http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ItZyFg7HBk
I thought it would be good to add a little humor since this assignment allowed us too, so whats better than family guy. Although the only point I really needed to make in the video is the point of stealing. Stealing is something that many people have pondered in their lifetime I'm sure. If its from something small or something irreplaceable. How stealing relates to your conscience is very obvious. STEALING IS NOT RIGHT. The book used the definition of our conscience as our inner voice. We all have had different moments in our life's that our inner voice as become involved. The book also said that there are two forces we are unable to control, one being natural endowment and the second, social conditioning. There is one that we CAN control which is our moral choice. Stewy made a bad moral choice by steeling the CD, as well as his helper. Clearly, he was in the environment that stealing would be almost expected and not looked quite down upon. The feelings and morals you were brought up in are always playing a big role in your conscience, and what you believe is right and wrong.
Sorry if the video or my explanation seem obvious but trying to find a serious video on youtube was just impossible for me.. durrrrr. I feel that I should get a B on this at least because I did do the assignment, but I feel I could probably have searched a little harder to find something more meaningful then Family Guy. What can I say, I'm not a computer person!! ahhh.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Blog Assignment #4
Part One:
A. In the first part of this assignment I am to explain the relationship between laws and ethics. As noted in our book, "law is not possible without ethics" (Ruggiero 4). Before reading the chapter I easily came to the same conclusion.. law is not possible without the use of ethics, and ethics, in similarity to the law, is based on what is right and what is wrong. Although when it comes to ethics, and breaking what is seen ethical to others or your own, there normally aren't life changing consequences or law enforcement trying to take you away or punish you. It is obvious that laws are more strict and more consequential. I believe that the relationship between laws and ethics are very close and very influential of each other. Laws are based on ethical subject matter that is taken into consideration through the state or government. They take ethical issues and instead of being subjective and choosing their preferences, they look at the ethical issue and decide if the action is wrong to everyone. Regardless that there are and will be many things in this world that not everyone will see eye to eye on, in an ethical way, but when it comes to right and wrong of or towards the people as a whole, that is when law plays a party of ethics.
B. Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_199808/ai_n8812203
The link above is an article that talks about the relationship between ethics and laws. Although it is talking about the Canadian Code of laws in Canada for mostly psychologist, there were interesting pieces of information throughout the article that the US and we can relate to. For example.. " Despite the great differences that exist between law and professional ethics, at the most basic level both the law and ethics share two fundamental goals: The regulation of behavior and the protection of society." and "Both the law and professional ethics may be considered attempts to articulate, interpret, operationalize, and resolve conflicts between ethical principles (and values) that have evolved throughout the history of humankind and are operationalized in a variety of ways both within societies and communities" (Ogloff & Ollety).I felt this article proved that ethics and law are very closely related and I thought it was interesting to get another places point of view. Hope you enjoy! - Its a long one...
C. Arguable Issue: Do we need ethics, given that we already have laws?
- Premise 1:Ethics is choice made between right and wrong
- Premise 2:Laws are made or changed by people who decide what is right and wrong.
- Premise 3:Laws are only possible through the use of ethics.
- Conclusion: Therefore, we need ethics, given that we already have laws.
Part Two:
~Role of the Majority View~
In my point of view the "majority view" is based on statistics mostly. If everyone agrees then it must be right, if everyone says no then it must be wrong. The chapter went over what is more ethical, to be one with the crowd or to stray away and have a different, more unique view. Towards the end of the chapter it said that sometimes we will find ourselves agreeing with the majority, but other times we may not agree. In my point of view, after reading the chapter, I feel that regardless which way you sway, towards the majority or not, what is more important is that you take time to consider all aspects of the ethical situation. I found it is important to make a decision based on both or all sides and to be considerate and moral. An example in the book that showed me that the majority may not always be right was the example of slavery and how at the time it was looked on as ok and justifiable, but now as times have changed the world has realized it was very unethical and unjust. I feel that the majority in different situations will always change in time, as everything does, but one can never rely on the majority and only the majority.
Arguable Issue: Whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
- Premise 1: Slavery was once seen right through majority view
- Premise 2: Laws have been made banning slavery for good
- Premise 3: The majoirty view now believes slavery was wrong, and is wrong
- Conclusion: Therefore, majority rule is not always a reliable basis for decision-making.
~The Role of Feelings~
In this chapter I found that it had some similarities to the majority view chapter in one case. This chapter talked about feelings and what is morally and ethically acceptable and why or how its acceptable. A line that was often used as the main idea of the chapter was whatever a person believes to be right is right for that person, and what a person beliebes to be wrong is wrong for the person. After reading I realized that the statement above isn't just saying that a person is gonna believe that their morals and ethical views are right, but that it sometimes and most of the time will only be right to that person! This meaning that just because you think it is right, doesn't make it right for someone else. This realization lead to the term values clarification, meaning "that there is no universal objective moral standard and that the only norm is what each person decides to value" (Ruggiero 30). The question cam up if feelins can be trusted to guide human behavior, and in my opinion, like the book said sometimes it can, BUT, not everyone is going to agree and have the same feelings. People will get hurt by others actions at times and their opinions. Overall I feel that it is vital and very important and wise to take into consideration how others would want to be treated, and how other may be feeling. Otherwise if you don't then "morality by feelins completely ignores other people's feelings."(Ruggiero 33)
***"TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO AS WE WISH WITHOUT REAGARD FOR OTHERS IS TO SAY THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE FREE TO DO AS THEY WISH WITHOUT REGARD FOR US"***
Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
- Premise 1: Feelings are from a person's own thoughts, experiences and beliefs
- Premise 2: Ethical Decisions are based on right and wrong without subjective prefrence
- Premise 3: To be ethical, you should take others into consideration, not just yourself
Conclusion: Therefore our feelings are not always reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Part Three: (holy geeeeez)
1.) I put everything in my own words this time, and ALWAYS. If it was a thought or idea I cited it with the authors name and page number ;)
2.) The easiest part of this assignment was being able to put in your own words what you got out of the chapter, and the hardest for me was the premise and conclusion, I'm just bad at them.
3.) I will apply this assignment to everday life because it showed me that the Majority doesnt always rule, and I would normally go with the majority but the book made me realize that its ok and actually is better not to at times. Also, although I already look out for other people's feelings, the third chapter made me realize why I do so even more.
4.) I think it was a long assignment, but I did what I was asked and I feel I got more out of it then just this blog, so overall I think I did well, maybe a little bad at the argument part but hey we're all learning!! Love you Karla<3 ;)
A. In the first part of this assignment I am to explain the relationship between laws and ethics. As noted in our book, "law is not possible without ethics" (Ruggiero 4). Before reading the chapter I easily came to the same conclusion.. law is not possible without the use of ethics, and ethics, in similarity to the law, is based on what is right and what is wrong. Although when it comes to ethics, and breaking what is seen ethical to others or your own, there normally aren't life changing consequences or law enforcement trying to take you away or punish you. It is obvious that laws are more strict and more consequential. I believe that the relationship between laws and ethics are very close and very influential of each other. Laws are based on ethical subject matter that is taken into consideration through the state or government. They take ethical issues and instead of being subjective and choosing their preferences, they look at the ethical issue and decide if the action is wrong to everyone. Regardless that there are and will be many things in this world that not everyone will see eye to eye on, in an ethical way, but when it comes to right and wrong of or towards the people as a whole, that is when law plays a party of ethics.
B. Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_199808/ai_n8812203
The link above is an article that talks about the relationship between ethics and laws. Although it is talking about the Canadian Code of laws in Canada for mostly psychologist, there were interesting pieces of information throughout the article that the US and we can relate to. For example.. " Despite the great differences that exist between law and professional ethics, at the most basic level both the law and ethics share two fundamental goals: The regulation of behavior and the protection of society." and "Both the law and professional ethics may be considered attempts to articulate, interpret, operationalize, and resolve conflicts between ethical principles (and values) that have evolved throughout the history of humankind and are operationalized in a variety of ways both within societies and communities" (Ogloff & Ollety).I felt this article proved that ethics and law are very closely related and I thought it was interesting to get another places point of view. Hope you enjoy! - Its a long one...
C. Arguable Issue: Do we need ethics, given that we already have laws?
- Premise 1:Ethics is choice made between right and wrong
- Premise 2:Laws are made or changed by people who decide what is right and wrong.
- Premise 3:Laws are only possible through the use of ethics.
- Conclusion: Therefore, we need ethics, given that we already have laws.
Part Two:
~Role of the Majority View~
In my point of view the "majority view" is based on statistics mostly. If everyone agrees then it must be right, if everyone says no then it must be wrong. The chapter went over what is more ethical, to be one with the crowd or to stray away and have a different, more unique view. Towards the end of the chapter it said that sometimes we will find ourselves agreeing with the majority, but other times we may not agree. In my point of view, after reading the chapter, I feel that regardless which way you sway, towards the majority or not, what is more important is that you take time to consider all aspects of the ethical situation. I found it is important to make a decision based on both or all sides and to be considerate and moral. An example in the book that showed me that the majority may not always be right was the example of slavery and how at the time it was looked on as ok and justifiable, but now as times have changed the world has realized it was very unethical and unjust. I feel that the majority in different situations will always change in time, as everything does, but one can never rely on the majority and only the majority.
Arguable Issue: Whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
- Premise 1: Slavery was once seen right through majority view
- Premise 2: Laws have been made banning slavery for good
- Premise 3: The majoirty view now believes slavery was wrong, and is wrong
- Conclusion: Therefore, majority rule is not always a reliable basis for decision-making.
~The Role of Feelings~
In this chapter I found that it had some similarities to the majority view chapter in one case. This chapter talked about feelings and what is morally and ethically acceptable and why or how its acceptable. A line that was often used as the main idea of the chapter was whatever a person believes to be right is right for that person, and what a person beliebes to be wrong is wrong for the person. After reading I realized that the statement above isn't just saying that a person is gonna believe that their morals and ethical views are right, but that it sometimes and most of the time will only be right to that person! This meaning that just because you think it is right, doesn't make it right for someone else. This realization lead to the term values clarification, meaning "that there is no universal objective moral standard and that the only norm is what each person decides to value" (Ruggiero 30). The question cam up if feelins can be trusted to guide human behavior, and in my opinion, like the book said sometimes it can, BUT, not everyone is going to agree and have the same feelings. People will get hurt by others actions at times and their opinions. Overall I feel that it is vital and very important and wise to take into consideration how others would want to be treated, and how other may be feeling. Otherwise if you don't then "morality by feelins completely ignores other people's feelings."(Ruggiero 33)
***"TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE FREE TO DO AS WE WISH WITHOUT REAGARD FOR OTHERS IS TO SAY THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE FREE TO DO AS THEY WISH WITHOUT REGARD FOR US"***
Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
- Premise 1: Feelings are from a person's own thoughts, experiences and beliefs
- Premise 2: Ethical Decisions are based on right and wrong without subjective prefrence
- Premise 3: To be ethical, you should take others into consideration, not just yourself
Conclusion: Therefore our feelings are not always reliable basis for ethical decision making.
Part Three: (holy geeeeez)
1.) I put everything in my own words this time, and ALWAYS. If it was a thought or idea I cited it with the authors name and page number ;)
2.) The easiest part of this assignment was being able to put in your own words what you got out of the chapter, and the hardest for me was the premise and conclusion, I'm just bad at them.
3.) I will apply this assignment to everday life because it showed me that the Majority doesnt always rule, and I would normally go with the majority but the book made me realize that its ok and actually is better not to at times. Also, although I already look out for other people's feelings, the third chapter made me realize why I do so even more.
4.) I think it was a long assignment, but I did what I was asked and I feel I got more out of it then just this blog, so overall I think I did well, maybe a little bad at the argument part but hey we're all learning!! Love you Karla<3 ;)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Blog Assignment #1
1. How would you have explained the meaning of the term "ethics", before taking this class?
I would explain ethics as being a term meaning what is morally right and wrong. That to me, it is more of a personal term, that involves an individual more than it would a group and its the conscience of a person and what they believe is morally accepted and what they value in life.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
Some of my deepest values are living life to the fullest, and living through experiences. I highly value my friends and my family who accompany me as I grow and learn. I value honesty, and reason, and especially love, in every form.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
I try to live my life with not sweating the small stuff and knowing whats important and what my goals are. I try to be a better person everyday, and I believe life is a lot about improvement and gaining knowledge and strength. I try to live my life honestly and ambitiously. I believe you can never love to much and show it, and to treat others how we would want ourselves to be treated.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
I look for a honest, caring, and understanding person. I like qualities that are considerate and helpful. I like people who can make me laugh and also understand a joke and can laugh at mine, but can be serious when the time is more inappropriate.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
My values and principles have been developed mostly through my mom and my close family. They have also been developed through trial and error, or witnessing another person's mistakes or gains.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
My values and principles haven't exactly changed throughout my life so much as they have become more evident and stronger. I still believe in the values and principles I've always believed in, but just in a more confident way.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I feel that my assignment has the potential to have all 25 points granted to me because I did everything that I had been asked to do... to answer the questions and to have them in this format. I was honest and took time to answer the questions as clearly as I could.
I would explain ethics as being a term meaning what is morally right and wrong. That to me, it is more of a personal term, that involves an individual more than it would a group and its the conscience of a person and what they believe is morally accepted and what they value in life.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
Some of my deepest values are living life to the fullest, and living through experiences. I highly value my friends and my family who accompany me as I grow and learn. I value honesty, and reason, and especially love, in every form.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
I try to live my life with not sweating the small stuff and knowing whats important and what my goals are. I try to be a better person everyday, and I believe life is a lot about improvement and gaining knowledge and strength. I try to live my life honestly and ambitiously. I believe you can never love to much and show it, and to treat others how we would want ourselves to be treated.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
I look for a honest, caring, and understanding person. I like qualities that are considerate and helpful. I like people who can make me laugh and also understand a joke and can laugh at mine, but can be serious when the time is more inappropriate.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
My values and principles have been developed mostly through my mom and my close family. They have also been developed through trial and error, or witnessing another person's mistakes or gains.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
My values and principles haven't exactly changed throughout my life so much as they have become more evident and stronger. I still believe in the values and principles I've always believed in, but just in a more confident way.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I feel that my assignment has the potential to have all 25 points granted to me because I did everything that I had been asked to do... to answer the questions and to have them in this format. I was honest and took time to answer the questions as clearly as I could.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
