RESPOND TO BOTH PARTS FOR BOTH STUDENTS/100 words or more Per response to classmate. You can cite anything from Burnor, Richard and Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices. New York: Oxford University, 2011. Print. ALSO for each students PART 2, this is the question they are answering just to give you better insight…In this week’s module we saw as a bit of review that Kant, in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, had written that someone who is not inclined to help others, but who forces herself to, performs a morally praiseworthy action. While someone who regularly helps others and enjoys doing so, even if the enjoyment is not selfish, may deserve praise, but her action has no true moral worth. Do you agree with Kant? What reasons can you give for viewing moral acts that are performed merely out of habit as possessing less moral worth than those that require an immense personal effort?

We also saw in this week’s module, that according to Aristotle, for an act to be considered virtuous the act must (1) be done for its own sake and (2) the act must follow from a firm disposition, meaning that it must be consistent with the way one usually acts and feels, and not be a one-shot incident. Do you agree with Aristotle? What are the implications of these conditions on the perspicuity of moral acts in contrast to Kant’s Deontological theory of right action? Does Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics entail the possibility that one could live a morally virtuous life and yet not know it? If so, does this pose a problem for Virtue Ethics when viewed as a normative ethical theory?

• Build the discussion by posting thoughtful and substantive, interactive responses of 100 words or more to your classmates’ posts.
  
• Interaction should include constructive criticism (positive and negative) offered in a supportive, collegial spirit. In an active learning experience such as discussion, constructive criticism can be a very powerful learning tool if offered in this manner.
• The following questions may be used as guidance for a good response:1.Do you agree with the view put forth? Why/why not?2.What are some of the strengths of such a view? How might one go aboutbuilding upon and developing such a view?3.What are some of the shortcomings of such a view? What sorts ofobjections come to mind to the view put forth? All written material must also conform to proper standards for spelling and grammar.

Student One

Part I:

Case 23, p. 121. Although Claude has every right to fear for his safety, he handled the situation the wrong way. He could have talked to his roommate or even requested to move rooms. By writing a note to the Dean, Claude ruined his roommates future. What we don’t know is why the roommate was selling drugs. Maybe it was the only way he could pay for school. Just like in Case 9, p. 130-31, someone ruined Officer Cribella Borges career. Again whoever leaked the photos don’t know the background behind why she took the photos. Maybe she also needed the money to help her family.

Part II:

I agree with Kant on the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. There are many people in the world who truly want to help others and expect nothing in return. On the other hand there are plenty of people who only help because they think they have to or it’s going to make them look good to others. Such as the case with Bill from Mod 6. He genuinely wants to help others, however when it came time to give to a political party his boss backs, Bill caved in because he thought thats what would make him look better to his boss.

I also agree with Aristotle, people who are kind and considered virtuous never stop helping others. Even when they are down on their luck they still try to help others, or do so when they can. Someone who just does a kind act once, it probably doing it for the recognition of others, to in a way “gloat” about what great thing they did.

Student Two

Part I

Case 23, (Ruggeiro p 121) is my choice, the parties involved are Claude, Claude’s roommate, the dean. Claude smokes marijuana, and he recently finds out that his roommate and friend is pushing hard drugs. He has no problem with either smoking marijuana, or pushing hard drugs,

however, he is afraid that if his roommate is caught, then his room will be searched and they will find his marijuana, which I believe to be illegal and not allowed on college campuses. So Claude slips a note under the dean’s door informing on his friend. The ethic issue to me is a limiting virtue. Also called the “virtue of the will”(Bunor and Raley p 225) which are seen to be neutral in themselves, and are crucial in developing other sorts of virtues, especially when behavior calls for another virtue to go against our own tendencies. The limiting virtues can be both virtuous, and vice, meaning a fault or failing, or malevolence, and have no moral value (Bunor and Raley pp 225-226). Similarities in all three cases, 23, 9, 95 (Ruggeiro pp 95, 121, 130-131) good promoting virtue, and limiting virtue. The good promoting, which meets people’s needs, for ex. the need to pose in an adult magazine, the need to smoke marijuana, the need to take an experimental drugs. These virtues advocate overall utility, and produces consequences for certain individuals but not for others, because it pertains to both vice and virtue.(Bunor and Raley pp 94, 225-226)

Part II

I agree with Kant that human choice is both free and motivated by reason, and so I agree with him that for someone who does not normally help others, it is praiseworthy, but I do not believe it to be more praiseworthy than an act that has less moral worth. Anytime we are kind to one another, or to people who need help, it is praiseworthy, I do not believe that a one time hero, to be any more praiseworthy than the person who consistently is inclined to help others, athough, saving a human life is the ultimate act of selflessness. (Bunor and Raley p 159)

I do not agree with Aristotle and his two explanations for an act to be considered virtuous. I agree that each virtue, or golden mean is between two extremes, excess and deficiency, too much, too little. Kant’s Deontological theory does not believe that consequences are the basis for morality, rather characterized by a belief or truth concerning specific accomplishments and plans. While Aristotle believes in consistency, out of habit, and that an act of saving someone cannot be a virtuous act, it has to be one’s usual behavior.(Bunor and Raley p 152,21-223)

I don’t think it is possible, we are all human and make mistakes, that is how we learn, especially when we are children, ex. touching something that is hot like a stove or grill, they will know or associate stove or grill with it being hot.

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.