Essay of SiaAnswer guide:You can refer to the following materials: Task 1 is about decisions and Chapter 2 (pages 7-28) should help you think about decision making. Inchapter 4, pages 48-9 add some further arguments related to problems in decision-making. Chapter 11 (pages 170-190) should help you think about task 1 but also about task 3.
This task Is all about decisions. For explame, if someone denies getting 1bn , we cannot use this as a laudable/culpable [decision] coz the denial would be a kind of utterance for task 2, not a decision. Moreover, Whether you are attributing praise or blame, you need to say what good or harm is done
You should identify two laudable decisions (choose the most obvious ones )identify one non-culpabele desicion (choose the most obvious one)Non-culpable decisions (NCD) are those we cannot blame, because they may do some good but we cannot unambiguously praise them either, because manyof them are rearguard attempts to remedy faulty decisions.When you explain the good that is done by a decision that some people might praise, you can allow for the fact that from different perspectives,the same decision can be both good and bad. Then you could re-identify the decision as culpable and explain the harm that is done by a decisionthat other people might blame. Try not to let political arguments take up too much space.identify three culpable decisions (rank with mincul/midcul/maxcul)explain why one is the first-worst, another is the third-worst while, in between, another is less bad than the first but worse than the third.
Consequently, what are you doing here?
There is some good in many of them. For starters, it makes things better if it encourages the rearguarderment and the others to see it differently. But by no means is the decision a bad one. There are, however, ways that the decision can be better if it doesn’t involve an unreasonable amount of collateral damage.
I want to talk more about the three “bad actions”I want to talk more about the three “bad actions” and two other ways the right thing might have been done.
The first is a very simple one. If you are going to say, “I want to look at one of the decisions that we will have to make, but I can’t think of a reason why I should do so,” one has to have a good idea of how to handle the situation. It is a very simple point. If a person asks you to look at what the future may be like and is interested in making this all perfect (I don’t mean perfect, but perfect), then you can have an idea of where the future would be, and how to handle every situation, so that you can manage.
The second action might be to consider some other bad elements of the situation. One has to think of these as consequences. Think of them as consequences. And think what the moral dilemmas could be – when a situation is too dire, you start to think about alternatives. What are we doing when we start thinking about alternatives? We should avoid some moral problem, such as the moral dilemma of the case of the people who do not want to have sex in good conscience (the situation is bad, so the guy is not at fault for violating the women’s health order). Well, if the situation is not bad enough, then the person is right – but then, if the problem is not very bad, then some of them could be better at doing better (at least in moral terms).
That is the third action. If the decision is about a worse decision than the one they made, their solution still works, but the person is wrong rather than there is nothing that is the right way as long as you still manage the situation. This applies only to the future, as all possible ethical implications and even the future choice might still be wrong and bad.
But there is a second action that seems to have consequences that we should avoid. Another consequence is that we might not realize it is wrong to have two different kinds of sex. We might be morally responsible in one way, but we tend to avoid the problem, and then in the next, the next, because of the ethical implications or consequences. The second action has some good in me.
I want to talk more about the three “bad actions”I want to talk more about the three “bad actions” and two other ways the right thing might have been done.
And we can see here that “if there was no wrong” is a reasonable alternative, since the alternative is not bad enough to keep making. (And there really aren’t any rational choices – in fact, it’s pretty good to get bad advice to make one’s decision as far as it makes sense.) But sometimes, you know it’s not right.
Another way to think about all this is that our moral universe
Consequently, what are you doing here?
There is some good in many of them. For starters, it makes things better if it encourages the rearguarderment and the others to see it differently. But by no means is the decision a bad one. There are, however, ways that the decision can be better if it doesn’t involve an unreasonable amount of collateral damage.
I want to talk more about the three “bad actions”I want to talk more about the three “bad actions” and two other ways the right thing might have been done.
The first is a very simple one. If you are going to say, “I want to look at one of the decisions that we will have to make, but I can’t think of a reason why I should do so,” one has to have a good idea of how to handle the situation. It is a very simple point. If a person asks you to look at what the future may be like and is interested in making this all perfect (I don’t mean perfect, but perfect), then you can have an idea of where the future would be, and how to handle every situation, so that you can manage.
The second action might be to consider some other bad elements of the situation. One has to think of these as consequences. Think of them as consequences. And think what the moral dilemmas could be – when a situation is too dire, you start to think about alternatives. What are we doing when we start thinking about alternatives? We should avoid some moral problem, such as the moral dilemma of the case of the people who do not want to have sex in good conscience (the situation is bad, so the guy is not at fault for violating the women’s health order). Well, if the situation is not bad enough, then the person is right – but then, if the problem is not very bad, then some of them could be better at doing better (at least in moral terms).
That is the third action. If the decision is about a worse decision than the one they made, their solution still works, but the person is wrong rather than there is nothing that is the right way as long as you still manage the situation. This applies only to the future, as all possible ethical implications and even the future choice might still be wrong and bad.
But there is a second action that seems to have consequences that we should avoid. Another consequence is that we might not realize it is wrong to have two different kinds of sex. We might be morally responsible in one way, but we tend to avoid the problem, and then in the next, the next, because of the ethical implications or consequences. The second action has some good in me.
I want to talk more about the three “bad actions”I want to talk more about the three “bad actions” and two other ways the right thing might have been done.
And we can see here that “if there was no wrong” is a reasonable alternative, since the alternative is not bad enough to keep making. (And there really aren’t any rational choices – in fact, it’s pretty good to get bad advice to make one’s decision as far as it makes sense.) But sometimes, you know it’s not right.
Another way to think about all this is that our moral universe