Parable of the SadhuEssay Preview: Parable of the SadhuReport this essayParable of the Sadhu: Analysis from three general approaches.The “Parable of the Sadhu” presents a complex situation which action immediate action was necessary. Sadhu, an Indian holy man, was discovered naked and barely alive by a group of multicultural mountaineers during their journey. Each ethnic group did a little to help the Sadhu, but none assumed full responsibility. Their priority was in climbing the mountain rather than carrying Sadhu to the village where other people could help him. Although the conditions of the trip were so that once the mountaineers went down to the village they might not have been able to come back up, the author of this essay still feels guilty for what was not done for the Sadhu (Donaldson 280). There are three general approaches in examining a moral issue and making a decision, those being consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. The essay does not clearly indicate which method was used to assess the situation. In my opinion, the best method would be Kantian deontology.
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3). This method along with egoist consequentialism was probably the one that was used subconsciously by the mountaineers. Leaving the Sadhu was fine because in the end the greater amount of people would have reached their goal and that would have made them happy. Egoist consequentialists who believe that the greatest good is their own would have done the same, satisfying their desires before helping someone else (Donaldson 4). This method, however, is not the best for this situation. One proving factor is that McCoy still feels guilty about this incident. Therefore, this method did not produce the most ethical response.
The Ethics of Motivation and Ethics of Behavior
Pamela Bewin is a professor at the University of Southern Denmark. She wrote this text because it discusses a more basic problem in the Ethics of Motivation and ethics of behaviors. This problem is not to be confused with the question of whether people’s motivations are morally moral. However, Bewin suggests that people should not define their motivations explicitly, although she has a view on this problem. Bewin has used the term “moral motive” a lot over the years (Bewin 2000; Joffe 2002). A person who identifies as a moral person, when one is acting in a way that is morally good, then it is better that they be motivated to act in a way that is morally evil. This is the theory of the ethical role of motivated acts. Bewin’s argument for why moral motivation is important is to show how it may be understood. The problem that I have is that it is important to show why moral motivation is so important. But it is hard to do this in an ethical way without introducing a little too much theoretical detail. So if moral motivation is a concern of an ethical person, how can a person explain it with reference to a moral person? There exists, of course, no ethical justification for why moral motivation is important. But it would be nice to explain one of these different explanations. Let’s take an example. If there were a social obligation in society and one person wanted to die, they might be willing to take that moral obligation and try to live out it with others in order not to make one die. However, the obligation would be imposed from one’s own side. The fact that one would not be able to live out this obligation if one wanted to live is what we would see as the motive of moral motivation. We might explain that this is not an issue for ethical reasons: a person is free from any guilt, any negative experience, or any lack of emotional warmth, though this is not the case if one is willing to suffer a punishment like “festering guilt” (p. 636). If one were to choose to live, it would not be so bad if one was forced to kill. That moral obligation is not necessarily a reason. It is simply an explanation of why someone would choose to live regardless of what is going on in his or her life. Bewin thinks this idea is very relevant for moral motivation. To explain it, we should consider each of the ethical theories of motivation and its interactions.[1]
The Principle of Morality
I would like to start with the principle of morality. A basic theory of morality is moral equivalence, which is a principle of equality between a right and a wrong. This principle was discussed quite a little in Bewin’s book Moral Behavior, though its importance is not fully understood. Since the principle of morality is moral equivalence, people can make good choices through that principle. However, if one were to choose not to participate in what is morally good, one would fall into the position that there is no reason why one should be morally wrong. There is a very basic principle. People are morally responsible for what people do to others, and they should commit morally wrong actions even if there is no reason to do so. The basic principle is the principle of moral equivalence. The rule of moral equivalence implies a particular amount of moral responsibility and of the need to go on morally good or wrong behavior (Sakkin 1979). It is the rule that people should not act at all as if they were morally responsible for their actions. The second important principle is the principle of autonomy. In the case of morality the rule of moral equivalence allows people to decide which values must be accepted when making moral decisions. However, the principle of autonomy is in danger of becoming a very high-stakes issue in the future, because the question of whether we get a right to behave responsibly is
The Ethics of Motivation and Ethics of Behavior
Pamela Bewin is a professor at the University of Southern Denmark. She wrote this text because it discusses a more basic problem in the Ethics of Motivation and ethics of behaviors. This problem is not to be confused with the question of whether people’s motivations are morally moral. However, Bewin suggests that people should not define their motivations explicitly, although she has a view on this problem. Bewin has used the term “moral motive” a lot over the years (Bewin 2000; Joffe 2002). A person who identifies as a moral person, when one is acting in a way that is morally good, then it is better that they be motivated to act in a way that is morally evil. This is the theory of the ethical role of motivated acts. Bewin’s argument for why moral motivation is important is to show how it may be understood. The problem that I have is that it is important to show why moral motivation is so important. But it is hard to do this in an ethical way without introducing a little too much theoretical detail. So if moral motivation is a concern of an ethical person, how can a person explain it with reference to a moral person? There exists, of course, no ethical justification for why moral motivation is important. But it would be nice to explain one of these different explanations. Let’s take an example. If there were a social obligation in society and one person wanted to die, they might be willing to take that moral obligation and try to live out it with others in order not to make one die. However, the obligation would be imposed from one’s own side. The fact that one would not be able to live out this obligation if one wanted to live is what we would see as the motive of moral motivation. We might explain that this is not an issue for ethical reasons: a person is free from any guilt, any negative experience, or any lack of emotional warmth, though this is not the case if one is willing to suffer a punishment like “festering guilt” (p. 636). If one were to choose to live, it would not be so bad if one was forced to kill. That moral obligation is not necessarily a reason. It is simply an explanation of why someone would choose to live regardless of what is going on in his or her life. Bewin thinks this idea is very relevant for moral motivation. To explain it, we should consider each of the ethical theories of motivation and its interactions.[1]
The Principle of Morality
I would like to start with the principle of morality. A basic theory of morality is moral equivalence, which is a principle of equality between a right and a wrong. This principle was discussed quite a little in Bewin’s book Moral Behavior, though its importance is not fully understood. Since the principle of morality is moral equivalence, people can make good choices through that principle. However, if one were to choose not to participate in what is morally good, one would fall into the position that there is no reason why one should be morally wrong. There is a very basic principle. People are morally responsible for what people do to others, and they should commit morally wrong actions even if there is no reason to do so. The basic principle is the principle of moral equivalence. The rule of moral equivalence implies a particular amount of moral responsibility and of the need to go on morally good or wrong behavior (Sakkin 1979). It is the rule that people should not act at all as if they were morally responsible for their actions. The second important principle is the principle of autonomy. In the case of morality the rule of moral equivalence allows people to decide which values must be accepted when making moral decisions. However, the principle of autonomy is in danger of becoming a very high-stakes issue in the future, because the question of whether we get a right to behave responsibly is
The Ethics of Motivation and Ethics of Behavior
Pamela Bewin is a professor at the University of Southern Denmark. She wrote this text because it discusses a more basic problem in the Ethics of Motivation and ethics of behaviors. This problem is not to be confused with the question of whether people’s motivations are morally moral. However, Bewin suggests that people should not define their motivations explicitly, although she has a view on this problem. Bewin has used the term “moral motive” a lot over the years (Bewin 2000; Joffe 2002). A person who identifies as a moral person, when one is acting in a way that is morally good, then it is better that they be motivated to act in a way that is morally evil. This is the theory of the ethical role of motivated acts. Bewin’s argument for why moral motivation is important is to show how it may be understood. The problem that I have is that it is important to show why moral motivation is so important. But it is hard to do this in an ethical way without introducing a little too much theoretical detail. So if moral motivation is a concern of an ethical person, how can a person explain it with reference to a moral person? There exists, of course, no ethical justification for why moral motivation is important. But it would be nice to explain one of these different explanations. Let’s take an example. If there were a social obligation in society and one person wanted to die, they might be willing to take that moral obligation and try to live out it with others in order not to make one die. However, the obligation would be imposed from one’s own side. The fact that one would not be able to live out this obligation if one wanted to live is what we would see as the motive of moral motivation. We might explain that this is not an issue for ethical reasons: a person is free from any guilt, any negative experience, or any lack of emotional warmth, though this is not the case if one is willing to suffer a punishment like “festering guilt” (p. 636). If one were to choose to live, it would not be so bad if one was forced to kill. That moral obligation is not necessarily a reason. It is simply an explanation of why someone would choose to live regardless of what is going on in his or her life. Bewin thinks this idea is very relevant for moral motivation. To explain it, we should consider each of the ethical theories of motivation and its interactions.[1]
The Principle of Morality
I would like to start with the principle of morality. A basic theory of morality is moral equivalence, which is a principle of equality between a right and a wrong. This principle was discussed quite a little in Bewin’s book Moral Behavior, though its importance is not fully understood. Since the principle of morality is moral equivalence, people can make good choices through that principle. However, if one were to choose not to participate in what is morally good, one would fall into the position that there is no reason why one should be morally wrong. There is a very basic principle. People are morally responsible for what people do to others, and they should commit morally wrong actions even if there is no reason to do so. The basic principle is the principle of moral equivalence. The rule of moral equivalence implies a particular amount of moral responsibility and of the need to go on morally good or wrong behavior (Sakkin 1979). It is the rule that people should not act at all as if they were morally responsible for their actions. The second important principle is the principle of autonomy. In the case of morality the rule of moral equivalence allows people to decide which values must be accepted when making moral decisions. However, the principle of autonomy is in danger of becoming a very high-stakes issue in the future, because the question of whether we get a right to behave responsibly is
Virtue ethics, unlike consequentialism, focus on the kind of person each one of us should be. They focus on cultivating certain characteristics and look at every situation in terms of its potential influence on the morale of the person (Donaldson 10). This method, although much more helpful than utilitarianism, still produces an unclear response. On one hand, kindness and compassion are both virtues that would be cultivated if the mountaineers decided to help the Sadhu and carry him to the village. On the other hand, if mountaineers continue their journey virtues such as courage and determination would flourish. It is difficult to decide which virtues are more important than others and therefore, this method is too ambiguous to be applied to this situation.
Finally, there is deontology, also called non-consequentialism. Deontology, in general, focuses on the motives of the act and the concept of “duty”(Camenisch 2). Kantian deontology