers who rarely visit each other because their wives do not get along. Additionally, some sons alienate themselves from the family if they marry a woman who does not want to be associated with the husband’s family. On the hand, daughters will avoid contact with their mother because their mother is always guilt-tripping her. Moreover, conflict in the family occurs when a daughter is disowned for marrying outside their religion or race. Even fathers are disowning sons for revealing they are homosexuals. (Johnson & James, 2016)
Dysfunctional Families and Increasing Divorce Rates
Worth noting, it is clear that the family unit is diminishing as it is no longer a haven. Instead, the family has become dysfunctional and is surrounded by a heartless world. Nations are facing a family relationship landscape that keeps on changing. Assumptions about family structures have been challenged, including raising children out of wedlock, boundaries of single mothers, grandparents raising their grandchildren to gay couple adopting and raising children. Notably, cracks on the American family structures began widening in the last 40 years of the 20th century, but they did not become visible until the mid-1970s when the divorce rate doubled .According to a study conducted by Rutgers University, divorce rates rose by 30% since 1970, marriage rates declined, and only 38% consider themselves happy in their marriages, a significant drop from the 53% recorded 25 years ago (Allendorf & Thornton, 2015). Notably, today 51% of all marriages end in divorce. Unlike the past, the spouse one has in their 20 is less likely the one they will go through mid-life crisis in their 40s.
Counterargument: Grand Parents May not provide Financial Support as they are Not Economically Productive
Worth noting, there is the school of thought that maintains that major shifts have made marriage and families to be resilient than ever. These social scientists believe that despite the challenges, families are happier today because there are multigenerational relationships that they enjoy. Because people have grandparents and great grandparents, they are close to them and get economic and emotional support. (Weaver and Schofield, 2015). I can’t entirely agree with this standpoint because adults are worn and stressed out in their old age. Although children grow up knowing their grandparents, they might not support them more so financially because they are retired and economically unproductive.
Conclusion
There has been a major shift in the structure of marriage and families and the meaning it has on people’s lives. The family institution has been declining as a result of these changes. Women, for instance, became empowered and ventured into education as well as employment. Additionally, there have been increased rates of divorce among couples and children out of wedlock. Other reasons that make families drift apart range from conflicts and misunderstandings, petty grievances, jealousy, inheritance feuds, sibling rivalry, homosexuality outings and family business disputes.
References
Allendorf, K., & Thornton, A. (2015). Caste and choice: The influence of developmental idealism on marriage behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 121(1), 243-287.
Elliot, D. B., and T. Simmons. (2011). Marital Events of Americans 2009. American Community Survey Reports ACS-13, August, U.S Census Bureau, www.census.goveJohnson, M.D., N.L. Galambos and J. R. Anderson. (2016). Skip the dishes? Not so fast! Sex and housework Revisited. Journal of Family Psychology, 203-2013
Stallman, H.M., and J.L. Ohan. (2016). Parenting Styles, Parental adjustments and co-parental conflicts: Differential predicators of Child Psychosocial adjustments following Divorce. Behavior Change Journal, 112-126.
Weaver, J.M., and T.J. Schofield. (2015). Mediation & Moderation of divorce effects on Children’s Behavior Problems. Journal of family Psychology, 39-48.
Ethical situation found in the story, The engineers thumb
Ethical situation found in the story, “The engineer’s thumb”
The story, “The engineer’s thumb,” is a story about a doctor, who received a patient one morning with a thumb injury. The patient, Mr. Heatherly, who was also an engineer, had lost his thumb in an incident dating a year back, but was not comfortable with telling the doctor about the injury before telling the police. Upon some bit of deliberation, the doctor accompanied him to Sherlock Holmes, where he was able to narrate to them his ordeal. He told them of his experience, narrating to them that he was to go and do some repair for a hydraulic machine used for excavation, but was not able to do the repair as was planned. Instead, his German client, who was offering him a tidy sum for the repair got curious and attempted to crush him with the machine. After being saved from the situation by a woman in the facility, he found himself one morning and found his way back to the train station from where he was picked by the client while going for the job. However, what he did not realize was that it was a year since the incident happened, and he ended up losing his thumb, as well as what he was to be paid for the work.
From the short story, it is possible to determine that Mr. Hatherley acted in defiance to some of the codes of ethics that guide engineering practices. In reference to the fundamental cannons that guide engineering practice, one of the professional duties of an engineer is to conduct him or herself lawfully and ethically. After the determination that the German client was involved in an unlawful business, one of the considerations that Mr. Hatherley would have heeded to would be to forfeit any involvement in the business. It was possible for him to tell that the German was not conducting a legal excavation since in their discussion; the client mentions that he was not willing to, “…raise eyebrows.” With this provision, it would be possible to determine that the engineer acted against the fundamental engineering canons by agreeing to the deal.
According to one of the professional obligations of engineers, engineers should not involve themselves with practices that are deceptive to the public. For this reason, it is possible to determine that engineers should be able to avoid making statements that contain material representations, of the exclusion of material fact. From the story, there is a possibility of insinuating that the engineer was not telling the truth when he told the German that he would be able to advise him on what he could do with the powerful machine (15), yet he was also wondering why the machine was developed for the presupposed inadequate purpose it was serving. Essentially, he might have been curious to determine what was being excavated in the piece of land. The other professional obligation that guides engineers in their practice includes the fact that they should not use an association with a corporation, partnership, or a non-engineering entity for some unethical acts. Mr. Hatherley should have been able to determine that the German client was involving himself in unethical practices since he did not want to be noticed by the authorities, who might have to question the excavation going on in the area, or they might reclaim the land from the colonel.
References
Hansen, K. L., and Zenobia, K. E. “Civil engineer’s handbook of professional practice”. Pg 78. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (2011).
Moaveni, S. “Engineering fundamentals: An introduction to engineering”. Pg 111-115. Pacific Grove, Calif: Nelson Engineering. (2010).