Also, if I had believed him, I would have taken the wrong decision of not studying for the GMAT. Second, identifying what people want helps them to making clearer their objectives. Sometimes, people are not sure what they want, so they act without a specific orientation. Therefore, this lack of direction makes inefficient their efforts and actions. However, if we find out what people want and help them to identify it also, they will be more effective and efficient in reaching their goals.
Had the subjects been informed of the study’s purpose, the question of ethics would be less ambiguous. Some would argue that the special conditions needed for this study required the lack of informed consent. Males in the study would perhaps behave differently had they known what the goal of the study was, or that they were even partaking in a study. Although this is a valid point, debriefing and the request of consent after the experiment were attainable and would have put together a more ethical and less questionable study. Various approaches could have been used to compensate for the lack of personal privacy and informed consent but were not.
Traditional models of decision-making are built on logic and rationality. Although such models may be elegant in the logical structure of their processes, reality shows that decision-making rarely follows such a logical structure. Decision-making processes vary and are often confounded by various assumptions and biases held by the decision makers. Finding a more successful model of decision-making requires recognition of the assumptions and biases affecting decisions, along with recommendations to minimize their ill effects. Bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
It would also be interesting to fit Quine and other philosopher's into the discussion by substituting their language, as Palmquist substituted Kripke, into this Kantian framework. By agnostically 'accepting both' frameworks as possibilities and instead establishing some form of feedback loop between the two to reconcile then, we could then use the resulting framework in a variety of disciplines to guide both our research and in every day life, our actions. I do believe such a framework would be consistent, but its use would have to not be taken too far, as it is not a complete one. It is merely a way of making sense of things in some meta-framework, a way that has been a great tool to me since December 2014 thanks to your class. As Gödel showed though any argument for it, would pre-suppose it .
Objectivity by researchers has not, and probably never will be attained. People will always have biases; some will be created by cultural values and others by personal views. The search for objectivity lies in the realm of philosophy along with the search for reality. Even though objectivity can never be reached, people are better at making observations, discoveries, and decisions if they attempt to set aside their biases. As I have learned in my Theory of Knowledge class, perception and thought are intimately connected.
Razhon Forbes Com 436 Response Paper 1A 9-6-2013 Trust your Gut, Use your Brain If I were to plagiarize most of this paper would it be an ethical or moral dilemma on my part? And why? Most people would have most likely said that it is both ethically and morally wrong for me to plagiarize without even knowing the difference between the two. It can be difficult to define what ethics actually is, so let’s start with what it is not. Ethics is not a set of values in which we base our life upon.
There are obvious flaws in this idea but an explanation that Berkeley gives clears it up a little. He explained that even though we can not see space or distance, we know it exists from past experiences. Rationalists such as Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, and Baruch Spinoza argue that our senses are not the ultimate source for knowledge since what we percieve may be decieving. Rationalism is the view that all ideas come from knowledge and reason and can be deduced. On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed.
Why do we do things we know are wrong Everyone sometimes does something they know is wrong, but why do we do it. Nigel in his text gives us an example in which we put ourselves in a position that we can either help our friend to take a book from the library where we work or to decline his proposal and say no. We know it would be wrong to do it, but why not if no one will find out about it. It all comes down to morality, as Nigel said, there are people who will think about others and decide not to do something wrong, but there are also people who just doesn’t care about others and will do the same thing because it will benefit them, even if it in any way hurts someone else. I say it depends from person to person because there will always be people who would do terrible things just to benefit themselves and there will always be a person who will share the only piece of bread with someone who doesn’t have any.
What is right or wrong? A person succumbs to answering this question all the time, but what makes their choice right, or wrong? Something morally wrong usually is something that has impacted someone in a negative way. Yet, morality can be something very subjective. The right choice to some people doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the moral choice for someone else.
Philosophers have always been questioning the definition of piety. It is impossible to find the meaning of the word because it requires deep analysis in order to understand the structure of its definition. According to “Euthyphro” by Plato, one philosopher, Socrates, searches for that definition by becoming an intellectual, who thinks and asks question. He asks Euthyphro questions about piety, in order to find answers to prove he is not impious, during one of his trials. However, Socrates is unable to find the meaning because the definition of piety changes.