Common Morality case completed
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Kentucky *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
620
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by AdmiralRain12282
Common Morality Case Application Outline Worksheet Apply the common morality framework as you reason through the provided case using this worksheet. Be sure to include your reasoning (the ‘why’) for each of your answers. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is insufficient. First
: Determine the person to whom the social worker owes a moral obligation in the case. Why? Consider this person as you review the case. Write that person’s name here: __________________________________________ Second
: Determine what the ethical dilemma is in order to determine the two sides of the dilemma. Use those sides (Side 1 and Side 2 below) as you complete the worksheet. Side 1: _________________________________________________________________________________ Side 2: _________________________________________________________________________________ Third
: Review the case using this worksheet that outlines the common morality framework. Use the common morality handout that details the framework and identifies the moral rules, the harms, and the benefits. You must use that terminology as you work through the dilemma, and this is the reason the ‘why’ for each answer is essential. Fourth
: You must come up with a comprehensive answer to the ethical dilemma once you have reviewed the case. After all, that is the whole point of the framework! Use the facts uncovered via Step 1 and the answers to Step 2 as you formulate the specific answer to the ethical dilemma. MRF 1: What moral rules are violated? STEP 1: Review the Morally Relevant Features (MRFs) for both sides of the ethical dilemma. This is the fact-collection portion of the framework. Side 1
Side 2
MRF 2: What common morality harms are avoided and prevented and caused? Why? Side 1
Side 2
Supporting Jean in opposing the face-to-face contact despite the open adoption agreement.
Supporting Terry who is in favor of face-to-face contact because of the open adoption agremeent.
Melinda
Do not cause pain is violated because if Melinda were to have the face-to-face meeting with her mother, there is the potential that it can cause her pain. Do not deprive of freedom can also be seen as a violation.
Keep your promise, do your duty, and obey the law. I think that these are all violated because they created an agreement that they all came to terms with together and it should be upheld.
Pain is being avoided and prevented by Jean not keeping her promise. Jean will not have to deal with the pain of Melinda interacting with her birth mother. Loss of freedom can be seen as a harm that is caused because by not seeing her birth mother, this can be considered a violation of freedom for Melinda.
Pain can be caused by the violation because it may be upsetting for Terry, Melinda and Corinna if they aren’t able to meet face-to-face. I think loss of pleasure is being avoided and
prevented because if they were to actually meet, it might make
Melinda happy to know her birth mother.
MRF 3: What are the desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the moral rule is being violated?
Side 1
Side 2 MRF 4: Do you (the social worker) have a relationship with the person toward whom you are thinking about violating moral rules that means you have a duty to violate those rules without that person’s consent?
Why? Side 1
Side 2
MRF 5: What common morality benefits are being promoted by this moral rule
violation/action?
Why? Side 1
Side 2
MRFs 6 & 7: Are unjustified/weakly justified violations of moral rules being prevented or punished? Why? Side 1 & Side 2
: No rules are being broken to punish anyone, nor are any rules being broken to prevent someone else from breaking a rule. These two morally relevant features are not applicable in this case because this case does not take place in a criminal justice setting where they are most likely to be applicable. MRF 8: Are there any alternative actions (i.e., community resources) or policies that exist and can be implemented to mitigate harms and rule violations? (Really be creative here! Brainstorm! This is where
social workers shine!)
Side 1
Side 2
I think freedom and pleasure are being promoted here because both Melinda and Corinna will have the freedom of being able to know each other. it can also bring potential pleasure to everyone if Melinda and Corinna have a healthy relationship with one another.
I think that freedom and ability are being promoted by
these violations because if Jean doesn’t keep her promise or uphold her duty, she has the freedom and ability to keep Melinda away from Corinna because she feels that she will be a bad influence on her.
Jean does not want Melinda to have any contact with Corinna. She believes Corinna is a bad influence as she has multiple children that were taken from her custody due to substance abuse and domestic violence issues. I think an alternative action would be for Jean to not go to the birthday party with Terry and Melinda. There is an agreement that Corinna is allowed to see Melinda a minimum of two times a year. Terry can bring Melinda to the birthday party by herself.
Terry wanted Melinda to have the option to have a relationship with her birth mother. She believes Melinda is old enough to have a face-to-face meeting with Corinna, her birth mother. I think that Terry can go to the party with Melinda by herself. They can also come up with a plan to have Corinna and Melinda meet at a different time, under different circumstances that everyone is comfortable with. We can even suggest having a supervised visit between the four of them.
I don’t have a relationship with this person to have a duty to violate the rules without consent. I don’t believe the rules should be violated on this side. I think that I have a duty here to violate the moral rule because by violating the moral rule of not causing pain, I am upholding the contractual agreement.
MRF 9: Are the moral rule violations being done intentionally or
knowingly?
Why? Side 1
Side 2
MRF 10: Is this an emergency situation that no person likely plans to be in? Why? Side 1
Side 1
STEP 2: Answer all 3 questions for both sides of the ethical dilemma. This is the portion of the framework that examines whether the moral rule violation/action is publicly allowed. In other words, this step is determining whether any rational, impartial person would hold that the moral rule violation/action is publicly allowed. à
Remember that this section is based on societal norms and ideas of morality, not on our own biased ideas. Moral rule violations/actions can be morally permissible even if we would not take the action for ourselves or for those about whom we care, as long as they align with broadly held societal norms and ideas. Use the facts from Step 1 to inform answers to this Step and think about greater – societal – ideas and norms as you address Question 1: Must be RATIONAL to allow the violation/action
: Would rational people agree that this action should be taken in these circumstances?
Why? Side 1
Side 2
Question 2: Must be IMPARTIAL to allow the violation/action
: Could everyone else in a similar
circumstance do this too?
Why? Side 1
Side 1
I think that Jean is intentionally and knowingly violating these moral rules because she doesn’t want Melinda to meet Corinna when she knows that’s what her, Terry and Corinna want and it also listed in their open adoption agreement that they can have 2 face-to-face meetings per year (at a minimum).
No, I do not consider this an emergency situation, although it might be uncomfortable. Jean can be with Melinda during the birthday party so she can clearly see everything that is happening.
I think that rational people may agree that these actions should be taken because of the fact that Corinna rarely contacts Jean and Terry to see/ talk to Melinda. Also, Melinda has a past with substance/
domestic abuse that Jean doesn’t want Melinda to be subjected to.
I don’t think that everyone else in a similar circumstance can do this because then there would be a lot of cases of parents going against signed agreements and then it can cause arguments, which can in turn damage or traumatize the child.
No, this is not an emergency situation. No one’s life is at risk and no one is being put in harms way by going to this birthday party.
I don’t think the violation here is intentional but it is knowing. Terry doesn’t want to cause any pain to Melinda or Corinna, but she knows that is likely what will happen if they don’t meet face-to-face.
I think that rational people will agree that Melinda and Corinna can meet because they have a signed,
agreed upon contract that states Corinna can see Melinda face-to-face at a minimum of 2 times a year.
I think that everyone in similar situations
can do this because Terry is following a contract that her, Jean and Melinda agreed to. Although it may cause some friction between Jean and Terry, Terry is not doing anything wrong or questionable by having Melinda and Corinna meet face-to-face.
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
Question 3: Must be PUBLICLY ALLOWED to allow the violation/action
: Could everyone know that this violation can and will occur in these circumstances? Why? Side 1
Side 1
What is the answer to this dilemma? Be specific. Use facts from Step 1 & information from Step 2 to justify
your answer. Ethical Dilemma Answer I don’t think that everyone could know this violation can and will occur in these circumstance because of the fact that there was a specific agreement made many years ago between Terry, Jean and
Corinna. They should have spoken about
any potential difficulties that may arise before coming to an agreement.
I think that people would know that this violation can and will occur in these circumstances. Someone is going to be hurt whether they meet face to face or if they don’t. With either outcome, there will be at least one party who doesn’t get what they want.
I think that the answer to this dilemma would be to side with Terry, and have the face-to-face meeting with Melinda and Corinna. By not having a face-to-face meeting, we will be violating multiple moral rules. Also, if the meeting doesn’t take place, they will never know how Corinna and Melinda will interact with each other. Lastly, I feel that we need to uphold the contractual agreement. All three parties previously agreed that Corinna was allowed to have a face-to-face
meeting with Melinda at a minimum of 2 times a year. If we don’t abide by the contract, there can be consequences and both Melinda and Corinna have the right to meet each other in person.