...The meaning of death depends on the social context in which the dying occurs. Most of us do not really fear the death itself, what we really fear is the way we are going to die; If we are going to die in a painful manner, if it’s going to be alone or if it’s going to be in company of a love one. Many people may see death as a scary concept, something that everyone should prevent and run from, this is not the case of terminally ill patients that see death as an escape from their suffering. I think that the worst part of the process of being terminally ill is that a patient needs to face isolation. It does not matter if the physicians or the family members do not tell the patient about their health status, there is always something in the environment that will let them know what is going on. Uncountable times family members treat the ill as if they were babies, granting all their wishes and this is a huge red flag for them to notice that something is not correct. Not only family members treat the ill with unusual attentions but also much of the time family members isolate the ill from them. This does not have anything to do with them really wanting them away or isolated, instead because they don’t know how to handle the problem and they are scared of aggravating the situation. Also since many...
Words: 530 - Pages: 3
...To remain objective when assessing and taking in evidence is a feat that many may not possess. It takes seeing the world in different perspectives and the idea that one may be wrong, which may test one’s own beliefs and theories. Being unbiased when taking in new information is one of the keys to objectivity. Kathryn Schulz, who is a journalist for major newspapers and magazines such as New York Times and Rolling Stone, has come up with In the chapter, “Evidence” from Kathryn Schulz’s book, Being Wrong, she talks about different biased views and how people process the information given to them. Based off of Kathryn Schulz's ideas on being an ideal thinker, “Here’s Why There Ought to Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths” by Milo Yiannopoulos,...
Words: 494 - Pages: 2
...Immoral” Marquis’ claim is that abortion is prima facie wrong because abortion deprives somebody (the fetus) of its future of value. Marquis observes that there is a stalemate in the arguments that both anti-abortionists and pro-choicers put forward about abortion: 1. The anti-abortionist argument 1) It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life. 2) A fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. 3) Abortion involves taking a human life, and is therefore prima facie wrong. A Problem with this argument: i) A cancer cell culture is also a human life (it is both living and human), but we don’t think it wrong to destroy cancer cell cultures. The anti-abortionist can try to overcome this problem by changing her argument to: 1) It is always prima facie wrong to kill human beings. 2) A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. 3) Abortion involves killing human beings, and is therefore prima facie wrong. 2 problems with this argument: i) Are fetuses really human beings? ii) What is so special about human beings that makes it wrong to kill them? Why is killing human beings wrong, while killing rats or chickens is not? 2. The pro-choice argument 1) It is prima facie wrong to kill only persons.. 2) A fetus is not a person. 3) Therefore, abortion does not involve killing persons, and is not prima facie wrong. Problems with this argument: i) Newborn babies...
Words: 482 - Pages: 2
...Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced. Some kinds of action are wrong or right in themselves, regardless of the consequences. Deontologists live in a universe of moral rules, such as: It is wrong to kill innocent people It is wrong to steal It is wrong to tell lies It is right to keep promises Someone who follows Duty-based ethics should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing: People have a duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result. So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer. If we compare Deontologists with Consequentialists we can see that Consequentialists begin by considering what things are good, and identify 'right' actions as the ones that produce the maximum of those good things. Deontologists appear to do it the other way around; they first consider what actions are 'right' and proceed from there. (Actually this is what they do in practice, but it isn't really the starting point of deontological thinking.) So a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action. Top Good and bad points Good points of duty-based ethics emphasises the value of every human being Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus...
Words: 5289 - Pages: 22
...theory is that “there is no ‘objective’ right or wrong, only different feelings”. Hume approaches for and against the argument of killing another human being is almost equally shared between the two, as the morals of the act are in the opinions of the perpetrator with regards to their emotions during the observation of the act. Humes ideas for Ethical Subjectivism reject the ideas of there being a set ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in killing another human being. By having this state of mind Hume is...
Words: 1385 - Pages: 6
...person. Without faith in God, no human being can be moral at all. You must first have faith in God in order to have any capacity for morality. Faith in God is the only true basis of morality. Socrates: It sounds like being an atheist is an unfortunate state of being. Preacher: The atheists are most unfortunate Socrates. Socrates: Sadly, I am more unfortunate than the atheists. I do not even understand the nature of morality. Thus, I could not tell you whether or not you need to first believe in the gods in order to be moral. So I ask you to help me and teach me something important. Preacher: Of course, Socrates. That is why I am here. Socrates: Thank you my good friend. I would like you to answer a question. What is morality? Preacher: Morality is the expression of human behavior that is based on the knowledge of right and wrong. Socrates: And one must believe in the gods in order to know what is right and wrong? Preacher: Exactly. It is the knowledge of God, which comes through faith that gives us the ability to know right and wrong. And Socrates, there are no gods. There is only the one almighty God who created all things and redeems us through his son Jesus Christ. Socrates: I am afraid I have never been very good at understanding all the amazing stories about all the different gods. I must admit that I am very excited about the idea that knowing your God will also give me the knowledge of right and wrong. But there is just one thing I would...
Words: 619 - Pages: 3
...law. He explains how harm is central to the justification of criminalization as conduct may be wrong in virtue of it being harmful and the characteristic of the conduct provides reason to criminalize it but that view does leave open places of exception. Tadros uses the example that it may be wrong to write racist books in private but because it doesn’t cause harm to anyone it cannot be criminalized. Tadros suggests that the mere fact that the conduct is wrong provides us with no reason at all to criminalize it. Tadros takes his essay to explain and reflect on the following three principals: 1) The Wrongness Justification 2) The Strong Wrongness Constraint and 3) The Weak Wrongness Constraint. The Wrongness Justification is always a reason in favor of criminalization of some conduct that the conduct is wrong. The strong wrongness constraint is permissible to criminalize some conduct only if that conduct is wrong independently of its being criminalized. The weak wrongness constraint is permissible to criminalize some conduct only if that conduct is wrong either independently of its being criminalized or as a result of its being criminalized. The Wrongness Justification is false if there are some things that are wrong that there is no reason to criminalize. Philosophers Duff and Marshall view that there is a good reason to criminalize all things publically wrong is as public wrongs are those that the public ought to be concerned with in their role as members of a political community...
Words: 879 - Pages: 4
...UNIVERSALLY WRONG Dionne Harris SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility (ACG1318A) Instructor: David Jung May 13, 2013 The idea of what is moral has been a debated question for many years. With all the different cultures and beliefs in the world, there is no real understanding of what should be considered wrong as a whole. In the article “Some Moral Minima”, Lenn Goodman argues that there are a number of areas that he considers morally wrong for the universe. My belief is that there are areas such as murder, rape, terrorism and physical abuse that are just wrong period; however in certain circumstances those areas may be justified. In the article Goodman states that everyone should be free to live without being subject to inhumane treatment (Goodman 2010). Many cultures hide behind relativism as a justification for committing immoral acts. According to our textbook relativism is “the view that one's beliefs are conditioned by one's culture, society and or community"(Mosser,2010). A person’s background and up bringing shapes the way that individual views morality. Goodman believes murder is wrong because ‘it destroys a human subject (Goodman 2010). I have to agree that Murder is wrong although there are a few ways to justify certain forms of murder. . Regardless of what you believe, no one has the right to maliciously take another person’s life. Goodman goes on to say that war is wrong but it is necessary in order to protect the life of innocent...
Words: 1069 - Pages: 5
...Cuetara Philosophy October 15, 2011 Right or Wrong Ethical Relativism is the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period. Different cultures have different ethical and moral standards that might seem odd or wrong but if they are justifiable and or not completely forced upon a group then there should be nothing wrong with said act. I agree with ethical relativism, to a certain extent, the fact that people in our modern culture criticize or judge people in others for what they do and why they do it is morally wrong. We have never had an absolute ethical standard in history so just because we think something is right or wrong doesn’t mean it is, different people respond differently to certain ideas and actions. Ethical Relativism shows us that some practices are ethically right in their respective cultures and that we should respect other people’s ethical decisions if they are made out of necessity or choice by the group of people involved. What one culture might think is absolutely horrible and wrong, might be completely acceptable and necessary in another. In other cultures some decisions are made for the survival of the civilization. The Eskimos sometimes leave there new born female children behind in the frigid climate to die. At first glance that seems incredibly wrong and inhumane, but looking further into the reasoning it...
Words: 1259 - Pages: 6
...Relativism is a view that what is right or wrong in some circumstances, people who believe in cultural relativism believe that morality is like a law. (Ethics book page 183). A human does not always agree what is “Right and wrong”. Has no one the authority to answer this question of right and wrong? That question was here at the very beginning of human history. As stated in the Bible in Genesis, God designated a tree that was growing in the Garden of Eden as “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:10-9).Some people growing up in a situation where cheating is good, for some people cheating is bad. Right, and wrong exist as opposite; it only exists in people mind. (Boghossian, Paul, “The Maze of Moral Relativism,” New York Times...
Words: 745 - Pages: 3
...) The reason is because most civil wrongs have to do with damages such as injuries or economic losses which might requires just compensation for the damages, whereas with criminal wrongs, the damages can involve dead or physical harm and with such cases, the liability assigned will be in order to punish the defendant severely so that the defendant will never commit such wrong again. I do believe a wrong doer should be punish for both civil and criminal wrongs for the same wrong doing only if she is found guilty of committing both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, with regards to the negligence per se doctrine, which permits a wrong doer to be automatically liable for committing both civil and criminal crimes, this wrong doer in question should be punish for both crimes because she might not feel the pains of the punishment if she is asked to pay only for compensatory damages. However, if this wrong doer is also convicted of criminal charges which is a more severe punishment, it will be hard for the wrong doer to commit the same act in the future....
Words: 535 - Pages: 3
...discussed in class that must be met for your appeal to authority to be likely to get you the truth? -the expert appealed to must have published work in the field. * What are the ways discussed in class to determine what the consensus of experts believe about an issue? Professional Journals * Why is it important to rely on a consensus rather than individual experts views? Some experts just start drama, past experts have been wrong. Why is it important to rely on consensus rather than individual experts views? -a consensus is more likely to be correct * How is truth defined in class? As defined in class, a statement is true and only true if it matches up with the way things are. * What are the main points of each of the Quickie Arguments? Morality does not equal legality, tradition, profit, standard procedure, not being responsible, offensive Which of the following is one of the points to be drawn from the failure of the Quickie Arguments discussed in class? -something being offensive doesn’t make it morally wrong. The point of one or more of the quickie arguments discussed in class was that -morality is not to be equated with what is frequently done,...
Words: 2864 - Pages: 12
...Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called “cultural relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...germ warfare. These topics send a shiver down the spine of most people. There is a deep moral understanding of right and wrong when it comes to such things as Goodman mentions. These topics expand past any country or culture boundaries. This is a matter of being human and understanding what penetrates the core of our humanity. Things such as slavery, hostages, and forced famine are all things that strike at the very heart of humanity. Humanity is the basic connection between all races, cultures, and connects our overall existence as a whole. Once our humanity is chipped away at by another we can see where the wrong doing lays. The preservation of life and the freedom to live life is what is most wrong to take away. Essentially a moral norm is things that our universal human morality should prevent that rob others of life, dignity, survival, and one’s own will. The targeting of one culture for mass murder is universally wrong for robs others of life for something completely out of their control. Genocide is a destruction of a race or culture past, present, and future generations. Morally, this is wrong to commit such mass destruction of humanity. Political acts against people for mass killing is depriving living human beings the right to basic survival. Things like political forced famine and germ warfare that make people suffer until death are a universal wrong for depriving people a chance to survive and having a dignified death. In today’s society we are faced with terrorism...
Words: 1129 - Pages: 5
...Most people understand conscience as something which tells us right from wrong, it is generally seen as a moral faculty, sense or feeling which compels individuals to believe that particular activities are morally right or wrong. Many ethical debates have been addressed on whether conscience is innate or developed. When conscience is described as innate, it means that it is inborn within you. From a religious viewpoint, an innate conscience is one which is God given or the voice of reason as a moral guide to what is right and wrong, whereas if it is argued that the conscience is not innate then it is described as being learned or developed according to psychologists. If conscience is innate and God given then does that mean God has told people to act immorally? However if Conscience is not innate then the blame for people acting immorally is shifted to society. St Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Butler and Cardinal John Newman are key scholars who believe that conscience is innate and inborn within a person. Key scholars and psychologists who believe that conscience is not innate are Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, Erich Fromm and Humanist. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) did not think of conscience as being the voice of God but as the natural ability of people to understand the difference between right and wrong. He believed that all people aim for what is good and try to avoid evil he called this the synderesis rule. Aquinas said that it was innate to seek good because sin is falling short...
Words: 2564 - Pages: 11
