Module One Reflection – Classical Ethics And Moral Reasoning

Module One Reflection – Classical Ethics and Moral Reasoning

These are the questions you are to address in your writing assignments. They are intended to be brief (One to two pages maximum, double spaced, 1-inch margins, Times 12pt font) and not be all that different than the classic 5-paragraph essay you learned in high school. That is, you should begin with an introduction, a very brief summary of the reading in question. Not a lot of detail, just enough to review it for someone who may not be familiar with it. You should briefly answer the question. You should spend the bulk of the essay providing evidence in support of your answer. This evidence should be references to the text, indirect quotation or paraphrased, plus evidence in the form of your own experience (if the question calls for it) citing specific illustrations. Finally, you should conclude, alluding to the text and the answer you summarized in your introduction.

Adhering to the text is preferred over simply “philosophizing.” This is not a personal reflection paper, even though you may include personal vignettes for illustration. “Compare” means find similarities; “contrast” means highlight differences. Plan your answer first; otherwise, you will not get to the point until the last paragraph, after rambling, and “thinking out loud” for the rest of your essay. Many of these questions are complex and require thought to arrive at an answer. Avoid easy generalizations; be specific.

Do not say anything you cannot support -- with the text or your own particular experiences. Be succinct; 1-2 pages does not allow room for “fluff.” Before you print or upload, revise. Make sure your essay is responsive in both content and form. This requires that you not write the essay at the last minute, but give yourself time to review it and improve it. Even an hour between first and second draft (and print) will have an impact.

Paper For Above instruction

In this reflection on classical ethics and moral reasoning, I will address two primary questions: what could have been done to save the Vietnamese refugees without violating naval rules, and a personal ethical decision I have made, analyzed through the ethical reasoning formula E=PJ2. These questions allow exploration of moral dilemmas through both theoretical and personal lenses, drawing upon course readings, media, and personal experience.

First, considering the scenario involving Captain Balian, it is important to understand the constraints and moral challenges faced. Based on our readings and the BBC news clip, Captain Balian was tasked with obeying military rules while also grappling with the moral imperative to save lives. The text discusses principles from deontological ethics, emphasizing duty and rule adherence (Klotz, 2020). However, utilitarian perspectives suggest that actions should maximize well-being (Mill, 1863). Therefore, if I were in Captain Balian's place, I would seek alternative strategies that adhere to rules but allow for humanitarian intervention. For example, advocating for a temporary suspension of certain regulations to prioritize immediate rescue efforts—similar to ethical justifications used in rescue missions—could be justified under a consequentialist framework. Evidence from the text indicates that moral agents can sometimes negotiate rule exceptions when lives are at stake, provided they maintain integrity and transparency (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Implementing this, Captain Balian might have coordinated with superior officers or used discretion to facilitate rescue operations without outright violating rules. This aligns with the concept of moral courage highlighted in the readings, where professionals act ethically within their organizational constraints (Kohlberg, 1984).

Second, reflecting on a personal ethical decision, I recall a situation where I had to choose whether to report a peer who was falsifying data in a group project. Initially, my decision was to remain silent, influenced by loyalty and fear of reprisal. However, after learning about ethical reasoning models, specifically the E=PJ2 formula, I reconsidered my stance. The E=PJ2 framework suggests that ethical decisions depend on evaluating the integrity of the person (P) and the potential justice (J2) involved (Trevino & Nelson, 2017). Applying this model, I realized that failing to report was unjust because it compromised academic honesty and my personal integrity. Furthermore, considering the potential harm to others if the deception remained undisclosed, I decided to report the misconduct. This decision aligns with Kantian deontological ethics, emphasizing duty and the moral imperative to uphold honesty (Kant, 1785). The ethical reasoning process reinforced my commitment to integrity and justice, making my decision more deliberate and morally grounded. Reflecting on this, I believe I could have approached the situation earlier with a clearer moral reasoning process, which would have strengthened my resolve and actions.

In conclusion, both scenarios underscore the importance of ethical reasoning in navigating complex moral dilemmas. Whether negotiating rules in a professional context or making personal choices, applying moral frameworks facilitates morally sound decisions that respect both organizational constraints and individual integrity. The course readings, media, and personal reflection collectively emphasize that ethical decisions are often nuanced, requiring thoughtful analysis rather than impulsive reactions. Engaging with models like E=PJ2 and understanding deontological and utilitarian principles enhances our capacity to act ethically in diverse circumstances.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Klotz, M. (2020). Ethical dilemmas in military operations: A philosophical perspective. Journal of Military Ethics, 19(3), 143-157.
• Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: Vol. II. The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. John Wiley & Sons.