Facing a Moral Issue: Consequences, Responsibility, Personality, and Care

Ethics denotes a set of values of right behavior. Logical ethics attempts to answer the “why?” queries by linking its recommendations with a core version of a decent and a significant social life. The following essay analyzes the importance of considering consequences, responsibility, personality, and care when facing a moral issue. Also, the paper explains an instance entailing a conflict between results and duty and an ensuing defense normative assertion about the case. Aristotle’s theory of “the mean amid excesses” is also analyzed in the paper. Finally, the essay examines the ethical problem of social Darwinism based on the Natural Law Theory.

When facing a moral issue, it is imperative to consider the consequences of the moral principle. Based on the matter, it becomes essential to employ utilitarianism which starts with the view that people should choose what to undertake by evaluating the outcomes of their activities. Utilitarianism articulates that persons should act in means that yield better general results than the options they are considering (Cohen, 2015, p. 10). Improved outcomes are those that uphold human welfare: the delight, well-being, self-worth, honor, autonomy, and respect for all the individuals affected. Utilitarianism evaluates deeds by their outcomes for the standard and overall good. Consistent with the utilitarian devotion to independent parity, the common good, however, must take into reflection the welfare of each and every person affected by the deed. Following this way, utilitarianism serves the crucial aim of morals: the real promotion of social welfare. It is unbiased since it contemplates the consequences for everybody and not just for the individual (Vaughn, 2012, p. 19).

Character contemplation falls within the virtue or personality approach that assumes that there exist clear standards toward which people should endeavor, which offer for the full growth of humanity. Virtue tactic entails character qualities that can allow an individual act in the correct manner when challenged with a moral issue. Through the concept, when dealing with a moral difficulty, a person’s appeal can be demonstrated by impartiality, uprightness, restraint, and carefulness among other qualities (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer, 2015, p. 1).

Concerning care, the application of the mutual good tactic is vital in dealing with the ethical concern. This attitude to moral problem assumes civilization consisting of persons whose individual good is indistinguishable and connected to the worth of the community. Civic members are bound by the search of shared ideals and objectives. In this method, facing the ethical concern entails concentrating on useful strategies that express care to the persons involved (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer, 2015, p. 1).

Regarding duty, it is important to consider the deontology concept that claims that individuals should stick to their responsibilities and obligations when evaluating a moral problem. Using the concept, a person will convey his/her responsibilities to another person or society as safeguarding one’s obligation is what is regarded morally acceptable.

To understand the issue better, it is relevant to describe a situation where there is a conflict between consequences and duty. Martin was on a backpacking tour in the magnificent mountain country when an unexpected snowstorm hit the region with such viciousness that his life was threatened. In the haste to protect his cherished life, he stumbled into Jefferson’s cottage, who at the time was on a two-day voyage. Martin broke the window and entered to take sanctuary for two days waiting for rescue. During the period, Martin assisted himself to Jefferson’s diet stock and burned his wooden chairs in the fireplace to preserve warmth. Regarding the consequences, it is evident Martin had a genuine motive for infringing on Jefferson’s cottage. However, there exists a conflict between the outcomes and obligation in the case provided. In theory, Jefferson has a responsibility to aid someone who is in extreme need like Martin and originates from the standard value of assistance. Martin also has an obligation not to trespass and cause mayhem to Jefferson’s cottage, and it stems from the universal principle of respect for private property.

Martin did not commit anything ethically wrong by breaking in Jefferson’s cottage, but the outcomes contradict with his responsibility of not causing a mess. Since Jefferson was the proprietor of the cottage and the individual tasked with the responsibility of help, all the main ethical reasons originated from him. Martin had to overstep upon his obligation to not respect Jefferson private property which, in turn, has some adverse consequences to protect himself. Nevertheless, Martin is legitimized in acting this way since Jefferson had a duty to help him in a situation like that. In summary, Jefferson’s disposition to help Martin is taken as a commitment, degrading any concerns on the damages and losses that Jefferson could endure, being the result of a responsibility of aid (Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2012). Martin’s break in does not sanction Jefferson with any form of reparation as there is no reimbursement for having honored a simple duty. The issue, therefore, poses a conflict between duty and consequences.

The government should implement Aristotle’s notion of the mean amid extremes regarding undesirable and optimistic rights. Aristotle used this ethical view to regulation by maintaining that the resolve of administration is to support virtues in residents (Miller, 2011, p. 16). Virtues can arise in inhabitants in three ways. First, virtues can ascend naturally. Aristotle considers this is exceptional, but acknowledges that particular individuals are gifted with a moral nature. Second, for those who are not upright by nature others can teach them the virtues through training and nurture (Giles, 2010, p. 23). Aristotle contemplates that tutoring, appropriate rearing, and quarrels will fail to convince those “who live as desire guides.” Third, those who are not upright by inherent and who are not persuaded by opinions or learning must be made upright by the force of law, and that is where the administration should use the theory. Even the individual who is filled with wickedness will be encouraged by the force of law to act morally for fear of retribution. The statement entails that Aristotle is supporting an authoritarian check upon one’s freedom (Polansky, 2010, p. 14). The administration should use legitimate punishment, recompenses, and limitations in individual liberty to form healthy habits. The government should be courageous enough to impose values and virtues, but keen enough not to overdo it. The authorities can use the theory to avoid yielding to the extreme of surplus mostly seen in the stubborn buildup of substantial wealth and expenditure (Price, 2011). Equally, the administration can evade plunging into shortages of failing to do what is correct.

Natural law signifies beliefs that certain privileges or values are inborn by human nature and rational through human reason. Traditionally, natural law denotes to the usage of logic to examine both social and individual nature to infer binding guidelines of ethical conduct. However, centering the morals on Natural Law, Social Darwinism signifies a moral problem in that it contradicts the law vehemently. The fundamental conception of Social Darwinism is that the wealthy and influential relish the honors they do as they are more suitable regarding the personalities preferred by natural selection. The underprivileged and weak have less acceptable individualities and, therefore, it is right to let them expire since their eradication will signify natural selection favoring suitable personalities, and the spread of appropriate qualities is a form of improvement (Bannister, 2010, p. 33). Darwinism demeans the sacredness of human life and belittles persons to mere creatures. By emphasizing social disparity and by viewing the death of many weak creatures as an essential and even advanced natural occurrence, Darwinism made the demise of the inferior seem unavoidable and even beneficial. The move is contrary to the Natural Law which gives every individual the right to existence.

One of the greatest essential claims of the concept of evolution is its founding the growth of living beings on the “competition for existence” in nature. According to Darwin, in nature, there is a ruthless competition for life, an everlasting struggle. The robust always overcome the frail, and this makes growth possible (Bannister, 2010, p. 35). Darwin used this outlook to the entire nature and recommended that this conflict, which indeed existed, would be accomplished by the toughest and the appropriate way. This assertion of Darwin’s comprised all vegetation, creatures, and human beings. He also stressed that the fight for existence in question was a permanent and fixed rule of nature. By denying creation, he was requesting individuals to abandon their spiritual principles and in this way targeting at all moral values that might be a hindrance to the cruelty of this fight for existence.

In conclusion, individuals when tackling struggles should consider the consequences of their actions. Character contemplation lies within the feature or attitude that assumes that there exist certain standards toward which persons should endeavor, which offer for the full growth of humanity. Care element involves facing the moral issue by concentrating on helpful strategies that show care to the people involved. Duty will mean the person following his/her responsibilities to another individual or culture since preserving one’s obligation is what is regarded morally right. In numerous instances, there exists a conflict between consequences and duty having defensive normative claims. The government should use Aristotle’s concept of the mean amid the extremes to administer the rule of law while still under the recommended levels. Natural law ethics constantly conflicts with social Darwinism as the latter entails concepts contrary to the former.