According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
Consequential is a type of ethical theory; it’s built upon moral views of acts, rules, etc. purely due to the consideration of their consequences, where the norm of consideration is worked as the norm of non-moral goodness. Happiness is a part of acquiring what could be an unsatisfying truth that we do not have a solid handle of our control or impact in our world; giving into the greatest good, as well as, ignoring what can bring negativity. It is important to make the best out of life as possible that represent positive and negative, and take the rest as life wants to give it. The theory of “good” and bad is really not a matter of concern; we have our own particular views, so what can be bad may actually be good.
On the other hand, other coworkers would not report her so, they could have power over her by blackmailing but this action is against American Correctional Association Code of Ethics, as well. “Members shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain,” suggesting they are not treating coworkers with respect but to only achieve ‘personal gain’. This action breaks the creed which every correction officer protects which is un-honorable. I believe the best decision is to report her this action will protect myself as well as her in future altercations legally or dealing with
Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong. Also this conveys there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as relativist thinker Mackie says there are no objective values rightness and wrongness do not exist in the world. alternatively this statement proposes that relativist have not defined what is right or wrong so therefore the relativist theory cannot provide a convincing reason as to why people should be good because they do not have a definition at all of what is right or wrong and they clearly recognise that there are different perspectives of what is right or wrong. No two people may agree on judgement, Sumner a cultural relativist suggests that ancestors have passed down traditions and they are just an experience of their culture. This conveys that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good because if there cultural says they should do something that is morally wrong, for example killing someone to use them as a sacrifice then in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong they are just following their culture and it doesn't convince them to be good.
While these theories hold much in common regarding how they see morality, they differ greatly in their reasoning for why they think that way. Aristotelian virtue ethics focus more on the person as a moral creature at heart and their desire for morality to be the driving force behind moral behavior. An excellent example of the difference in the three theories in this instance would be a situation involving lying. Dishonesty is considered morally wrong by most theories of ethics, but all of the moral theories approach it differently. Deontology, as espoused by Immanuel Kant, would argue against the morality of lying from a moral absolutism standpoint.
“We cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves.” The statement “we cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves” is utter hogwash, really; emotional extortion in my candid opinion. Before delving further into this topic, it should be noted that, firstly; the topic is awfully dubious, as it ceases to take into account the conscienceless. Secondly, hurt is not always wicked; without hurt, humans wouldn’t be nearly as individual. And lastly, scars are what make us grow as people. Firstly, the subjective nature of the topic “we cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves” should be note.
Therefore, a morally right action would be one that provides more pleasure than pain to the greatest number of people. Accountability for behavior, based on the utilitarian theory, is viewed in terms of consequences; a person becomes morally responsible for their behavior if the consequences of their actions conflict with the greatest happiness principle by replacing the presence of pleasure with pain. Thus, a utilitarian would justify punishment, such as imprisonment for example, by saying that it is for the greater good to imprison a criminal because harm to a large number of people will be prevented if criminal behavior is absent. As with any case, the end would justify the means; a happier, more productive society would accomplished by punishing a criminal. Utilitarians would agree that if action seems morally unacceptable on the surface but is performed to reach an end that will provide for the greater good, then said action is justified.
If something is always right or wrong, this does not take into account aspects such as motive or intention, it also discredits other cultures and religions, are they wrong because their actions enforced by their beliefs do not agree with someone else’s moral absolutism? If something bad is going to come from this moral absolutism, such as always telling the truth and it results in hurt feelings and a breakdown of a relationship, how can it be worth it. Poor consequences of absolutism may be more significant than the action itself. However, moral absolutism allows for clear rules to be set and followed, nobody is discriminated against and predictability is enforced. Moral absolutism allows humans to be held to account for their
Utilitarianism focuses on the belief that actions can be morally correct if the masses get more of the benefit than any one person. This differs from virtue theory greatly. While virtue theory looks at the history of one individual and those virtues effecting one individuals character, utilitarianism is a focus on the group. It is ones action that gives the group greater good, not an individual. Deontology is the theory that an individual does something because the individual believes it is the right thing to do.
Consequentialism assumes that if human being would weigh the outcome of their taboos and beliefs, then happiness can be achieved and pain reduced. But utilitarianism assumes that people can only value a virtue if it is deemed beneficial in accomplishing human happiness. For example utilitarians believe that truth will make a better society while consequentialists believe that truth will make a better society only if the outcome causes no harm. Basically utilitarianism assumes that the wrongness or rightness of an act depends on the moral good produced as a result of doing that act. This implies that an act is right if it minimizes violation of a certain moral right thus no one should violate moral rights for happiness sake and be justified.