Describe An Example Of A Moral Dilemma You Have Encountered

Describe an example of a moral dilemma that you have en

Please Answerdescribe An Example Of A Moral Dilemma That You Have En

Please answer: · Describe an example of a moral dilemma that you have encountered in your own life. · Using the information in these two articles, explain how an institution's decision whether or not to adopt policies against hiring smokers is a moral dilemma. · In "Conflicts," click the link to view the figure titled "Proposed Ladder of Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use." In your opinion, what is the highest ladder rung where the practice described is still ethical? Explain. · According to "Ethics," health care organizations posed the argument that "their employees must serve as role models for patients and that only nonsmokers can do so." Explain whether you agree or disagree with that statement, and why. · Why is it often beneficial to articulate the assumed moral statement in a moral argument, such as in the example above? · As presented in "A Simple Argument," explain whether or not you accept “Meat-eating causes avoidable suffering” as a true premise and why. · What is the central argument of "Give Thanks to Meat"? · List two explicit premises that you find most compelling in “Give Thanks to Meat.” · Give an example of a moral dilemma in which a moral theory based on utilitarianism would suggest one course of action while a moral theory based on religious absolutism would suggest a different one. · What makes stealth marketing different from traditional marketing? · Why might some people think that stealth marketing is unethical?

Paper For Above instruction

A moral dilemma arises when an individual faces a situation in which choosing one morally acceptable course of action conflicts with another moral obligation, making it difficult to determine the right action to take. One personal example of a moral dilemma I encountered involved deciding whether to report a colleague who was engaging in unethical behavior at work. While reporting would uphold honesty and integrity, it could also harm the colleague and disrupt workplace harmony. Ultimately, I had to weigh the importance of transparency against loyalty and the potential consequences of my actions.

The issue of whether institutions should adopt policies against hiring smokers presents a clear moral dilemma. On one hand, prohibiting the hiring of smokers might be justified on grounds of promoting health, reducing healthcare costs, and fostering a smoke-free environment. Conversely, it raises questions about discrimination and personal freedom. Is it ethical to deny employment based on personal lifestyle choices, particularly when smoking is legal? According to the articles, this dilemma involves balancing respect for individual autonomy against broader organizational health goals, making it a classic moral conflict.

Referring to the "Proposed Ladder of Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use," the highest rung where practices might still be considered ethical is perhaps "changing social norms." This level involves reshaping attitudes and perceptions gradually rather than imposing strict regulations or penalties that could infringe on individual rights. Interventions at this stage maintain respect for personal freedom while encouraging healthier behaviors, making them more ethically acceptable than more invasive measures like coercion or mandates.

Regarding the statement from "Ethics" that health care organizations argue their employees must serve as role models for patients and that only nonsmokers can fulfill this role, I generally disagree. While promoting health is important, mandating nonsmoking status as a requirement for healthcare workers can be viewed as unjust discrimination, especially given that smoking is a personal choice that is legal and often influenced by socioeconomic factors. Ethical employment practices should consider individual circumstances and avoid unjustly excluding capable professionals based solely on smoking status.

Articulating the implied moral statement within an argument helps clarify the underlying values and assumptions guiding decision-making. For example, stating that “we should prohibit smoking among employees to promote health” explicitly reveals the prioritization of collective well-being over individual autonomy. This transparency makes it easier to evaluate the morality of the argument and engage in meaningful ethical discussion.

In "A Simple Argument," the premise that “Meat-eating causes avoidable suffering” is subject to debate. I accept it as largely true because factory farming and intensive livestock production often involve significant cruelty and human-inflicted suffering that could be avoided through plant-based alternatives. However, some might argue that not all meat consumption involves undue suffering or that nutritional needs justify it, making the premise context-dependent.

The central argument of "Give Thanks to Meat" emphasizes recognizing and appreciating the role of meat in human culture, nutrition, and tradition, ultimately advocating for gratitude rather than disdain for meat consumption. It challenges the moral assumptions that portray meat-eating solely as unethical and encourages a more nuanced perspective that values human practices.

Two explicit premises in “Give Thanks to Meat” that I find compelling are: 1) Meat has historically played a central role in human survival and cultural identity, and 2) Ethical objections to meat may overlook the complexity of human dietary choices and cultural significance. These premises highlight the importance of context and tradition in moral evaluations of meat consumption.

A moral dilemma contrasting utilitarianism and religious absolutism involves decisions about euthanasia. Utilitarianism might support euthanasia if it reduces overall suffering and enhances happiness, while religious absolutism might oppose it on the grounds that taking life is intrinsically wrong regardless of outcomes. This highlights different foundational principles—consequentialist versus divine command—that lead to conflicting moral judgments.

Stealth marketing differs from traditional marketing in that it involves covertly promoting products or services without the consumer's awareness. Unlike overt advertisements, stealth marketing subtly influences consumer behavior through tactics like product placements, influencer promotions, or deceptive practices, making it less transparent and more insidious in targeting susceptible audiences.

Many people consider stealth marketing unethical because it often involves deception, manipulates consumers without their informed consent, and can undermine trust in advertising and media. Its covert nature raises concerns about honesty, autonomy, and the potential for exploitation, infringing on consumers' right to make informed choices.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Brey, P. (2019). Ethics of persuasive technology and social media. AI & Society, 34(4), 869–882.
• Gundersen, C., & Ziliak, J. P. (2015). Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1830–1839.
• Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have ethics of community, fairness, and loyalty; liberals have ethics of care and fairness. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1019–1024.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• MacKinnon, D., & Knapp, S. (2010). Ethical issues in health promotion and education. Journal of Public Health, 32(2), 232–242.
• Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin.
• Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (2010). Economics (19th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Vaughan, D. (2017). The ethical implications of stealth marketing. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(3), 395–418.
• Waldman, M. (2018). Ethical considerations in tobacco control policies. Journal of Public Health Policy, 39(2), 234–248.