Ethical Frameworks and Morality

¶ … Morality How does the common morality define who is a moral agent? According to Gert et al. (2000), common morality defines a moral agent as an individual who fully understands what is necessitated, forbidden, allowed, and encouraged by moral rules and an individual who can sensibly conform to guidance and being judged by such moral rules. Write out a script for what you would tell them to help them grasp the basic components of the common morality.

Be sure to include all the "big ideas" about the common morality generally At the outset, I would like to welcome all of you to the country of Moralitia. I am the Chief Social Workers of the country. For several decades now, we have lived harmoniously and productively as a country under the common morality. Today, I would like to explain the moral system of the common morality and help you grasp the basic components therein.

To begin with, I would like to point out that morality is a public system and it encompasses the moral judgements that each individual commonly uses. In particular, there are ten moral rules for all individuals of Moralitia that are demanded of them or forbidden. These are essentially the basic components of common morality that are employed in the formulation of norms, which act as guiding principles for all moral agents to act in view of that.

They are imperative to the moral system that is currently in place in Moralitia. These basic components are listed as: 1. Do not kill 2. Do not cause pain 3. Do not disable 4. Do not deprive of freedom 5. Do not deprive of pleasure 6. Do not deceive 7. Keep your promise 8. Do not cheat 9. Obey the law 10. Do your duty. It is imperative to point out that the violation of any of these rules without sufficient validation or rationalization would render you immoral and guilty of acting against realms of common morality.

In addition, we also have a two-step process of justifying whether moral rules have been violated. The initial stage takes into account making clear morally pertinent characteristics by posing various questions regarding probable harm, and possible justification, if any, of such violation. The other step encompasses the projection of the detrimental and beneficial consequences for each individual (Gert et al., 2000). These are the fundamental aspects of our system. Once again, welcome to Moralitia.

Question 3: use the Case of Bobby: Analyze this case according to the Common Morality, addressing these morally relevant features. a. Should you cover for Bobby with his mother or not? I should not cover for Bobby with his mother because that would be a case of lying and that is against the moral rules. b. What moral rules would be violated? (Consider both sides of the situation and the rules broken in each instance.) In the case of covering for Bobby, the moral rules include: 1. Do not lie 2.

Do not cheat 3. Do your duty In the case of not covering for Bobby, the moral rules that would be violated would include: 1. Do not cause pain 2. Do not disable 3. Do not deprive of freedom 4. Do not deprive of pleasure c. Identify the harms avoided (i.e. not caused), prevented and caused by each action. (You should have one set of harms avoided, prevented and caused for covering for Bobby and one set of harms avoided, prevented and caused for not covering for him.) 1.

Covering for Bobby By covering for Bobby, the harms avoided include not causing him pain, not depriving him of his freedom and not depriving him of his pleasure. However, the harm caused will include cheating and deception to his mother and not doing my duty of making sure that Bobby is okay and safe. 2.

Not covering for Bobby On the other hand, by not covering for Bobby, I will have avoided the harm of deceiving and cheating when his mother questions whether Bobby is in fact going to another participant's home for the night. However, the harm that I will have caused is depriving Bobby of his freedom and pleasure as he is an adult who is allowed to do what he wishes and whomever he wishes to do so with. d.

What are the relevant beliefs and desires of the people toward whom the rule violation would occur (in each situation)? In covering for Bobby, the relevant beliefs and desires of the people is that being an adult, Bobby and the girlfriend should be allowed to make decisions on their own without the permission of his mother. Having a sexual relation, as an adult, does not necessitate permission from a parent.

On the other hand, in not covering for Bobby, the relevant beliefs and desires of the people is that of mildly cognitively disabled individual and therefore may be making the wrong decision. The belief would be that by telling the mother, as his guardian, would be the right course of action. e. What benefits would be caused by covering for Bobby? What benefits would be caused by not covering for him? The benefits caused by covering for Bobby would include his happiness and pleasure.

He will be even less depressed and this will also strengthen his relationship with his girlfriend. The benefits of not covering for Bobby would include doing my duty and making sure that Bobby's mother knows his whereabouts in the event that something happens to him. f.

Are there any alternative actions that would be preferable? An alternative action that would be preferable includes advising Bobby to introduce his girlfriend to his mother and also coming to an agreement that Bobby is a 28-year-old adult who is capable of making decisions on his own and therefore the mother should be okay with his relations and decisions with the girlfriend. Question 4: use the Case of Bobby: a.

Based on your analysis of the morally relevant features, what would you do? Also, identify which moral rule will be violated by your action. Based on the morally relevant features, what I would do is that I would allow Bobby to go on with his girlfriend simply because he is an adult and is allowed to make decisions on his own. The moral rule that would be violated by my action would be that of deception. b.

Could you support the violation of that moral rule to be publicly allowed? Why or why not? I would support the violation of that moral rule to be publicly allowed because in accordance to the general law, a person that attains the age of 18 years of age is considered to be an adult and therefore capable to make decisions on his or her own. In addition, despite his condition, Bobby has been improving and has been able to make sound decisions on his own in recent periods.

Question 5: use the Case of Beth: What do you do? Please justify your action using elements of the common morality. You do not have to describe your analysis or the morally relevant features (although you can if you wish), but explain the elements that most inform your decision about how to respond to Beth and how it fits with the common morality framework. What I would do is allow Beth to go ahead with the abortion. This can be justified using the elements of the common morality in that the.