I do believe that people suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad. I also think that if we can prevent something from happening we should do so without sacrificing moral importance. Just like in reference to the example Peter gave of the drowning child, I would not have thought about the shoes on my feet first. My first instincts would have been to save the child. However, I cannot swim but I would have found a branch or something to give the child to hold onto and grab so I could help pull the drowning child to safety.
Should the flipping of the switch in time of peril become the law for everyone to use? The fact that there is one that would not want the switch flipped is enough to say we would not want it to be law for the switch to be flipped. Therefore In the first case Kantian’s would not flip the switch. In the second case the act is much more morally
It is for this reason that I would return the money, if I were in that situation. As discussed during class, it is not generally something that I would be able to see making the headlines and showing myself in a positive light and in addition, I would not want to disclose that information to my family. Even though the check was accidentally given to them rather than Global Banking Investments, they are still obligated to return it to the person or entity that it belongs to. They have no real ownership over the money and no right to keep it. It is ethically wrong for them to keep it, regardless of if they were let go from the company.
John Parker Professor Duncan Criminology 3 December 2012 Va Tech Massacre 1. Is there any value in trying to discover why this event happened? Personally finding out why Cho committed this tragedy would not change the way of things in the slightest. For example, if the reason for Cho committing the massacre was that he was bullied it wouldn’t have a value. The most that our society can do it say don’t bully other people, which I have personally experienced does not mean that people will not bully others.
Another way I would be proactive is to make an appointment for an examination by a dermatologist. A thorough examination by a professional could save your life. Also self-examination is also a way for early detection. Either way, being aware of any changes and alerting your dermatologist is yet another way not to play roulette with your well-being. And finally avoid all tobacco products.
I told her I couldn’t clock her in because of a few reasons. I wouldn’t be doing a moral action and I would be endangering the whole company by losing money. Also the other workers would be at risk and most of all, I would be demeaning myself. I had a mother and animals to take care of as well as myself and there was no way I was going to take a chance of losing my job over someone else’s problems. Clocking my friend in without her being there is very much the same thing as stealing from the business and it would have been extremely morally wrong.
So something besides the fact that these people do not have health care, makes it morally right for them to receive it. And that would be up to Kant to decide. Kant is not the type of philosopher that would be in favor of this because he uses rational principles to think and make his final decisions on things. Which essentially means that an action follows a logical principle; Is it logical or not?. In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States.
In conclusion, people should express their own personality and style without, being forced to convert to a new country’s national culture. Forcing an immigrant to change culture, language, and religion is against the 1st amendment and should not be broken based on our founding father’s laws. Forcing a non-resident to adapt to a new country is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Being an immigrant, this will be extremely hard on being unique. Even if someone is less fortunate and was born in a third world country, it doesn't make it any better if you force them to learn your culture and
So why is it that we would say that the possibility of genetic engineering being used for something less urgent than preventing a life-threatening illness is a reason to not allow it to be used at all? I think it might be a very good thing to take a few steps down the slope. Genetic engineering of this type is in its infancy, but you could easily foresee a time when we could address all kinds of not life-threatening but still bothersome conditions. So I totally agree with the procedure, if we could free people from things on the order of allergies or myopia, which would be an enormous benefit to
Ayn Rand Belief in Today’s society. Ayn Rand's belief of those human relationships should exist without sacrifice. Every man is responsible for his own survival, and it is morally wrong to sacrifice yourself for someone unimportant to you, and equally immoral to expect someone else's sacrifice for your sake. Ayn Rand’s belief doesn't eliminate charity, just shouldn't bring harm to you in order to help someone. Of course, you could deleteriously affect your own welfare to help someone, but it might not be a sacrifice depending on the circumstances.