While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
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).
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.
What seems to be obvious might not be true at all. Conventional wisdom can be considered as convenient. Some people would rather believe what others tell them to believe because it might be safer to be politically correct. Some people don’t have to worry about figuring it out because it has already been figured out for them. The major problem with conventional wisdom is that is difficult to prove otherwise because it is already fixed in people’s
But a drawback would be that you wouldn't be living for goodness or for a deity, you would be living for yourself and this could seem selfish to some. But if you are really doing things that you feel are truly right, then it shouldn't seem selfish. I know that people don't always choose the right decision in life though. That would be
Compatibilists believe that is the most correct thing to do. I believe that in order to have the idea of free will, you need to be free from certain constraints. Freedom is simply the idea of not being tied down physically or mentally to certain things. You have the ability to choose what you want to
To begin, simply stating that person perception is more complex than object perception solely based on the inclusion of emotional factors does not do the thought justice. It is vital to comprehend just what factors of emotion and behavior are present in order to understand to what extent they influence the perception. For instance, Kenny discusses the importance of stability in the distinction between object and person perception. Simply stated, "an individual's behavior changes when he or she is with different interaction partners," (18). In essence this means that a person's perception of another person tends to be more stable and involved based on our instinctual analysis of a person's behavior.
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
If one was to experience both an intellectual and a physical pleasure (not necessarily at the same time) eventually they are going to have a preference of one over the other. It is of no moral obligation to choose other than having a pure and strong desire to choose that one particular pleasure. But that desire and decision makes it the higher pleasure. Mill has to make that difference clear because although it is up to the one who has done both
Showing them this supports them in being able to self actualise (fulfil their potential). This theory can be criticised because it is not a very scientific theory (unlike Eysenck’s trait theory). Many of its ideas are vague and difficult to measure objectively because it is very difficult to study a unique individual and work out how they have self actualised, what their self concept and ideal self is. We cannot observe and measure these concepts. Further, the theory focuses on the human as a unique individual and so it is impossible to predict human behaviour.