ETHICAL LENS INVENTORY Ethical lens Inventory is used as a way to identify what values are more important to us as an individual.The inventory allows us to see ethical issues clearly whenever we have ethical dilemma without clear option/choice and it also helps to learn how to resolve them better.People have different priorities and different values helps to respect each others point of views. There are four primary ethical perspectives. Two of them are to help us to determine using Rationality(critical thinking ) are: 1)Rights&Responsibility Lens:you use your rationality to how to live with universal rules. 2)Relationship Lens:Its about equality of community so that everybody gets treated fairly. The other two of the ethical lenses are using your Sensibility (Intuition) which means using your intuition and emotions for our behavior to be ethical are : 1)Results Lens:using your sensibility to decide your decisions which will make you happy and adds more happiness to your life.
Erich Fromm talks about the different kinds of obedience, and how they can help one’s society, or even destroy it. He argues that these two factors contributed to the human world, and how it has created struggle in order for the world to survive. Fromm discusses many different types of obedience as well. He talks about the differences between heteronomous obedience and autonomous obedience. He talks about our consciences, both authoritarian and humanistic.
In Stephen Hicks’s ‘Rand’s Ethical Theory: Reason and Ethics’, Rand focuses on several human virtues or values as the basis for her theory of ethical egoism. Furthermore, he states that in Rand’s view, the following virtues are central to the life of an ethical human being: rationality, productiveness, honesty, independence, integrity, justice, selfishness and pride. I find that the more I read about and from Rand, the more I tend to agree with her opinions and understand her. At first glance, her views might seem too extreme or too critical- or at least, that is how I conceived them. However, I am starting to comprehend her point of view and see things through her perspective more clearly (especially after watching her interview with Mike Wallace).
Cognitive behavior therapy is based on the belief that people are born with the ability to have rational and irrational thinking, and it helps clients to accept themselves and their mistakes. They teach the client that they will continue to make mistakes and is a normal part of life. However, the psychoanalytic theory is inconsistent with these views because it is rooted in the belief that our behavior is determined by unconscious forces. Also, that sexual and death instincts are the sources of our actions and our motivation for pleasure and pain. b.)
Richard Paul and Linda Elder of the National Council for Excellence define critical thinking as “That mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully, imposing intellectual standards upon (his or her thoughts).” They believe that much of our thinking, left to itself is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. The quality of our life and the quality of what we produce, make, or build; however, depend precisely on the quality of our thoughts. Critical thinkers, in contrast, investigate problems, ask questions, pose new answers that challenge the status quo, discover new information, question authorities and traditional beliefs, challenge received dogmas and doctrines, make independent judgments, and develop creative solutions. I also learned that then first step of thinking critically is to engage your curiosity. Instead of accepting statements and assertions at face value, question them.
According to Descartes, in order to believe in claim, put by religion, politics, science and even philosophy, to be the truth, one must put such claims under strong reasoned doubt. This helps to unveil the reality behind everything, basing our argument that for you more about any issue, it’s advisable to take opposite stand regarding the issue. Cartesian Doubt is of significance to people’s intellectual development and helps him/her be in a good position to carry his/herself well in society. Such cases where this reasonable doubt is helpful to people intellectually include the following. In most cases we find ourselves as judges.
In the book “Moral Matters,” Chapter One, Jan Narveson writes about the two theories in morality: moral relativism and subjectivism. These theories work together to define the concept of Morality, by helping to solve our moral dilemmas, such as to explain the reasoning behind our ability to choose between right and wrong, in establishing how and why we make this choice. Thus, through these theories, we further explore morality between the connection to society and the individual, as well as determining what they have in common. Moral relativism represents the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes.
This paper will address how select characters such as Atticus Finch, Tom Robinson, Bob Ewell, Ralph, Jack Merridew and Simon deal with their moral dilemmas. The moral philosophical thought process will be used as well as certain terminologies such as Utilitarianism, a moral theory based on the principle of actions to promote happiness, and Kantianism, a theory stipulating that the act is more important than the consequential outcome. Firstly, the characters of Atticus Finch and Ralph are similar in many ways as they both portray Kantianism. Atticus is usually morally correct in his assessments of situations. In many instances, he decides to do the right thing instead of following the status quo.
I will reflect on these rebuttals within the context of the critique and the importance of ethical lawyering as a whole. Critics of role morality incorrectly suppose that the
In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers. Kant reasoned that the morality of an action lies solely in the cause and not in the effect; that is, in order to call an action morally good or bad, one must first analyze the motives for carrying out said action, making sure the action itself is from duty and not just coinciding with it. He also gave the groundwork for understanding how to determine if an action is morally good or bad by use of what he calls the “categorical imperative”, where you take a principle in a given situation (such as lying) and imagine a world where every person lied all the time. That would raise a contradiction and paradox in itself, because in order for lies to exist, there must be the existence of truth; this contradiction, Kant claims, is the reason why it cannot, under any circumstances, be morally permissible. However, the