Personal Moral Theory - University Name ✓ Solved

Personal Moral Theory Personal Moral Theory University Name

In my personal ethical theory, I base it off of the utilitarian approach and Kant’s ethics. The utilitarian view is that principle requires us, in all circumstances, to maximize happiness—in other words, to produce the greatest total balance of happiness over unhappiness, or of pleasure over suffering (Rachels, 2020). Although we want to maximize happiness, there should be moral rules such as honesty, trust, and achieving happiness without using malicious means. We all want to reduce suffering, but we shouldn’t make others suffer for our own gain. I believe the utilitarian approach is a great method, but there are moral limits that should not be crossed.

Kant’s ethics provide limitations to our own moral gain. Kant characterized the Categorical Imperative as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary (Johnson, 2019). This implies that we should respect humanity and act according to the rules we hold for everyone. For instance, lying, stealing, and cheating are viewed as immoral, so we should hold everyone to the same standards that we hold ourselves. This gives a necessary limitation to a utilitarian approach that could lead to disaster if left unchecked.

When utilizing these two ethical theories together, we can maximize happiness for everyone while maintaining a moral balance. Without a moral code, individuals might use each other for personal gain, resulting in deceitfulness, which could fuel hatred and untrustworthiness in the world. By applying Kant’s Categorical Imperative, we can see that incorporating moral conduct fosters happiness. In Jane Doe’s case, her actions exemplify deceit as she copied work done by other students, abusing the system for her personal gain.

She feels morally justified due to her economic situation requiring her to work more, thus allowing insufficient time for school. However, students in similar situations manage to dedicate adequate time to their studies. Additionally, Jane claims her religion approves of her actions, believing it benefits her family by helping her earn a degree. This reasoning appears contradictory as her peers abide by different religious tenets that forbid such actions, rendering her actions immoral by my philosophical perspective. Jane is intentionally exploiting her instructor's leniency, undermining academic integrity.

Jane's submission of a blank paper, hoping to pass it off as an innocent mistake, constitutes lying and highlights her intentions to manipulate the situation for her benefit. This misconduct violates the ethical principles of both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. While maximizing her happiness, she inflicts suffering on others, undermining the fundamental goals of the utilitarian perspective (Huang, 2019).

If we apply the "veil of ignorance" as a moral reasoning device, it promotes impartial decision-making by removing potentially biasing information regarding who benefits or suffers from available options. Evaluating Jane’s case through this lens eliminates her justifications originating from her religious beliefs and socioeconomic status. This leaves her with no valid excuses for acting on immoral values. Furthermore, from a deontological perspective, reflected in divine command theory, one must abide by moral requirements defined by a higher authority (Rachels, 2019).

Incorporating John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, which emphasizes a society of free citizens holding equal rights, any immoral actions against this framework, like Jane's, warrant consequences (Wenar, 2017). Whether this means having her retake the entire class or redo the plagiarized assignments, enforcement of accountability is crucial to uphold the integrity of the educational institution. Allowing unpunished immoral acts may enable harmful behaviors that could jeopardize her future career.

On a larger scale, it is essential to address students like Jane through an ethical framework that encompasses egoism, the utilitarian principle, and deontological principles. By implementing stringent academic policies informed by these ethical theories, we can foster an environment that promotes honesty, respect, and accountability. For instance, creating awareness about the long-term consequences of plagiarism can assist students in appreciating the value of personal effort over shortcuts.

Additionally, offering support structures for students facing challenges similar to Jane could help mitigate the temptation to engage in unethical behavior. Providing guidance on time management, access to academic resources, and fostering an inclusive environment that recognizes differing backgrounds can lead to more equitable educational experiences. By addressing these values, we contribute to a just academic community that respects individual efforts, regardless of socioeconomic status or religious beliefs.

Paper For Above Instructions

This reflection incorporates my personal moral theory and addresses the bizarre case involving Jane Doe. The theories of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics emerge as essential frameworks maintaining ethical boundaries. The utilitarian perspective ensures actions maximize happiness; hence, by engaging in dishonest practices, Jane not only compromises her integrity but also affects her peers negatively. Kantian ethics emphasizes moral conduct regardless of circumstances; therefore, Jane’s excuses cannot justify her unethical actions.

Each instance of dishonesty showcases varying degrees of ethical transgression; some instances like self-plagiarism may seem less severe than directly copying another's work. Nonetheless, all constitute serious breaches of academic integrity reflecting a lack of respect for the values upheld in educational settings. Hence, employing multiple ethical frameworks is crucial in evaluating such instances comprehensively.

In diversity, we find several social values rooted in various ways of life that need careful consideration within this ethical debate. It is crucial to engage students across different backgrounds, encouraging discussions that recognize and celebrate diversity while reinforcing core principles of honesty and accountability. Policies should not only reflect punitive measures but also proactive approaches to preventing such ethical dilemmas.

References

• Huang, K., Greene, J., & Bazerman, M. (2019). Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Retrieved from [URL]
• Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2019). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition). Retrieved from [URL]
• Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education.
• Wenar, L. (2017). John Rawls. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). Retrieved from [URL]
• Mizzoni, J. (2017). Ethics: The Basics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Rachels, J. (2020). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education.
• Utilitarian Theory and its Implications in Academic Performance. (2020). Retrieved from [URL]
• Ethics and Moral Philosophy in Education. (2020). Retrieved from [URL]
• Accountability in Higher Education: Principles and Practices. (2020). Retrieved from [URL]