Assignment Question
Read the Ethical Dilemmas and select one as focus for the assessment. Write 700-1050 word report.
ethical dilemmas
Crafting a Moral Code A Guide to Ethical Decision-Making Aligned with Virtue Ethics and Lewis Vaughn’s Insights Essay
Crafting a Moral Code A Guide to Ethical Decision-Making Aligned with Virtue Ethics and Lewis Vaughn’s Insights Essay
Introduction
In the intricate fabric of human existence, moral codes and ethical decision-making play pivotal roles in shaping our behavior and interactions (Vaughn, 2022). Our moral compass guides us through the maze of dilemmas and choices we encounter daily, reflecting our values, beliefs, and principles. This essay delves into the components of my moral code, explores my ethical decision-making process, and analyzes how the ethical theories discussed in the first four chapters of the textbook “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues” by Lewis Vaughn align with my approach to ethical decisions.
My Moral Code
To comprehend my moral code, it’s crucial to identify the key components that constitute it (Vaughn, 2022). My moral code chiefly comprises the following elements:
Compassion: Compassion serves as the cornerstone of my moral code. I firmly believe in treating others with kindness, empathy, and understanding, acknowledging their suffering and striving to alleviate it when possible.
Justice: Justice is another cornerstone of my moral code. I hold the belief that every individual should be treated fairly and equitably, encompassing not only ensuring equal opportunities but also addressing systemic injustices and inequalities in society.
Honesty: Honesty is a fundamental value in my moral code. I believe in being truthful and transparent in my actions and interactions, fostering trust and upholding the principle of integrity.
Autonomy: Respecting individual autonomy is paramount in my moral framework (Vaughn, 2022). I believe individuals have the right to make their own choices and decisions, as long as they do not harm others or infringe upon their rights.
Beneficence: Beneficence involves actively promoting the well-being of others, contributing to the welfare of individuals and society as a whole. This principle drives me to engage in acts of kindness and support for those in need.
Non-harm: I adhere to the principle of non-harm, refraining from causing physical or psychological harm to others (Vaughn, 2022).
Accountability: Accountability is fundamental in my moral code. Taking responsibility for my actions and decisions reinforces the consequences of our choices.
Ethical Decision-Making Process
My ethical decision-making process is influenced by the components of my moral code and involves a structured approach (Vaughn, 2022). When confronted with ethical dilemmas or decisions, I follow these steps:
Identifying the Dilemma: The first step is recognizing that an ethical dilemma exists, understanding conflicting values or principles, and potential consequences of each choice.
Gathering Information: I collect pertinent information about the situation, including facts, perspectives, and potential consequences, to make informed decisions.
Consulting Moral Code: I refer to my moral code, considering how each component applies to the specific dilemma (Vaughn, 2022).
Applying Ethical Theories: Ethical theories, as discussed in Vaughn’s textbook, provide frameworks for analyzing the dilemma further (Vaughn, 2022). The theories explored in the first four chapters, such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory, offer valuable insights.
Considering Consequences: I assess potential consequences of each course of action, taking into account short-term and long-term effects on individuals and society.
Seeking Guidance: In complex cases, I may seek advice from trusted individuals or ethical experts, gaining diverse perspectives and insights.
Making a Decision: After careful consideration, I make a decision aligning with my moral code and ethically justifiable based on applied principles and theories (Vaughn, 2022).
Taking Responsibility: Regardless of the outcome, I assume responsibility for my decision and its consequences, demonstrating accountability for my actions.
Alignment with Ethical Theories
Virtue ethics is the ethical theory that closely aligns with my ethical decision-making process (Vaughn, 2022). Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of virtuous character traits as the foundation for ethical behavior. This theory resonates with my approach for several reasons:
Emphasis on Character: Virtue ethics underscores the importance of cultivating virtuous character traits like compassion, honesty, and justice, closely mirroring the components of my moral code.
Long-term Perspective: Virtue ethics considers long-term development of moral character (Vaughn, 2022). Similarly, my ethical decision-making process evaluates both immediate and long-term consequences, focusing on consistent adherence to moral principles.
Subjectivity: Virtue ethics recognizes that moral judgments may vary depending on individual and cultural contexts. My ethical decision-making process also acknowledges the importance of considering diverse perspectives and values.
Integral to Daily Life: Virtue ethics is not a rigid set of rules but a way of life (Vaughn, 2022). Similarly, my moral code and decision-making process integrate into my daily life, influencing how I interact with others and navigate ethical challenges.
Further Exploration of Ethical Theories
While virtue ethics closely aligns with my ethical decision-making, it is crucial to briefly explore how other ethical theories discussed in Vaughn’s textbook contribute to my understanding of ethical dilemmas:
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering (Vaughn, 2022). While I value individual and societal well-being, quantifying happiness and predicting long-term consequences accurately can be challenging. Therefore, I tend to lean more towards virtue ethics, which provides a clearer framework for ethical character development.
Deontology: Deontology emphasizes moral rules and duties (Vaughn, 2022). While I appreciate the clarity of deontological principles, rigid adherence to rules may lead to morally questionable outcomes in complex situations. I prefer a flexible approach that considers character and context, as offered by virtue ethics.
Social Contract Theory: Social contract theory addresses mutually agreed-upon rules for society (Vaughn, 2022). While I value the concept of social contracts in promoting fairness and justice, I also recognize the importance of individual rights and autonomy, aligning more closely with my moral code.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my moral code comprises compassion, justice, honesty, autonomy, beneficence, non-harm, and accountability (Vaughn, 2022). When making ethical decisions, I follow a structured process that integrates the components of my moral code, ethical theories, and a commitment to responsible decision-making. Among the ethical theories explored in Vaughn’s textbook, virtue ethics closely resembles my approach, emphasizing the cultivation of virtuous character traits as the foundation for ethical behavior. By understanding and articulating my moral code and ethical decision-making process, I aim to navigate life’s complexities with integrity and empathy, striving to make ethical choices aligned with my values and principles.
References
Vaughn, L. (2022). Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (6th ed.). Norton.
FREQUENTLY ASK QUESTION (FAQ)
Q1: What is the title and author of the textbook referenced in this essay on moral codes and ethical decision-making?
Answer: The title of the textbook is “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues,” and the author is Lewis Vaughn (6th edition, Norton).
Q2: What are the key components of the author’s moral code as described in the essay?
Answer: The author’s moral code primarily consists of compassion, justice, honesty, autonomy, beneficence, non-harm, and accountability.
Q3: How does the author approach ethical decision-making when faced with dilemmas?
Answer: The author follows a structured ethical decision-making process, including steps like identifying the dilemma, gathering information, consulting their moral code, applying ethical theories, considering consequences, seeking guidance if necessary, making a decision, and taking responsibility for the outcome.
Q4: Which ethical theory, among those discussed in the essay, aligns most closely with the author’s ethical decision-making process, and why?
Answer: Virtue ethics closely aligns with the author’s ethical decision-making process because it emphasizes the development of virtuous character traits as the foundation for ethical behavior, which resonates with the author’s moral code and approach.
Q5: What role does accountability play in the author’s moral code and ethical decision-making process?
Answer: Accountability is fundamental in the author’s moral code, as it involves taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. It also plays a role in the ethical decision-making process by reinforcing the consequences of choices.
Navigating Ethical Dilemmas: Perspectives of Subjective Moral Relativism and Cultural Relativism
Introduction
Ethical dilemmas are intricate situations that compel individuals to navigate decisions that are in accordance with their moral beliefs and values. In such intricate scenarios, philosophical perspectives like subjective moral relativism and cultural relativism offer insights into the most suitable course of action. This essay delves into a hypothetical ethical dilemma, examines the viewpoints of subjective moral relativists and cultural relativists, evaluates the decision made by the individual confronting the dilemma, and discusses the presence of an objective moral truth.
The Ethical Dilemma
Imagine a situation where a medical researcher stumbles upon a potential cure for a life-threatening disease. However, this discovery presents the researcher with a profound moral dilemma – the cure requires conducting experimental procedures on unwilling human subjects. This dilemma creates a significant ethical conflict between the possibility of saving lives and the violation of individual autonomy and consent.
Subjective Moral Relativism Perspective
From the perspective of subjective moral relativism, ethical judgments are rooted in an individual’s personal beliefs, experiences, and values (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). In this context, there is no universal moral truth, and what is considered morally right varies from one person to another. In the given dilemma, a subjective moral relativist might argue that the appropriate approach depends entirely on the researcher’s personal convictions. If the researcher highly values the potential to save lives, they could justify proceeding with the experimental procedures by invoking consequentialist reasoning, suggesting that the potential positive outcome justifies the means employed (Shafer-Landau, 2020).
Cultural Relativism Perspective
Cultural relativists emphasize the significant impact of cultural norms and societal values on ethical judgments (Johnson, 2018). They posit that distinct cultures possess unique moral frameworks, and actions ought to be evaluated within the context of the culture in which they occur. In this scenario, a cultural relativist might argue that the researcher should take into account the norms and values of the society in which they are operating. If the researcher is in a society where collective well-being takes precedence over individual autonomy, they might find justification for the experimental procedures, framing them as a means to benefit the greater good (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).
Evaluation of Cultural Relativism’s Approach
While cultural relativism sheds light on the significance of cultural context, it can potentially lead to moral relativism, where any action can be rationalized within a particular cultural framework. This raises concerns about potential human rights violations and the dismissal of universal ethical principles. In the given ethical dilemma, justifying non-consensual experiments solely based on cultural norms might undermine the fundamental principle of individual autonomy and informed consent, which are widely recognized as crucial ethical standards in medical research (Johnson, 2018).
Individual’s Decision and Moral Justification
In the presented scenario, the researcher opts for alternative research methods that do not entail non-consensual experiments. The moral justification for this decision is grounded in the researcher’s deep belief in the inherent dignity and rights of every individual. They acknowledge that violating the autonomy and consent of unwilling human subjects contradicts the essential principles of respect for persons and beneficence in medical research ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). This decision aligns with the Kantian deontological perspective, which emphasizes the significance of adhering to moral duties and principles, regardless of the potential consequences (Shafer-Landau, 2020).
Evaluation of Individual’s Decision
The researcher’s decision to prioritize ethical principles and individual autonomy reflects a commitment to universally acknowledged moral values. However, this decision may also delay the potential cure for the life-threatening disease, prompting contemplation on the balance between individual rights and societal benefits. From a utilitarian viewpoint, sacrificing the autonomy of a few for the sake of saving many lives could be argued to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).
Objective Moral Truth
The inquiry into the existence of objective moral truth is at the core of ethical discussions. Objective moral truths are universal principles that transcend individual beliefs and cultural variations. In the presented scenario, the presence of an objective moral truth hinges on one’s philosophical standpoint. From a relativistic perspective, where ethics are subjective or culturally contingent, a single objectively right answer may not be attainable. However, proponents of moral realism contend that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, irrespective of individual viewpoints (Shafer-Landau, 2020).
Conclusion
The hypothetical ethical dilemma serves as a lens through which the intricacies of decision-making in morally intricate situations are examined. Subjective moral relativism and cultural relativism contribute diverse perspectives on the appropriate course of action, while simultaneously raising concerns about moral relativism and human rights violations. The researcher’s decision to uphold ethical principles and individual autonomy underscores the value of universally accepted moral principles. The question of whether an objective moral truth exists remains a topic of philosophical discourse, with relativism and moral realism presenting conflicting viewpoints. Ultimately, the analysis of this dilemma underscores the significance of considering various ethical frameworks and perspectives in navigating multifaceted moral decisions.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, R. H. (2018). Cultural Relativism and the Values of Human Rights. The Journal of Ethics, 22(4), 327-343.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2020). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. John Wiley & Sons.
Singer, P. (2018). Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations. Journal of Human Rights, 17(4), 378-396.