HUM646 Discussions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
National University College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
646
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by MateScience10909
. Who are you? What do you do? How many HUB classes have you
taken? Why are you in the Human Behavior program?
Hello! My name is Kylee Layfield. Currently, I am a full-time student working towards my
master's. I have done everything, from management in a restaurant and leadership in a warehouse
to, more recently, working in ABA. I decided I was unhappy with my career options and knew
the only way to gain a career in a field I was passionate about was to go back to school. This is
my 6th course in the program, so I am halfway there! I decided to pursue my degree in Human
Behavior because I have always been interested in how we behave and the why.
I cannot wait to get to know all of you, and I hope everyone has a great next four weeks!
An army surgeon performs an unnecessary operation on a battalion
commander merely to remove him from battle because he lost too many
men. How does this relate to a consequentialist (practical) approach to
morality? Do you feel that, in this case, the end justifies the means? Is
there ever a time when a good end justifies any means to attain it? If so,
when? If not, why?
As we know, consequentialism is an ethical theory that the consequences can define. The most
common example is lying and whether it is ethical. Consequentialism states that it is ethical if it
is going to save someone. Therefore, a surgeon performing an unnecessary operation to remove
him from battle would be considered ethical because he was merely trying to keep the
commander alive. As for other instances in life, the ends are justified only when they will not
affect other people. As we get older, we are more in tune with what is justifiable versus what is
not. One thing that comes to mind is, “
Is there ever a time when a good end justifies any means
to attain it?” would be lying on a resume to ensure you get the job. Although the good (getting
the job) justifies lying, it does not mean it is ethical, and that is why I believe this is something a
person learns with age, experience, and knowledge.
Week 1 Reply #1
I enjoyed reading your post. That is true. Another person could believe what I consider
morally right is entirely wrong, and vice versa. Therefore, I agree when you say it is subjective
and falls towards the one who is in authority to form the opinion. Considering the quote, “
Morally right action is the action that produces the best results" (Khan, 2016, p. 4). It makes me
think about my example regarding lying on a resume to ensure the job. Although lying is morally
considered wrong, the action would produce the best results, meaning it was ethically correct.
Coming into this discussion topic, I did not think someone would side the other way,
saying the surgeon's actions were unjustified. After hearing your argument against the other side,
I can see how you drew to that conclusion, although I disagree. This makes your statement about
whether or not something is morally and ethically right subjective even more substantial. You
m
ake a good point when you say the surgeon's actions will interfere with the opposing people in
the war, leading you to believe it was an unethical choice. But when it comes to
consequentialism, the theory states that it is ethical if it will save someone's life. The surgeon's
decision to perform an unnecessary surgery saved the commander's life, and the actions
following this event may have shifted things in favor of saving others.
Week 1 Reply #2
Again, this is another perspective I should have seen. I can completely understand why you came
to this conclusion. Being a nurse and in the military makes this a hypothetical scenario more real.
Coming from a family of nurses, I shared your thoughts and opinions with my mother and aunt.
Unsurprisingly, they agreed with you and said that the surgeon, although trying to perform a
good deed, would be a form of abuse because the surgery was unnecessary. This leads me to
question my moral standing and whether or not I think ethically with all that I do. I hold a high
standard regarding the morality of things, but I may not think of scenarios from an ethical
standpoint. I enjoy hearing others' point of view regarding this scenario.
Week Two Discussion
Discuss the Berlin Code of 1931. Was Hitler correct in his decision? Why or why not? How does
this action reflect the political correctness of the era? Would it be possible today?
The Berlin Code of 1900 is the Berlin Declaration on Biomedical Research. The
document outlined the ethical principles and guidelines for conducting medical experiments on
human subjects. Microbiologist Rudolf Virchow sought more ethical behaviors in the medical
field upon learning about another microbiologist, Albert Neisser, who injected human subjects
without knowledge with a serum made from the blood of syphilis patients. William Osler,
William Welch, and Rudolf Virchow wrote the first ethical code to meet specific conditions
before humans could be used in medical research.
In 1931, Adolf Hitler altered this code of ethics, stating that this rule of conditions did not
apply to Jews, gypsies, and the mentally disabled population. Hitler claimed such people were
not citizens and, therefore, had no rights.
Hitler’s decision in the era was unimportant, but that does not make it correct. Before and
after this period, humans were fighting for fundamental rights. Slavery had been abolished
(1865), and women were finally considered citizens (1875); fast forward to 1931, and it seems
we are taking steps backward and committing hate crimes again. But as they say, history repeats
itself. In this era, it would never be possible. It is not ethical or politically correct to not protect
all humans as equals. All are to be informed and ensure consent before receiving treatment. “To
establish the institutional protection of citizens’ rights in the field of health care, it is advisable to
make significant changes in domestic legislation, for which it is necessary to thoroughly analyze
it, based on the identification of patterns, certain methods and systematization, which, will act as
one from areas of bioethical expertise. In the most general form, the ethics committee should be
a specialized structure dealing with ethical issues of medical and biological sciences,
examination of research projects and examination of draft laws, development of necessary
recommendations, as well as the development of innovative policies in the field of health care”
Kozodaev, S. P. (2023) In this era there are always developments being made for human rights in
the medical field. Improving and staying ethically correct is always number one.
Kozodaev, S. P. (2023). Ethical examination in the field of medical research: a way to protect
human rights. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 81–87.
https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.01.13
Week 2 Replies
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
Reply #1
I agree with you. Things are so different; there are so many regulations to protect the
rights of humans when it comes to medicine. In modern society, there is a strong emphasis on
human rights, especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable populations. So many laws and
regulations have been implemented to ensure ethical standards are upheld in medical research
and experimentation. There has been significant moral progress in the medical field.
Reply #2
The medical field is committed to upholding ethical standards in all aspects of society, including
medical research. The lessons from history and the establishment of ethical codes like the
Nuremberg Code are powerful reminders of the importance of human rights and the need to
prevent such atrocities from happening again. However, I agree with your point about how it
may be done in other countries.
Week 3
The Case of the Burglar: Hearing a noise at the back of his house one
afternoon, Ed picks up his loaded automatic pistol from a drawer in his
desk and goes to investigate; he surprises an 18-year-old male by going
through his dresser drawers. The man has no weapon in his hands or
view. As Ed asks what he is doing there, the man runs for the back door.
Ed points the gun at his retreating, fires three shots, and kills him. Is Ed
morally justified in killing the man? Why or why not?
Determining whether Ed was morally justified in killing the 18-year-old man is a highly
complex and ethical question that may vary depending on one's moral beliefs and legal
standards. There are many reasons why using a weapon is justifiable. The intruder threatened Ed
and, therefore, was using the gun in self-defense; his life and property were in danger. However,
some laws state that Ed's force has to be the same power level as /the intruder uses.
I go back and forth with this question as well. I own guns and sleep with one near me (I
have no children in my household), but the action of actually going through and using it if need
be is something I struggle with because although it is legal, there are many other things to
consider. I have seen time and time again where the victim has been the one to go to prison for
using the act of self-defense. In this specific example, the person running away is enough for the
victim to go to jail due to shooting them from behind when they were trying to escape. With all
of that being said, the killing in this example is not justifiable. The intruder did not exert the
same force as Ed, nor was Ed’s life in imminent danger. It's worth noting that even if Ed is
legally justified, there may still be ethical questions about the necessity of his use of deadly force
in this situation.
Week 3 Replies
Reply #1
I enjoyed your post and the article you chose. “It was acknowledged that most American
courts were hesitant to adopt any rule that required a non-aggressor to retreat from an
unprovoked deadly attack”
(Carpenter, 2003, p. 655). There is a legal concept of “duty to
retreat,” also known as “stand your ground.” Which removes the obligation to retreat before
using deadly force. That said, I feel like there is not enough weapon training. Ed stood his
ground but used unnecessary pressure, mainly because the intruder was fleeing. Although I do
not think harsh punishment is necessary, I do not believe he should not get away with what he
did.
Carpenter, C. (2003).
Of the enemy within, the Castle Doctrine, and self-defense Catherine
.
Marquette Law Review.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1290&context=mulr&httpsredir=1
Reply #2
Your post was very intriguing. I liked how you discussed the
“true man" doctrine, which suggests
that a person without fault must not retreat before using force in self-defense. This legal principle
reflects the idea that individuals have a right to defend themselves when their life is in danger,
and it may be influenced by cultural and historical context. But now, determining whether Ed's
actions are morally justified is complex and divisive. Moral and ethical values are deeply
intertwined with individual beliefs, cultural norms, and legal standards.
Week 4
Morality and relationships: Post your view on the moral issues of adultery,
pornography, and sexual perversion in relationships. Does any of it have a place
in a committed relationship? Consider the arguments for and against in your
post.
Morality in a committed relationship is complex and varies for each person. When it
comes to adultery, pornography, and sexual perversion in relationships, there are many opinions.
Adultery is typically considered morally wrong because it is fidelity within a committed
relationship. Doing so can lead to emotional pain and a breach of trust, ultimately ending the
relationship. Others, however, argue that polyamory relationships help their relationship flourish
as long as those involved have rules.
Pornography, to some, is a healthy way to provide a non-adultery way of filling fantasies
and desires. On the other hand, it has been proven that excessive consumption of pornography
can lead to unrealistic expectations, leading one to be dissatisfied with their relationship.
According to Stahle (2023), in a recent study, avoiding pornography is essential to ensure a
healthy long-term relationship.
As for sexual perversion, it is up to the partners to decide the sexual preferences or kinks
allowed within their relationship. If the members consent and there is no harm being done, they
should feel free to do as they please. It could be argued to be morally unacceptable because some
actions can potentially cause harm.
Overall, I believe it is up to the consenting adults in the relationship to decide what is
morally acceptable and unacceptable in their relationship. It is important that partners are open
and respectful to one another, and truly communication is key. What one committed relationship
finds morally acceptable, another might not.
Stahle, T. (2023, March 24).
Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships, says a
new BYU study
.
The schedule was unpredictable while obtaining university
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