Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
importance of making ethical decisions
the importance of ethical decisions
FOUR impacts of Ethics on decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: importance of making ethical decisions
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions. Clifford believes that it is a moral requirement that beliefs are justified in order to minimize the chance that an incorrect belief will affect other people. In the case of the ship-owner, who sent out his old emigrant ship based solely on the fact that he was able to suppress his doubts, killed every family looking for a better future. His unjustified belief had minimal effects on his business, but destroyed the lives of many families, due to his negligence in getting the ship repaired. Clifford argues that even if the ship had arrived safely, the ship owner is still guilty of not justifying his belief because once an action has occurred; it is “right or wrong forever” (Clifford). The only difference would be he would not have found out about his misdoings. His decision to convince himself that his ship would not fail him served two purposes: saving his enterprise money and easing his mind if anything were to happen to the people aboard his ship. In the second example, the unjustified accusations against, “individual citizens of the highest position and character” (Clifford), hurt their professional lives. The accusations... ... middle of paper ... ... from previous experiences and bases future decisions on what they have experienced. When a person makes a decision that isn’t justified, they unknowingly change how they view future problems. If the decision has not been based in truth, it allows them a certain amount of unearned freedom to make wrong decisions, as opposed to when one make a proper decisions. It is crucial that every decision made is justified in order to keep their moral compass steady and to make the proper decisions when the choice is hard. Clifford makes a very strong and valid case for justifying every decision, regardless of how insignificant. Using his view of thinking, it is easy to understand why everyone has a moral right to justify decisions. Without the cooperation of society in making every decision a justified one, it is useless to hold someone accountable for an immoral belief.
William Clifford was born on the 4th of May 1845 in Exeter England. He was an English mathematician and British philosopher. At the age of 15, William attended Kings College, London where he achieved a minor scholarship to Trinity College. Later after graduation he was invited to join the Apostles. He became concerned of many religious questions after studying the influential philosopher Thomas Aquinas and he decided to turn away from religion. Clifford’s philosophical standpoint was a major influence for his day. One of his greatest written accomplishments was an essay “The Ethics of Belief”.
...reserving the principle of autonomous decisions could be considered somewhat more plausible. Essentially the only fault being addressed is the conflicting action, as a conflict no longer occurs. Objections remain based on the inclusion of moral agents exclusively and the promoting of individual’s goals, while introducing the additional problem of self-interest that accompanies prominent autonomy. The theory remains at fault, as it cannot be adequately amended by a single change. Sally’s prescriptive moral theory “picks and choses” from other existing theories and combines them to make a hybrid theory. Doing so creates difficulties as the overlap reduces clarity and limits the strength of any individual argument. This is a challenge that cannot be overlooked; Sally’s theory fails to show structural reliability and is hence too problematic to have sound moral worth.
In the article “Moral Realism and Moral Judgments”, Frederik Kaufman argues that judgments of fact display a certain degree of conceptual sensitivity to error which is not present in moral judgments. He concludes from this that moral judgments cannot be a subset of judgments of fact. In setting up his argument, Kaufman claims that for the most part we form judgments of fact in virtue of natural facts being a certain way, entailing that correct judgments are causal consequences of natural facts.2 Under this conception, moral judgments, if they are indeed a subset of judgments of fact, must also be causal consequences of natural facts3. This conception also gains for the moral realist the idea that moral knowledge is possible, for if there is a causal connection, then the moral judgments gained are gained because of certain natural facts.
supports the idea that a decision is morally correct as long as it increases and
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
Cliffords point of view towards religion. Is that even though we have beliefs, we are still morally responsible for the repercussions of acting on our beliefs due to lack of evidence. He backs his point of view with a example of a captain endangering his crew, because his beliefs caused him to not proceed with caution. Even if he did have the evidence and his beliefs lead him to tragedy he would still be equally as responsible. Cliffords point of view is that strong beliefs can shroud your judgement and with lack of evidence we shouldn't let it because it will effect your judgement when exploring
This essay attempts to capitalize on Goldman 's “What is justified belief?” to form an opinion about his ideas. Goldman makes a break from traditional views of knowledge to form a theory of externalism. He gives the reader a new point of view for observing the relationship between knowledge and justification. The following passage will weed out some important aspects of his theory and how they relate to his theory as a whole.
William K. Clifford’s ‘Ethics of Belief’ (1877) challenges the way that people obtain their beliefs. He goes over the story of a ship-owner that was going to send to sea, even though his ship was in bad condition. The ship-owner dismissed the concerns and suspicions of contractors because he sincerely believed that the ship could make it across the sea. He sent the ship, and the ship sunk mid-ocean and the ship-owner received an insurance payment from the ship. Clifford argues that the ship-owner should be guilty of this act, given that he didn’t have sufficient evidence to conclude that the ship was fit to go out to sea. He goes further to argue that beliefs without sufficient evidence is “sinful and immoral” and overall hurts the society
...believe in, in order to make a right decision. You can just as easily know in your conscience that what you are doing is wrong, but I am just claiming that it gives you an incentive when you think that someone or something might be disappointed with you if you go on doing so.
In this situation, there is no “logical universe” that helps to justify a belief, but rather shows perspectives that are common in everyday life. This basically explains the set of rules that individuals go by to have a more practical and normal life. An individual would learn that the situation they may go through is not based on correspondence between a belief and a fact in society, but coherence between a belief and other beliefs in a single individual. In other words, the exposed truth is a property of other consecutive congruent beliefs one has thought in their minds before experiencing something in the present. This is the coherence theory of justification; when something is signified as true with this justification, then this strongly has the official truth even if the opposing individual argues. In most circumstances, this theory leaves no room for fitting another justification into what has already been justified to be
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
“He (the magistrate) said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless”(69). This quote from The Stranger, by Albert Camus, expresses the notion of establishing logical reasons for the wrongdoings of others, when such reasons do not exist. One can see that society often judges people in a rational manner in the presence of an irrational event or purpose, basing their judgements on a single object or idea. In society, people often follow superstitions and beliefs that have developed permanently in the minds of ‘ordinary’ human beings while expecting everyone else to do the same.