Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Behavior modification
Behavior modification
Ethical theories and ethical systems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Behavior modification
Bandura Bandura’s main argument is on moral agency which is evident in both ability to avoid from behaving inhumanely and the proactive ability to act humanely. Moral agency which is implanted in a wider socio -cognitive self-theory all-embracing self-regulatory mechanisms, proactive, self-organizing and self-reflective fixed in personal standards connected to self-sanctions. Self-regulatory mechanisms that regulate moral conduct cannot set in motion unless they have been triggered. The moral disengament which may have its focal point on the cognitive of which there are many psychological different ways to manipulate through by which moral self-sanctions discriminately detached from inhuman behavior reconstructing of inhumane behavior into compassionate be it either by using acceptable language, moral justification, preferable comparison or shifting of responsibility or even dehumanization of victims. It’s Bandura’s view that countless inhumanities in the world have always been piloted through an approving of authorized franchises by decent individuals who are the main cause and also disperse disastrous projects by …show more content…
The much potential to act diminishes with the addition of each person joining the
Often, a person is seen as the embodiment of the value of their action, thus a person can be seen as “good” or “bad,” and the consequences of justice that affect them are based on the general value of their general actions. The value given to actions is based on a soc...
She points out that in some cases we identify evils as done by the perpetrator and sometimes evils by the harm that they have caused, which can create a false sense or skewed view of culpability (Card, pg.4). Her Atrocity Paradigm discards the utilitarian view of evil, where evil is simply evil no matter the source, and also stoic concept of evil, which focuses primarily on the will of the perpetrator (Card, pg.4). Instead, the Atrocity Paradigm combines the two; both the resulted harm and the evil agent are taken into account (Card, pg.4). Card rejected the utilitarian viewpoint that wrong actions are defined by the damage they cause, and also the stoic viewpoint that damage is unintentional (Card,
In conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents.
Agents vs Acts Louden opens this section with this statement: “… it is commonplace that virtue theorists focus on good and bad agents rather than on right and wrong acts.” This is a good th... ... middle of paper ... ...
Can suicide be justified as morally correct? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant answers in, “The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Kant discusses many questions with arguable answers, which explains why he is one of the most controversial philosophers still today. Throughout Kant’s work, multiple ideas are considered, but the Categorical Imperative is one of the most prevalent. Though this concept is extremely dense, the Categorical Imperative is the law of freedom that grounds pure ethics of the metaphysics of ethics. Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples.
Philosopher, Christine Korsgaard, assesses her idea of the capacity for normative self government, in her her short writing, Morality and the Distinctiveness of Human Action. In her writing she argues that a form of life, whether human or animal/insect, it is not one controlled by guidelines and principles but is one governed by instinct desire and emotion. Korsgaard makes her claim with examples and premises on intentions. Korsgaard claims that the essence of morality relies on the normative self government and believes that laws in society do not protect those who are citizens but those who share the interest that the laws were made to protect.
This paper will focus on Capital Punishment, which we will define as execution through means of lethal injection administered by an executioner to someone convicted of murder, and for the purpose of this paper murder will be established as killing an innocent person in cold blood. It will concern the dehumanization of the condemned and the inappropriateness of employing the same morality and ethicality to someone who in the eyes of the public have lost all humaneness. Dehumanization will be, for the sake of my argument, classified as depriving someone from his humanity, and by depriving them of humanness, which is essential to ethics; we fracture the foundation of morality and ethics because without humans there is no morality or ethicality. I will argue that Capital Punishment undermines ethical and moral foundations in particular Kant’s theories by dehumanizing the condemned, therefore, opposing ethical arguments supporting Capital Punishment by making morality and ethicality inapplicable to someone who has had his humanity denied to him. I will first outline the various reasons in how the condemned is stripped of their humanity by demonstrating how it violates the value of life and how using it as revenge and as a deterrent of other crimes goes against Kant’s “Practical Imperative” which states that no human being should be seen as a means to an end because this essentially strips him of the right to live for himself. I will also show how Kant’s ethical theory regarding Capital Punishment, in which he indicates that taking a human life should always be punished by taking the offenders life, has contradictions especially in respect to the head of state where the same rules do not apply to them (Avaliani). The authorities are ...
Human growth is not always a straight forward for all individuals. Some individuals experience human development problems either in their childhood stages or during their adulthood. Such human development issues often limit the victims from getting the best of life. This means that it is always important to understand such human development problems clearly because such understanding can help the researchers, caregivers, parents, teachers and even doctors in coming up with strategies to ensure that the victim of human development problems live a better life and socialize with others normally. The paper will identify a case of Tom and identify his major problems and also suggest some of the measures that should be taken to address
In conclusion, I have argued that without a sense of accountability a connection to morality cannot be made. Wirzba’s claim holds true, and we must take into account our actions and be respectful of the requirements of the places we encounter.
Bandura describes moral development by defining how individuals developing a moral self can involve self-control as he stresses that individuals adopt standards of right and wrong that serve as guides to shape conduct. Individuals identifying what is right and wrong monitor their conduct and the conditions under which an event occurs while judging in relation to moral standards to regulate their actions by the consequences hey apply to themselves. For instance, a person knowledgably that stealing money is wrong, that person can identify the consequences it can bring his or her life by doing so, and it is how a person begins to experience moral development. Similarly, a person who realizes that
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
Throughout the centuries, we have come across many great thinkers. Most of them, have developed many great theories and ideas to help us grasp a better understanding of our lifestyle and development. When it comes to understanding the human mind, personality, and behaviors, I found the work of Freud and Bandura to be quite intriguing. For instance, Freud explored the human mind and explain what factors influence our behaviors and how our personality comes about, meanwhile, Bandura focus of the different ways through which we learn new behaviors and acquire information.
Because the differences between the two are subtle, it is necessary to weigh the importance of following the two. When taken at face value, both consciences seem to be equal. However, when further evaluating authoritarian conscience, a concern comes up. Throughout the entire essay, Fromm stresses the importance of thought free from the chains of authority. While following your conscience seems internalized, one must remember authoritarian conscience is followed because of fear or anticipation of a reward. Whether heaven or hell, acceptance or disownment, the voice in authoritarian conscience holds a reward or a punishment the person either wants or does not want to get.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.