1. Provide an example of a time when I, someone I knew, or someone I heard about on the news or in history, stuck by a moral principle despite the consequences. Was it the right decision? Explain.
There was once a principal of a particular school who remained steadfast, loyal and observed the moral principle concerning examination malpractices. Other neighbouring schools used to steal the National Examination that was offered, and they always surpassed the school whose principal did not allow the use of leakages by students. As a result of not tolerating such related to leakages, the school used to perform just averagely while those with leakages topping. According to me, it was the right decision because whatever the student got was their real results, accurate reflection. Consequently, the school started being at the top when leakages were put into a standstill and out of reach on the schools that used to perform exam malpractices.
(2) Five ethical rules everyone should follow, and my explanation/justification for these choices:
The five ethical rules that one should follow, occasionally regarded as ethical principles include the following; first, universalized golden rule which stipulates that you should only act based on the maxims which serve as a guiding principle. I which you can, and at during similar duration, will that it should have to become a universal law according to Kant. Secondly, Just distribution of wellbeing (the priority weighted average) every individual is expected to maximise the qualities of life or the value of welfare of all sentient giving a priority that is strong to increase the lowest costs of wellbeing. Thirdly, the fundamental right not to be used as merely means someone else's ends, a victim is used as a means when the initial four conditions are satisfied. Fourthly, Value for biodiversity there is a need to protect biodiversity since the biodiversity for ecosystems is analogous based on the wellbeing for the sentient beings. Fifth, Universal love, empathy, respect and compassion, it stipulates that we should show respect and compassion to all individuals despite their wrongdoings and never regard them as enemies. Lastly, tolerated partiality in this rule it points out that you are allowed to solemnly priority to those individuals you feel an emotional or personal concern or involvement based on the condition that you have to tolerate the choice of other caregivers to ascertain priority to whom they prefer.
(3) One positive thing I can take from Kant or deontology, and explanation why:
It is not the consequences of actions that make them wrong or right but the motives of the individual who carries out the actions. This is because indeed the blame should be geared towards the person who performed the operations and limited concentrations should be put on the consequences of actions
(4) One disagreement I have with Kant or deontology, and justification why:
I differ with Kant on the following statement. To advance the interests of your own, you should do nothing to help others in need unless you have something to gain from doing so. Ideally, this is not the truth, conventionally you should help all the people in need without expecting any returns, and that is a universally accepted assumption.
(5) My stance on a controversial ethical issue that I am concerned with, and logical argument to thoroughly back it up:
I am concerned with genetically modified foods. However much that there is numerous research carried out on the on genetic testing. There are so many issues that get linked to the utilisation of the genetically modified food. Some foods that are modified genetically, they have been associated to be the leading causes of cancer and others are linked to social disorders like Obesity, diabetes among others. Therefore they may cause considerable damage to not only human beings, animals and even the environment.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: