Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive. Instead, ethical propositions can be no more that the expression of an emotion which will always be personal or subjective. For example to say “Abortion is good” is to express a subjective opinion about the moral issue of Abortion. For Ayer such statements can be no more than an expression of subjective emotion – leading some to label this approach to ethical language as the “boo hooray” theory. But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language?
My ethical blind spot is my belief that motive justifies the method or overconfidence in the process. I rely too much on the system of ethics and to do what it is supposed to do, but I can overcome this by thinking outside of the box and understanding that the system itself is imperfect. It is designed that way intentionally so that it can be adjusted for each individual that follows it. The system is designed to bend not break so that we all come to the same result we just might take a different path to get to it. For example, copy right laws if you use an artist song to make a track of your own but it has pieces of their song in it you must give them credit by posting a disclaimer with it or risk being sued.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
| This can be related to Argyle’s Theory of Communication because if the patient, staff member or client has an idea then they won’t be able to communicate that idea because they may feel like they are an outsider. | Self Esteem | Effective communication empowers people to value others and build a positive self-image and may also build their confidence. | However, if there is a lack of communication the client or patient may feel that they can’t voice their opinions or ideas because of their lack of confidence and self-esteem. | This can be related to Argyle’s Theory of Communication because if the patient, staff member or client has an idea then they won’t be able to communicate that idea because they may feel like they are an outsider and may even feel like they aren’t
First, he explains that we will experience emotional pain when we recognize that the work we would love to do might just be unavailable enough to make us doubt that we can proceed. Maisel states, “This is an emotional suffering that researchers haven’t examined: the pain of wanting to do certain intellectual work but not being capable of it.” He then goes on to discuss ways to help your brain to be its best. This can range from silencing the self-talk that can rob you of your confidence, to making fewer excuses about why you don’t have the time, patience, or ability to think. Secondly he points out that choosing the intellectual work that matches your native intelligence, or in other words, staying in your comfort zone. He tells us to find an area of work that isn’t too difficult which enables you to do work that makes use of all your strengths.
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
The listener should say what they are feeling only if it is beneficial to the relationship or to the person seeking help. When a listener displays this quality of being genuine it is most likely the seeker will become congruent as they have probably spent along time denying their feelings or not been allowed to say what they are feeling, to be congruent is to take responsibility acknowledge your feelings beware of them, then start to deal with stuff. Unconditional positive regard is respecting the help seeker as a unique being or anyone for that matter, to my believe, accepting them for who they are, this does not mean we have to agree with peoples behaviour or agree to their believes, just to accept the person; is being non-judgemental. Along with the show of genuineness and unconditional positive regard from the listener the seeker will feel comfortable within themselves, develop trust in the relationship and begin to open up, explore and start to move forward. The third quality required within this relationship is to be able to Empathise this is not to be confused with sympathy or pity, which would be to show sorrow or sadness, this would not help the seeker to progress and move on.
You would have to rely on the patient giving you the information for it not is socially desirable or have demand characteristics. On the other hand, it is better than individual differences as people may have the same thought patterns and processes. You can only obtain this information by self reports, which would probably give both of those issues; social desirability and demand characteristics. These would affect your results and therefore they would not be reliable or valid. If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way.
This is because they may not want to be recorded and if they find out, you may not be able to use the information gathered. Feedback Feedback is when you give back information of what you have found from your research to those who were involved. This is because they may want to know how their input helped in the outcome of the overall research and find out if the research was a success. Vulnerable People Vulnerable people are those that need to have their feelings handled with special care. You need to address them in a way that will not upset them or make them feel unhappy.