0
Ethics and Morality
Ethics is about what we should – and should not - do. It includes identification of basic principles, e.g. the prerogatives of property owners; and the application of those principles to actual situations, e.g. copyright protection of intellectual property over the Internet.
2,801 Questions
What Hebrew code focused more on morality and ethics and less on politics?
Pirkei Avoth (Ethics of the Fathers). That is one of the tractates of the Mishna, and can be found in many Jewish prayerbooks.
Tell me about a time that you went beyond the call of duty?
Many aspects of Human Resources require this, however I recall one scenario when a benefit question was not being answered sufficiently. It involved a terminated employee who was having some issues with her LTD. The response she was getting was not making sense to her so I offered to streamline the process for by her getting the information to me and I would then forward it on the company as well as call to make sure that they had received it. This not only made the process easier for the former employee but helped the LTD carrier get the information they needed to process the paperwork. That is the way that I functioned in every aspect of my role. The customer comes first and any type of assistance ensures them that you care about them but also gets the information where it needs to be so that processing on both sides (company and customer) are done correctly.
Lying is wrong for many reasons. You feel that it is wrong, even if you go ahead and do it; this is because people have a sense of right and wrong inside them.
Here are some reasons you should not lie:
- Liars almost always get caught - sometimes it might take awhile, but in the modern world there are just too many ways for people to find out the truth!
- Nobody believes a liar. Once you are known to tell lies, nobody is going to trust you - not even your friends and lovers.
- Lies hurt. You might think that nobody gets hurt when you lie, but the person you lied to gets hurt because you betrayed him or her. And a lie can easily cause people to do things which hurt others.
- Doing something that you know is wrong makes it easier to do more bad things - eventually, you will become a bad person who doesn't know how to be good anymore. This is how drug addicts get started - they just do "a little bit" and soon they are lying in a gutter without a place to live.
What are the traits of a person with good character?
Okay so my answer for this question would have to be...
You have to be kind at heart for one thing. Second thing you really should be involed in some type of charity or organization. You never bully/ make fun of others. You need to be respectful to yourself, elders, and all others.
Any more ?'s be free to ask
What three questions can you ask yourself when facing an ethical dilemma?
There are a number of questions you can ask yourself to determine if a situation is unethical. You can ask if it hurts innocent people for example.
Can two women together be the biological parents of a child?
As far as is currently known it has not yet happened, but it is theoretically possible. If the genetic material from the egg of one woman is placed in a man's sperm cell after removing the original male genetic material, then that sperm cell might be used to fertilize the egg of the other woman. It is not yet known with certainty whether or not this technology will work. To say the least there would be a storm of outrage and protest world wide over this. This would always result in female offspring since both women contribute an X. This would be less troublesome than the male-male alternative. In a male-male union both male and female offspring are possible, but the YY combination is also possible and would probably not result in normal and healthy offspring. This is different from the XYY trisomy that sometimes happens in normally conceived human males, at a rate of about 1 per thousand. In today's world these unions would surely be considered wrong by many, many people. Given the depth and growth of our scientific knowledge, and the trends in social justice and equal rights, these unions may be commonplace in future generations.
Is it ethical to clone a human?
Human cloning is a controversial venture and it is unlikely that it will ever be totally accepted in society.
If humans were cloned, most people would probably agree that they should be treated the same as any other human. Afterall, they can't control the way they are born, just like you or me cannot control our skin color or gender.
However, I have discussed the topic with different demographics of people to find some mixed responses. Some in the religious community say they would not let a clone into their house of worship since their god did not create them. Others say that they should be viewed as property.
However, since the world of human cloning seems to be a far off prospect now, this question will probably remain open for discussion.
I have more to add to the section above, i believe that the people with religion, are wrong, because, since god created you, and you make the clone, then therefore, god made the clone.
This is a ridiculous question. Why wouldn't they have rights and why wouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Just because the human didn't come from sex doesn't mean they are not human. Anyone who disagrees is superstitious and unintelligent. This will be the next form of slavery/racism. Even dogs have rights. A human is a human.
Who should have access to personal genetic information and how will it be used?
As genetic testing becomes more available both in terms of quality and affordability of test, more people will choose to be tested for genetic conditions and predictive risk assessment.
Computer ethics is a body of principles/behaviors that are considered as acceptable for all parties in the computing world to follow. Computer ethics are rules of law but some rules are derived from them.
Being ethical is important because it ensures that we treat others with respect, fairness, and honesty. It builds trust and credibility, helps maintain a positive reputation, and contributes to a more harmonious and just society. Ultimately, ethical behavior is a reflection of our values and principles, guiding us to make choices that benefit both ourselves and the wider community.
That is false in medicine many what you would consider to be unethical practices are legal. For example its legal in some states to kill a terminally ill person if using morphine if that is their wish but in medicine that would go against the ethical code that is the Hippocratic oath and the Nightingale pledge.
What principle did Confucius most strongly promote?
Confucius (551-479 BC) was a teacher, editor, politician and philosopher in China. The principle he promoted most was his Golden Rule, " Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."
Finding behaviors that are not problematic to society hot is not necessarily a bad thing. If lesbians are the only thing that turns you on and you are a male this will be problematic as lesbians aren't going to want to have sex with you.
For the most part, finding lesbians attractive is common in males. It really isn't a problem.
preconventional -apex
What is the name given to philosophers who construct their ethical approaches with mixed approaches?
What is the name given to philosophers who construct their ethical approaches with mixed approaches?
What are the major tenets of classical school?
1. Minimal government intervention. The forces of free market will guide production, exchange, and distribution.
2. Self interestedness of economic behavior. Think of the old quote by Adam smith that reads something like "its not from the benevolence of the baker or butcher that we expect our dinner, but because of their regard for their own well being"
3. Harmoney of interests. When we all act in a way that's best for us, everyone ends up better off.
4. Put the focus on specific laws. The school was developed in a newtonian era, which effected their mindset. They looked for binding phenomenon - binding laws - that always govern economic activity.
5. All activities and resources contribute to a nations wealth, not just commerce as the merchantalists believed or land and agriculture as the physiocrats believed.
Hope that helps!
- My guess is there are two reasons. One, an atomic blast involves a much bigger area of damage. Two, a bigger blast area almost certainly means civilians will be hurt or killed. With traditional bombs, the target is usually combat-specific.
- I believe it is because of the radiation poisoning of the atomic bomb. In addition to the massive explosion that caused immediate deaths, it continued to affect the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The survivors suffered from multiple cancers including leukemia, and children were born with birth defects for generations because of the radiation of the atomic weapons. Although the the traditional bombs killed 200,000 civilians, they would not have caused so much internal damage, due to radiation, as only a nuclear weapon could deliver the radiation that will affect the peoples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima for many generations to come.
- Opinion: Because "they" want to see a difference. There is a BIG moral difference between dropping ONEatomic bomb, and ONE fire bomb. There is little or no moral difference between the use of one or two atomic bombs versus hundreds of thousands of fire bombs, which would have been necessary in lieu of one or two atomic devices.
It would have taken THOUSANDS of fire bombs, and thousands [possibly hundreds of thousands] of Japanese lives [civilian and military], as well as thousands more Allied personnel in the invasion forces to force the Japanese Military High Command[NOT the Emperor, because he only knew what they wanted him to know] to sue for peace.
All of these recent Q&A attempts to stir the fires by "rewriting history" are futile [in spite of the allegations of "facts" which ARE NOT FACT] as the world knows that Japan was stalling for time, and the Military High Command had no intention of surrendering UNTIL they had set up conditions in their favor [which the Allies were not going to allow to happen].
In closing, the real truth of the matter is that the Allied use of the atomic bombs DID SAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Allied forces AND JAPANESE lives!!!!! Another thought Japan and Germany were also attempting to build atomic weapons. Would they have used them against the Allies if they had completed them first? Addition weapons of mass destruction = NBCR (nuclear weapon, biological weapon, chemical weapon, radiological dispersion device)
*A fire bomb can only do so much damage; and even with multiple thousands the total damage is still fairly restricted: the fires go out after days, usually less, and the area can be replanted and used within months. A single nuclear weapon with one blast can destroy a city and the surrounding area, and leave it irradiated for decades.
[Note: the preceding claim about radiation contamination is not borne out by experiences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which did not experience any significant post-bomb problems with radiation. People present during the attacks have had a higher rate of cancer than normal, but those living in the areas after the attacks have not. The problems of fallout generally occur downwind of the attack site, and are primarily tied to the size and style of the nuclear attack. Thus, nuclear attacks using small-yield airburst weapons will leave very little fallout, and little residual radiation, while those using surface-burst large yield weapons will produce massive fallout. Standard nuclear weapons leave behind short lived radioisotopes in their fallout that decay to "safe" levels in as little as 8 days to at most 3 to 6 months, only neutron bombs which activate long lived radioisotopes in the target materials themselves and enhanced radiation bombs like the "cobalt bomb" produce long lived persistent radioactive contamination lasting years or decades.]
DEONTOLOGY
100% Sure
What is the difference between right and wrong?
The line between right and wrong starts with submission and pride. It ends with respecting the rights of others & willful disobedience to authority. Any thing else will support these points in the middle.
Do pragmatists believe that moral principles are true?
when they guide us well and prove their usefulness.
It depends on the state of mind, Culture, and Religion. Lets take a look at someone who has absolutely nothing to live for: No Family, no Friends, treated poorly through their lives, their Atheist so they assume a blissful nothingness awaits them, never had a Lover, just lost their job, you get the idea, their pretty depressed and most likely feeling worthlessness/hopelessness. If they contemplate suicide, it's probably rational. You can't even say it's selfish in this scenario because who would it be selfish to?
Now killing yourself suddenly out of an argument with your Boyfriend/Girlfriend would be irrational because it's something that you'll easily deal with with a few months of time or so. Emotions are running high and in the heat of the moment, you might do something stupid. You'd be hurting everyone around you, and be destroying your future/dreams.
Now lets look at Culture. Go back to World War II, some Japanese soldiers were actually EXPECTED to kill themselves if they had lost the War. Irrational? Maybe to a Western. If you were Japanese living 70 years ago, you'd think much differently than you do now.
In the end, it's only irrational if they have some sort of mental disorder, or their flooding with strong emotions all at once. Suicide is simply thought to be an evil, selfish, irrational act by so many people because the word "Suicide" doesn't give anyone else gain. It can only lose.
