APPLIED ETHICS DISCUSSION POST
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Galen College of Nursing *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2205
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by LieutenantMetal11741
WEEK 1:
What should you do as a passenger on the boat full of innocent citizens? If one were to push the button and blow up the prisoners, what might that say about her/his character? Is pushing the button the morally right thing to do in this case?
If I was on the boat of innocent citizens and was put into this situation, I personally would feel very uneasy as it’s a difficult situation. When you come to think about it no body in their right mind would want to blow up and kill others, yet you can also find people that are very selfish and would have no problem blowing up the other boat full of people just to stay alive. According to Aristotle, an action is voluntary unless it is affected by force or ignorance, as understood in the following ways (Dimmock and Fisher, 56). Although you may think Ok, I am being forced so you may not feel as much guilt, but I couldn’t carry the weight on my shoulders knowing I blew others up just to keep myself alive. I personally would be trying to jump off the boat in swim to the nearest shore to escape and gather others with me quickly because I feel that those on the other boat would have no problem pressing the button almost immediately. In my previous degree in criminal justice and even now working in an emergency department, you deal with criminals, and many have been caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time and are very selfless, but you wouldn’t know that until you got to know them. This is a very biased kind of situation and really makes you think, especially if you have any kind of morals.
WEEK 2: When reading this discussion topic and reviewing the question asked, " What decision should the parents have made?" I feel that the parents were making the right decision before the court jumped in and overruled their decisions as parents. I first like to try and put myself in other's peoples shoes because it really helps you to try and understand where they may be coming from and or the way it's affecting them, and when I put myself in these parent's shoes, I would refuse the surgery and allow my children to live the way they were born if it meant that only one of my children would stay alive while killing my other child. When looking at this, no one person is better than another, and to sit here and choose what child lives and or dies is morally the wrong thing to do. I feel that the parents made the right decision because they had moral values and understood not only right from wrong but knowing it's not right to kill one to keep the other alive. For Kant, actions are right if they respect what he calls the Categorical Imperative. For example, because lying fails to respect the Categorical Imperative, it is wrong and is wrong irrespective of how we might feel about lying or what might happen if we did lie; it is actions that are right and wrong rather than consequences Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). The biggest take away from the quote that I
used was that its actions are right or wrong rather than consequences because at times I feel that action speak louder and portray so much. At the end of the day the parents did the right thing based on their values, and morals and sadly
they did not feel valued themselves I’m sure based on the way the courts had ruled for surgery to keep one alive and kill the other child. References:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 3: A doctor is driving down a road late at night. She sees a car in the opposite lane swerve sharply off the road and it crashes. There are no other cars around. Her gut reaction as a physician is to stop to assist the
victims. However, she quickly remembers there are no “Good Samaritan laws” on the books in that state to protect her from malpractice lawsuits. Her conscience tells her she is justified in driving on. How would Freud explain the behavior of her conscience in this scenario? Do you believe her conscience was correct? (USLO 3.3)
When looking at this scenario at first it can be difficult to say whether this physician was in the right or wrong, but we have to stop and take a closer look into this situation. The physician has a medical license and her job is to do no harm while caring for the sick and injured while at work. The physician has no obligation to help this individual even if this individual is hurt because the physician is not at work and responsible for caring for this driver. Do I feel
that this physician’s conscience was correct yes absolutely because at the end of the day I have a licnese I could potentially loose if I was caught in the middle of helping this individual. Say this driver needed CPR and I was doing chest compressions, broke the drivers ribs in the mix of doing so and the driver lived now that driver can sue me because I broke her ribs saving their life and court would rule in favor of the driver and not myself even though I
saved the drivers life. Based on fueds ID and EGO we must, We have to understand boundaries, sanctions and
consequences. To successfully operate in the world, we need to consciously reflect and reason and ultimately, we have to delay instinctive behaviour and “weigh-up” the situation Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-
level
. Open Book Publishers. To me based on feud’s statements we need to weigh out the options we have and look at the situation before acting on whether it can potentially jeopardize our own self and in this case the physician.
Let's go back to Utilitarianism for a minute. Is it better to be a satisfied pig or a dissatisfied human? Have fun
with this one! :) (USLO 1,2,3)
I think that being a dissatisfied human would interpret more of a higher satisfaction than a being a satisfied pig would be because need to be be more heavily on the side of quality than quantity. This being more of a satisfaction when there is outcomes one may feel that a challenge and overcoming it to get to the end goal was more pleasurable because you had hard work and dedication to what was being done vs a satisfied pig doesn’t care how they got there as long as they did. Mill, on the other hand, believes that
quality
, not merely quantity, of pleasure matters and can therefore defend the claim that Socrates has the better life even by hedonistic standards Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
References:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 4: 1. Do you believe that you have a “social contract” with the United States, similar to that described
by Socrates in the
Crito
?
I feel that I have a social contract with the united states because I have citizenship within the US I must follow the laws and obligations that come with being a citizen. So the fact that Socrates has chosen to remain in Athens without
challenging its laws means that he has, in fact, entered into an agreement (a just agreement) with the state – an agreement that includes abiding by the state’s laws. And he has entered into this agreement without duress or coercion (Historical Roots of Social Contract Theory, n.d.). Socrates has remained in Athens and accepted the punishment and did not try to flee because he knew that he had a social contract with Athens due to the fact that he lived in Athens all his life and could have left at any time but decided to remain so he felt he had the social contract and that is similar with myself because I remain in the US as a citizen I have a social contract to abide by and obey the laws set forth.
2. If you HAVE entered into a social contract with the US, what
should
you do based on Social Contract Theory?
Based on the social contract theory I would stay where im at and face the situation just like Socrates did because I have a citizenship here in the US and remain in the US as citizen that I must follow and obey the laws set forth.
3. What do you think you actually
would
do?
If you believe you DO have a social contract with US in #2 but would choose to escape and break
that contract, explain why. How would you justify your escape?
I personally would not try and escape due to the fact that if I were to be caught it would make matters worse, but not
only that I would need to have a very well throughout plan and have others involved in assisting me to escape. This could make matters worse for myself but other involved and then we all go down. I personally would contact a criminal defense attorney and have the case appealed and have a re trial and prove to the court that I was innocent and did not commit the crime.
3. Would a different punishment warrant different behavior on your part, e.g., would you make the same choice if your prison sentence was only 1 year?
I wouldn’t change how I acted because I would not want to take a chance on jeopardizing any more legal issues than
what was already going on. I the sentence was only one year I would still act accordingly and follow the same approach as I did above.
5. Finally, if this case was applied to your sibling or child, what would you counsel him/her to do?
I would advise my sister to follow the same steps I have taken and that its not worth it to risk it and try to escape and
end of up getting caught and having to face more legal issues.
References:
Historical Roots of Social Contract Theory. (n.d.). http://files.galencollege.edu/media/ADN/PHL2205/HistoricalRootsofSocialContractTheory/content/index.html#/
lessons/S4tPQg6BCE8BwiF6Joj7QG24SCMke1D-
WEEK 5:
Prompt #2
Discuss the implications of meat-eating nonhuman animals in relation to moral consideration.
Is it morally permissible to raise and kill animals to eat them in our society, where nutritious alternatives to animal foods are readily available?
Reflecting on the Dominion-Based justification According to the Bible, “[...] the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”. This verse is often interpreted as God providing man with a soul, and thus differentiating mankind from the rest of animal creation. In addition, after “the Flood”, God says that “[everything] that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Looking and reflecting on the statement from the bible the animals were put on this earth in order to serve a purpose while providing adequate nutrients to us humans. I feel that it is permissible to raise and kill animals in order to provide food and nutrients we need as humans. Now with that being said many people feel that its frowned upon or disagree and or only vegetarian, but we can also argue the fact that vegetarians are killing a living object. This topic is primarily based on each individuals’ beliefs and people will have many different looks on it but each justifiable in their own ways. When looking at other alternatives that may be readily available to us instead of killing animals I think that we benefit a lot from the different vitamins and nutrition’s we need, but we look at the statement saying “nutritious alternatives”, nothing will taste the same nor suffices to us eating a nice fresh chicken egg for good protein and other benefits.
If we were somewhere where there were inadequate non-animal foods, would that make a difference to
the morality of using animals for food?
Honestly, I would say yes and no and here’s why, When raising animals, we as owners or the person providing for the animals want then to grow and mature as they should for their species and class now I think that if we took a modified approach in that we maximize the product from the animal as much as possible and incorporating alternatives in the effect to breed and sustain the animals in order to grow production again.
Which ethical theory (utilitarian, social contract, Kantian, etc.) is most consistent with your outlook on
consuming animals?
I would say Kantian would be more consistent to my view on this topic because, In terms of applying this line of thought to eating animals, Kant would have no objection so long as we were not cruel or unkind in our approach Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). It is morally permissible to eat the animal product but we must do it in a humane way. Kant also says that, “Of course, the idea that humans have no responsibility to animals, and therefore may seemingly consume them at will, is open to the same objections as outlined in section 4” Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). We as consumers must take the correct approach on this and do it correctly in order to not make the animal suffer in such way other than a quick painless death in order to gain the meat products.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 6: 1. Ah, the famous scapegoat scenario!Imagine a scenario where there has been a serious crime in a town and the Sheriff is trying to prevent serious rioting. He knows that this rioting is likely to bring about destruction, injury and maybe even death. The problem is that he has no leads; he has not the slightest idea who committed the crime. However, he can prevent these riots by lying to the town and framing an innocent man. No one will miss the man and he is hated in the town. If he frames and jails this innocent man, convincing people to believe that it was this man that committed the crime, then the town will be placated and
people will not riot.
What would a utilitarian have us do in this case if we were the sheriff? In other words, should we lie, according to utilitarianism? What considerations would a utilitarian identify as important to think about in relation to this case? Would a Kantian agree with the utilitarian’s advice here? Why or why not?
When we look at a utilitarian in this case from what I understand is that they would be morally ok with lying because it will in the end make the city happier which will cause them not to riot. In particular, an action is right if, and only if, it brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, well-being, preference satisfaction etc Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017). The amount of happiness from doing so will outweigh the unhappiness so in other words they would be ok with doing so which would be important for them and have takin in consideration. Kantian is very big on if the action that happening is right or wrong and kant feels that all lying is wrong no matter what case. For if we lie to someone then we are
not treating them as an end in themselves
but are controlling what they can do by taking certain decisions out of their hands; we are basically saying we should be allowed to deceive them for our own ends. We are not treating them as rational agents and for the Kantian this is always morally wrong Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017). Kant is the opposite of utilitarian and that its morally wrong to lie in any circumstance.
You have the opportunity to land your dream job! The problem is you have two years less experience than the job description says is required. Is it all right to just "fudge" (overstate) your experience a little? State what you would do, and then, apply two of the moral theories we've learned so far to the scenario to see if the outcome is the same. Have fun!
I would provide the interviewer with my resume, and it be truthful so they are aware that I have two years less experience. Reason for that is because I feel that honesty goes along way overall but when you are getting a your dream job say so instance me transferring units in hospital I could never say I have all this experience in a certain specialty and in reality I’m still learning. I would be honest and upfront with them and explain why they should consider me for the job despite the lack of experience. I feel that I follow in Kant’s theory of that it being morally wrong to lie despite the greater good and that trust is built on truthfulness. I feel that another theory could be with Aristotle being that is looking at the overall picture and not just the singular gratification. It is fitting, therefore, that his moral philosophy is based around assessing the broad characters of human beings rather than assessing singular acts in isolation Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017). When looking a the overall picture and what would support the action does not follow with be truthful and could negatively impact those around us.
Reference:
Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 7: Question:
Would businesses do the right thing, such as working employees a respectable number of hours per week or not using child labor, without government regulation and/or laws protecting employees?
I honestly feel that if the government wasn’t involved and have such laws in place that companies would then abuse and take advantage of all of their workers. Companies would not do the right thing and provide a adequate work life balance and pay for overtime if they were not made to. Most company’s care more about the company’s profits than its actual employees, I remember in high school my job at the times would break labor laws left and right and obviously there was laws in place, and they still neglected to follow them so that just goes to show right there.
Prompt #2
Sometimes liquor and tobacco companies create ads that link the consumption of its goods with popularity, love, friendship, and financial success.
Do you think this is ethical?
Would your answer change if the company engaged in some Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by
occasionally publishing an ad that stressed the importance of consuming their product responsibly?
Be sure to include the perspectives of social contract theory and virtue ethics in your responses.
I do not think that liquor and tobacco companies are ethically and morally wrong for creating ads which promotes their products with popularity, love, and friendship. When it comes to the company, they are there to make a profit of of the consumers and hold that financial gain. When we look at the company making ads that contribute to popularity, love, and friendships but also incorporate that they need to drink or consume their product responsibly, I don’t think that it’s going to make a difference on moral ethic’s because they are telling you to consume responsibly but at the end the consumer will make the ultimate decision. Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it Ethics Unwrapped. (2022, November 5). When we look at the different rules set forth in order to consume
these products responsible on our own we have that social contract that we must make for ourselves despite what the
company states. Aristotle refers to virtues as character traits or psychological dispositions. Virtues are those particular dispositions that are appropriately related to the situation and, to link back to our function, encourage actions that are in accordance with reason Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). When discussing the virtue ethics were looking at in this case the self control aspect of consuming the product that the company is advertising and that
we should hold our actions accountable to maintain self-control and honesty to ourselves to consume responsibly. At
the end of the day it is left up the consumers to act accordingly and follow the applicable laws set forth while enjoying such products that are being advertised. We as consumers have actions that can be based off of consuming these products so we comes down on the consumer to uphold the virtue of ethics with the actions.
References:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
Ethics Unwrapped. (2022, November 5).
Social Contract Theory - Ethics Unwrapped
. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory#:~:text=Social%20contract%20theory%20says
%20that,a%20divine%20being%20requires%20it
.
WEEK 8: Prompt #2
Ethicist Margaret Battin (1987) suggests that physicians should uphold a patient’s autonomy by informing them about humane methods for ending one’s life. Thus, the principle of autonomy creates a moral obligation
for physicians to provide patients (who request it) with information on how to die.
Furthermore, some individuals create suicide kits that are available for purchase through online retailers like
Ebay. One in particular, is a 3D-printed pod suicide machine called “Sarco” that fills with gas to end a person’s life.
Should there be limits on freedom of speech when it comes to publicizing methods for killing oneself or others?
Should physicians be the ones to inform patients about “humane” methods for ending their lives?
Some people might argue that suicide attempts are just a cry for help. How can a physician determine if a request for euthanasia is genuine and not just a cry for help?
Response: Here in the US we have the freedom of speech and at times what one might say can be very alarming such as talking about suicide. I don’t think there is really a way in order to control what one might say about topics as such as different methods for doing such action. I do not think it’s the physicians place to discuss and kind of suicidal methods with patients nor take any kind of action unless the person has a terminal illness and is continuing to decline and may request hospice and DNR order from the doctor, but I fell that is the most a physician should be allowed to do as long as there is medical evidence based practices that have taken and diagnoses are made. Unlike the patient in a PVS, the patient in this example retains the ability to ask for euthanasia themselves and so these cases can highlight moral issues surrounding voluntary euthanasia. Again, for simplicity in our discussion, we do not
consider where the line can be drawn regarding patients in fit or unfit psychological states when it comes to an ability to make a voluntary decision to be euthanised, although this is also an issue that would reward further moral thought Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Based on this statement above I still feel that if their still physiologically present then they can request DNR order and hospice, but I don’t not feel that the physician can actually euthanize the patient even if they requested it. When patients request euthanasia but then you are stuck between is it a cry for help or genuine, I think that it comes back to if the patients in a vegetative state and the POA has requested them to say be taken off life support or they have a terminal illness and have asked for only CMO orders to let the patient pass peacefully. In today’s society mental illness cases is on the rise and the treatment is not their so you have to have clinical diagnoses that the patient has specific complications and diseases that will change their living if survived in order to know what is a cry for help and what is genuine. I feel that the only kind of people
that should be euthanized is the ones that are in prison on death row who receive the lethal injection which is done under medical supervision by the doctor or electric chair.
Reference: References:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
Ethics Unwrapped. (2022, November 5).
Social Contract Theory - Ethics Unwrapped
. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory#:~:text=Social%20contract%20theory%20says
%20that,a%20divine%20being%20requires%20it.
WEEK 9: Your discussion prompt
: Neuroscience tells us that a person’s prefrontal cortex – the region of the brain responsible for important functions such as conscience, emotions, and reasoning to draw conclusions – is not completely developed until a person is in his/her early to mid-20’s. Moore was 18 when he committed these crimes.
Should Moore carry all of the responsibility for his actions or should the creators of GTA share some of the responsibility?
Should companies be allowed to produce and market such violent and realistic video games?
If stores refused to sell such products, then no one would have access to them. So should the Walmart where Moore purchased GTA also share some of the responsibility?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Response:
So first off this is a very tragic situation for the families that had to go through the loss of a loved one especially in this type of scenario. I feel that Moore is 100% responsible in the murder of these three individuals and should be held to the highest sentence to think that this is morally and ethically right to do let alone himself and the attorney think that this situation is a joke by playing the victim card, they both should be embarrassed of themselves. Shifting
to virtue theory,
if
playing the killer makes us less virtuous — e.g. less courageous, empathetic, sensitive etc. — then
the virtue theorist will claim this will make us less able to do the right thing at the right time to the right proportion Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017). I personally have played all of the different GTA games growing up and I never not once would ever think that I could willy nilly go around and murder people because of a game I was playing. You are taught at a young age right from wrong and this clearly shows that Moore had not moral values in the first place let alone your 18 years old and getting in trouble with the law and cannot own your mistakes so you act upon your impulses and murder three people for no reason because you can follow the law. From someone who has a criminal justice degree reading this prompt made my blood boil one not just from Moores actions but from the attorneys embarrassing of a statement to defend Moore. I feel that nobody is held responsible for this situation other than Moore himself and he should be held to the maximum amount of time. Stores should not be held responsible because they are selling them it’s the person who makes the wrong choice who is held responsible and own up to their own actions. People who think that playing a video game as such is just like in real life needs psychiatric counseling and lots of time in some kind of rehab facility because their mind is not in the right place at all.
Reference:
Fisher, A., & Dimmock, M. (2017).
Ethics for A-level
. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 10: Imagine you are an Irish clan leader in Northern Ireland. You have witnessed the British Army kill six
of your cousins, your youngest brother, and numerous members of your community.
You decide to retaliate in an attempt to remove the British forces from Ireland. Initially, you target British military and/or members of the government with pipe bombs and random shootings – and are credited with many deaths. However, you discover that this does not bring about the desired consequences and so begin targeting random – innocent – British citizens and claim you will continue until your demands are met.
When you initially target solders and government officials only…
Can any of this killing be justified?
Can you be considered to be “at war” with the British government or are you necessarily a “terrorist”?
Response:
I think that it can be justified depending on what is causing them to do such of an act on the other party. If the British is continuing to kill people from Ireland than I would say its going to war and not a terrorist attack because both parties are engaging in the act. A
broad definition
encompasses the entire history of "terrorism" and allows for acts that are perpetrated against governments, state officials, government property, and so on (Primoratz, 2018)
Terrorism
. (n.d.). The term “at war” would be more so described in this situation because they are going back after the British in or order to try and be equal and get some collateral damage as they did to Ireland.
When you begin targeting innocent British civilians…
Can any of this killing be justified?
Are you necessarily a “terrorist”?
Should any
action by any
group that targets innocent civilians be considered terrorism?
Response:
I again feel that it can be justifiable due to the fact of trying to defend your own land and standing your ground in a way. If you were targeting innocent people like in this case yes I feel that it would be terrorist attack due
to restricts terroristic acts to those directed at non-combatants or innocent persons (Primoratz, 2018)
Terrorism
. (n.d.). Yes, both parties should considered terrorism due to the fact of its not against the governmental officials and armed forces and that its against innocent community members.
Reference:
Terrorism
. (n.d.). http://files.galencollege.edu/media/ADN/PHL2205/Terrorism/content/index.html#/lessons/
lA1eV5DDQd2r6tbBMQIBX7C0pEl4uIO3
WEEK 11: In your view, did the perpetrators of this act of fraud and thievery commit moral wrongdoing? Is it morally justifiable to steal from corporations and fund life-saving research for the betterment of society? Of children? Using one of the moral theories from this course to bolster support for your view, do your best to attempt to definitely answer whether or not the fraudulent actions of the perpetrators of this act of theft performed a morally right or wrong act.
Response:
Personally, with the information provided I feel that in this case there really wasn’t any kind of stealing in a way. McDonalds had a rule that whoever won must be the one to claim the prize well who would be able to tell honestly who actually won the prize in the first place? I think that the person who had won and had it in the mail for St. Jude was doing this out of the act of kindness. The information provided doesn’t fully give much detail on really who it was that originally won the 1-million-dollar game piece. I feel that with the information provided utilitarianism is what I support in this case. As a reminder, the rule utilitarian suggests that moral action is action that would be recommended by the set of rules that, if followed, would promote the greatest good for the greatest number Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). The greater good outweighs the bad in this situation and it was going to help so many children within the research to find cures for their illnesses. So, with that being said I feel that it was morally the right thing to do in this case because it had benefited so many with trying to find cures for their illnesses based on utilitarianism. St. Jude even had mentioned that they would pay the money back to McDonalds and they had mentioned that they will be following through with their word and then paid the final installment to St. Jude. If McDonalds had asked for the money back due to the rules that they had in place for the game, then maybe it would be a different story but from the information provided McDonalds had waived their rules for St. Jude to accept the prize.
Reference:
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.
WEEK 12: In the first week we were asked to examine and reflect on what we thought was morally right as if we were in those positions in the scenarios. The scenarios are,
Trolley case-
My moral and ethical standards remain the same as I would prefer to switch the trolley to the track of one person than the track with five people. Now understanding utilitarianism I lean more on that side for this case due to having a greater outcome for the most people. I would prefer nobody be killed but saving five people is a greater good than one.
Lollipop case-
I agree with the store clerk and was happy he switched it out without the man knowing. In the end the father could have killed his family and may try and do this again in the future which is very dangerous. I would say it was morally right to do what the clerk did but how did he know that was what he was doing and how can one prove it so it can be reported to authorities to prevent it from the future.
Drowning case-
In this case I feel that I would at least call local authorities and report the issue as well as quickly find some kind of flotation device in order to help the person. I would continue on my way to my interview but I
could not completely ignore the person. It can lead to a tragic situation when there is no assistance device as the person could potentially drown myself from clinging on out of fear and now we have two peoples lives in danger. When a lifeguard is at post working they are equipped with different devices in order to help them safely bring the person to shore.
Robbery case-
I would still report the incident anonymously to the police and give them all the information I had. To me this is the moral and ethical thing to do because the friend put other lives in danger and only handed the money over so he did not get caught.
I feel that my views are morally consistent from before and now I have a better understanding of different viewpoints and backgrounds. I think that I am this way because of how I was raised growing up and that I was always taught to respect other the way you wanted to be treated. I feel that I favor the moral values of caring, honesty, respect fairness and trust. Like I mentioned before its how I was raised and I was taught to respect others show compassion and care for other when I was able to do so. What grounds me this way is back to my parents and being a catholic family you learn how to understand others and interact with those who are in need of assistance.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help