Ethics Essay step 3 and 4

Running head: ETHICS IN CRITICAL THINKING 1

ETHICS IN CRITICAL THINKING 8

Ethics in Critical Thinking

Melvin Amaya

Institutional Affiliation

Ethics

Ethics in Critical Thinking

Ethical decision-making is important because it helps individuals make the right decisions when faced with different life situations. Individuals can easily analyze and evaluate different alternatives according to ethical principles and make the right decision. The application of ethics in critical thinking also allows people to eliminate unethical options and select the most appropriate course of action. Although critical ethical thinking appears to be straightforward, there are certain important things involved. Vinnari, Vinnari, and Kupsala (2017) state the process of making ethical decisions requires commitment, consciousness, and competence. Individuals should also ensure that they know and understand all the major ethical theories to develop moral choices whenever they are faced with ethical dilemmas. Several major benefits come with consistent ethical decision-making. For example, ethical decision improves relations between people as well as the quality of their interactions. People that make ethical decisions regularly are usually concerned about other people's welfare and work towards ensuring that they do not harm them regardless of the situation. From the analysis of the case study provided, it is evident that the most ethical ad appropriate course of action is to save the drowning child. This paper analyzes several ethical theories that support the saving of the child as well as counterarguments.

Affirmation

The analysis of the scenario provided demonstrates why it would be unethical and immoral for one to ignore a drowning child regardless of whether it was their fault or not. Human beings should always do whatever is in their power to help other people in need or danger. From the case study, it is evident that the child will drown if no one acts. The most ethical thing to do would be to prevent the child from drowning. Several ethical theories support the argument that the child needs to be saved from drowning. Utilitarianism is one of the main ethical theories that would support the saving of the drowning child. According to the utilitarian ethical theory, it would be immoral for one to let the child drown while they are capable of saving their life (Payne, Corey & Fok, 2016). Utilitarianism is one of the major ethical theories, and it sets out to determine what an individual ought to do in certain situations. The theory recommends that individuals should always seek to act in a way that maximizes happiness or pleasure for the most number of people while at the same time minimizing pain or unhappiness (Paavilainen, J., & Koskinen, 2019). The act of saving the drowning child would automatically result in the maximization of happiness or pleasure to most people, including the child, family, and the person who would have saved them. However, ignoring to save the child would result in maximum unhappiness or pain for the highest number of people since the child would have lost their life. Therefore, saving the drowning child would count as the most ethical course of action.

Ethics of care is another ethical theory used to determine the best course of action in the case study. Ethics of care is a feminist approach to ethics, and it applies a context-bound approach towards decision making. Ethics of care implores people to always care for other people's welfare and their own (Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2019). One of the original theories of care was provided by Nel Noddings, who was an American philosopher. Noddings argued that caring is the foundation of morality (Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2019). She further asserted that relationships are basic to human beings, and it is where the need to care arises. Human beings have a basic need to care for each other (Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2019). The application of ethics of care to the case study reveals that it would be immoral to ignore a drowning child. Every human being has a basic need to care for another person in danger. Therefore, the most ethical thing that one could do in such a situation is to save the drowning child. The need to care is further amplified because there is no danger involved in rescuing the child. The case study indicates that the pool or puddle of water in which the child is drowning is only four feet. It would therefore be immoral for one to save a child drowning in four feet of water.

Counter Argument

While utilitarianism and ethics of care indicate that it would be immoral to ignore the drowning child, other theories would support an individual's actions that would have left the child to drown. Deontology could be used to ignore the child and let them drown. Deontology is one of the main ethical theories, and it depends on rules to differentiate between right and wrong (Dimitrios et al., 2018). Deontology is believed to have been developed by Emmanuel Kant, one of the most well-known figures in philosophy. Deontology asserts that ethical actions are made following universal moral codes. Existing laws usually guide every moral action. For example, laws such as do not steal and do not kill act as guides to individuals as they make decisions in their everyday life. Dimitrios et al. (2018) state that deontology is one of the simplest laws to apply because it only requires decision-makers to know all the rules and regulations. Deontology is different from consequentialism, where their results judge actions. Instead, deontology avoids the uncertainty of judging actions based on their outcomes by ensuring that decision-makers stick to a certain set of rules and regulations.

When applied to the case study, an individual is justified to ignore a drowning child because no law or regulation requires them to save the child. Although laws may require one to avoid harming children and other community members, it does not compel individuals to risk their lives and save others in need. After a quick review of existing laws and regulations, an individual that subscribes to deontology is more likely to continue with their business and ignore the drowning child. Although it may be hard to ignore a drowning child, strict adherence to deontology is expected to ensure that an individual only makes ethical decisions based on the existing set of rules and regulations.

Libertarianism is another approach to ethical decision-making that may be used to justify the action of ignoring a drowning child. Libertarianism asserts that individuals should be allowed to make independent decisions and do as they see fit as long as they respect other people's freedom to do the same (Amadae, 2016). A person that ignores a drowning child could argue that they made a personal choice to walk away from the drowning child and that their decision should be respected. An individual could also argue that since they did not infringe on other people's rights to make independent decisions, they are justified to make their own decision which may include walking away from the drowning child.

Resolution

From the analysis of the case study and the different ethical theories, it is evident that the most appropriate course of action would be to save the drowning child. People should not always stick to rigid ethical theories when making ethical choices. Instead, they need to carry out a thorough evaluation of the situation and develop the most appropriate course of action. It is against human nature to see another person in danger and ignore their calls for help. The problem is also worse when the person in need is a child. The most ethical and logical course of action would be to save the drowning child. The theories of utilitarianism and care ethics can be applied to justify the need to save the drowning child. Every individual should always seek to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people and minimize the greatest number of people's unhappiness. Therefore, when applied to the scenario presented, an individual would analyze the situation and select the best way to increase happiness or pleasure while at the same time minimizing unhappiness. The only viable method that can be used to maximize happiness is the saving of the drowning child. Almost everyone will be pleased for the safety of the child as opposed to leaving them to drown. Ethics of care could also be critical in ensuring that the child is saved from drowning. Human beings have a moral responsibility of ensuring the safety of other people, especially when in nature. Therefore, it would be against human nature to see a drowning child and ignore it. The most humane course of action in such a situation would be to save the drowning child, even if it meant risking life.

Applying the major ethical theories to the scenario presented confirms that it would be unethical and unacceptable for an adult to ignore a drowning child when they are in a position to help. Any individual in such a situation should spring into action and ensure the safety of the child.

Conclusion

From the analysis of the arguments provided, it is evident that it would be immoral to ignore a drowning child. Ethics and morality help people differentiate between right and wrong, and in doing so, people should always consider their welfare and that of others. There are many ethical theories like utilitarianism and ethics of care that encourage people to take care of others and ensure that the least number of people are harmed or affected by one's actions. Such theories focus on the outcome of people's actions to determine right from wrong. For example, the outcome e of letting the child drown would result in more unhappiness and sadness. Therefore it would be immoral and unethical. Most societies around the world would expect an individual to save a drowning child from reducing suffering. Individuals need to understand all the major ethical theories and apply them whenever they are faced with ethical dilemmas.

References

Vinnari, M., Vinnari, E., & Kupsala, S. (2017). Sustainability matrix: Interest groups and ethical theories as to the basis of decision-making. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(3), 349-366. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9670-y

Paavilainen, J., & Koskinen, E. (2019). Ayn Rand's objectivist ethics applied to video game business: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics,  1-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04159-y

Orsi, F. (2020). Meta-ethical disagreements. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(3), 423-439. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/tr.2020.3.09

Caldwell, C., Karri, R., & Vollmar, P. (2006). Principal theory and principle theory: Ethical governance from the follower's perspective: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2-3), 207-223. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5586-y