Ethics and Morality

It is immoral to not practice the accepted beliefs, practices, and principles (particularly of right and wrong) of the culture or religion to which an individual belongs.

A nihilist is someone who would accept Nihilism, which is the concept that everything is nothing, to put it in a single sentence. We are of no real substance, and all we have is essentially nothing. Where most people believe our actions will bring a different reality, a nihilist would see any action as irrelevant since nothing we do matters.

This is my view on it from reading Nietzsche, discussing some Kierkegaard, and a light base of my own thinking on the potential uselessness of reality.

You should have if the 12 year old goes anywhere. My 13 year old has had a phone for three years. When she is at the skate rink and needs to get picked up, she can call. If there is a problem, she has the ability to call. If something happened to her, the GPS could be tracked.

You can buy a prepaid phone for $9.99 and $9.00 a month. Just don't let them use it unchecked.

It depends if they are allowed out on their own yet. My daughter is 11 and has 3 months to go till she is 12 and hasn't go a cellphone yet. This is because i don't let her out with her friends yet. I think at the age of 12 you should give them one but make sure you check what you child is doing on there.

Kantiansim is a philosophy of ethics by Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that people should be treated as an end and never as a mere means to an end. in other words, it is unethical to use people for your own personal gain because people are valuable in themselve. Kantianism is a non-consequential theory meaning the act itself is more important than the outcome of that act. For example: If a building is on fire it is your duty to save the people inside even if the people inside are murderers. You would save the people for the sake of saving them and no other reason.

The early Church created lists of "seven deadly sins" at different times and in different circumstances. For example, Tertullian says the seven deadly sins were idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud. When hermit monks began to live alone in the desert in the belief that in isolation they could not sin, they began to suffer temptations unique to their circumstances, which created a new list of seven deadly sins, such as gluttony and envy. Remember that these 'sins' were directed at the desert hermits of the day, and you are not a desert hermit. These 'sins' are vices to be avoided, but not crimes to hide in guilty shame. Sin is sin, no matter how man tries to package it. It does not change with time.

* Violation of natural species intrinsic values * Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species * Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa * Stress for plant

Noi

To resolve an ethical dilemma, a person must either know or identify the ethics and values they hold dear. Based on those identified ethics, the person must then weigh the pros and cons of the available choices. For some people in certain situations, a ethical question never becomes a "dilemma" because the person is firmly grounded in one set of beliefs so there is only one "choice". For example, Sally is asked to help kill her girlfriend's husband. Sally is adamant that "killing is wrong" and she refuses; she instead calls the police. But in other situations, our stated ethics become in conflict with the current situation. Again, using Sally as an example, she has always said "all killing is wrong, even abortion!" But at the age of 40, Sally suffers a low back injury that leaves her in severe daily pain. At age 41, her husband divorces her, leaving her with 4 children to feed. Within a month of the divorce, Sally discovers that she became pregnant just before the divorce, from a night when she tried to "please" her husband so he would stay and not leave her. At 41, with a severe back injury and pain, and needing to support her 4 existing children, Sally considers abortion, even though it is in direct contradiction to her previously held values/ethics. How Sally resolves the "rightness or wrongness" of her ethical dilemma will rest on how she processes the pros and cons, along with reviewing her stated values, in order to come to a decision.

It is important to note that often in life, we can only choose between a "bad" and an equally "bad" choice. Sometimes, "right" and "wrong" has NO clear dividing line. Sometimes all we can do is pick one of the "bad" choices even when we detest both choices.

An ethical compromise is a choice you have to change something you did wrong into something right or to go against what you think is wrong in order to get something positive.

No.

I believe Cadbury is more ethical than most, it was built with ethical values that were carried on by each new generation. For example, cadbury was the first to give women a pension scheme and to give paid leave. Cadbury's also built a city around their factory for the workers, (Bournville) and the sons strongly believed in corporal social responsibilty. Nowadays cadburys isn't as ethical as it used to be, but compared to others, Cadburys is still rather ethical, even with Krafts owning it and making the chocolate bars smaller but the price the same or firing 7,500 people.

Cadbury's is quite ethical.

Interest groups derive their power through various methods. The first is through their collective exercise of the Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, petition and press, in representation of their constituents. Their second means to power is through money, received by their members and used to fund political ad campaigns and individual politicians. Influential political interest groups and lobbies of the United States include the American Medical Association (AMA), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), National Educators Association (NEA), and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Copyright laws apply to digital materials in the same way they apply to physical materials, but because the internet makes infringement so cheap and easy, it becomes an ethical issue: doing the right thing even when the wrong thing is easier, and you know you won't get caught.

General Ethics also known as ' Malaking Bayag ' and this is the main organ of the male.

Freedom-based ethics

It is not clear what is meant here by 'the assumption of ethics.' What may be meant is assuming what is generally referred to as "the moral point of view." Discussion about assuming the moral point of view is commonplace in many modern ethical discussions. It is indispensable when discussing ethical theories that are nonrealist, noncognitivist, or both nonrealist and noncognitivist. It is because of the popularity of these theories that talk about the moral point of view is common. It's not clear what "the moral point of view" means. Typically, it stands opposed to ethical egoism. An ethical egoist is attached to self-interested prudentialism. An ethical egoist thinks of himself as having one and only one basic obligation, namely, to promote what is best for himself. An ethical egoist could care less about what is good for others. By way of contrast, adopting the moral point of view takes what is good for others into account. It is a disinterested position, not a self-interested position. Should an individual (like you or me) adopt the moral point of view? What is the justification for adopting a position that might sacrifice what is best for me in favor of what is best for others? This is an important question. When we are deciding what to think, say, or do, how should we decide? What considerations are relevant? How we answer may have a great impact on the quality of our lives. That's the importance of the issue concerning whether or not to adopt the moral point of view.

Moral vs. immoral immediately calls to mind amoral as well. Very roughly:

Moral actions are those that are good in themselves, have good effects or reflect a good virtue in the individual taking the action.

Immoral actions are the opposite, they are bad in themselves, have bad effects or reflect a character flaw.

Amoral actions are those that are neither good nor bad, a common example is the actions of a 2-year-old child. They are neither good nor bad as the child is not developed enough mentally to be morally responsible for their actions.

'Ethics' is another word for 'logic'

Ethics is logic around behavior

Like any logic an ethic has basics and restrictions

Mostly the basics are for a big part hidden and reason for ferocious discussions

The restriction are called 'moral laws'

The hidden basics can be very tricky, for instance presuming the existence of not material things and thus presuming a split between a not material mind/soul and material body.

One thing is sure: immaterial 'things' are belief and cannot be proven

Things get even more tricky if one presumes rules for mind/soul

Than anything is possible, and mostly results in calling some behavior good and opposite behavior bad and presuming that minds/souls steer behavior and can be 'good' or 'evil'

This is similar to believing in 'god' and 'devil'.

It's paramount if you want to be successful. Using the golden rule would be good. Be honest and have some integrity. Don't worry about being so materialistic. Do that and you will be developed.

Organizational ethics are the principals and standards by which businesses operate, according to Reference for Business. They are best demonstrated through acts of fairness, compassion, integrity, honor and responsibility.

I expect to learn about the fundamental principles and theories of ethics, including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Additionally, I anticipate exploring real-world applications of ethical frameworks in decision-making processes and the complexities of moral dilemmas. Understanding how cultural, social, and personal factors influence ethical behavior will also be a key focus. Overall, I hope to gain a deeper appreciation for the role of ethics in shaping individual and societal values.

The art of correct living says that we are all part of a given whole. It asserts that the universe as well as humans should have order and live in harmony. This means we should never harm one another in any way.