Student’s Name
Supervisor’s Name
Course Name
Due date
Moral Psychology
When it comes to the ethics of a situation, it’s a frequent misconception that people understand the choices they’re making. Toby Groves made choices based on his desire to save his company. Toby was focused on the business side of things, according to Tenbrunsel, with the goals of being competent and successful. His ethics and values vanished from view as he was exclusively focused on mending his business.
These reasons do not prove that Toby did nothing wrong, but they do provide insight into how people like him might improve. We can learn from folks like Toby and use what we’ve learned to help prevent unethical behavior. These are solid and acceptable explanations for Toby’s behavior and how he came to act unethically, in my opinion. He pledged to his father that he would never act unethically, but he ended up making unethical actions due to his lack of awareness of ethics in his situation. This can be utilized as a learning tool to assist you avoids making unethical mistakes in the future.
Toby was born and raised on a farm in Ohio. He placed a high value on the thought that he was a person of good moral character when he was a child. Then, when Toby was around 20 years old, he went home for a visit with his family on a Sunday in 1986, and he had an event that made the urge to be good even more pressing. After making that commitment to his father, Toby found himself in front of the same judge who had convicted his brother, facing the same charge of fraud. Not just any fraud, but a multimillion-dollar bank scam that resulted in the closure of several businesses and the loss of over a hundred employees. Toby was sentenced to prison in 2008, where he claims he spent two years staring at the ceiling, attempting to figure out what had happened.
Toby adds, “Those were things that tormented me every second of every day.” “I couldn’t understand it.” Toby has recently gotten a lot of attention from scientists, especially those who are interested in how human brains absorb information when making judgments. And the researchers concluded that the majority of us are capable of acting in deeply unethical ways. Not only are we capable of it without recognizing it, but we also do it regularly.
Consider a current argument regarding justice and demonstrate how at least two distinct approaches result in different outcomes. Do you believe that any of the techniques is superior to or inferior to the others? Why? (Of course, you don’t have to put up a fight — I just want to hear what you think). “We are all capable of behaving fundamentally unethically without realizing it,” says Toby Groves. Our minds simply can’t digest the options we’re presented with. Business perspective: succeed no matter what Ethical perspective. People can be completely oblivious that they are acting in an immoral manner. It’s not that they’re bad people; it’s that they’re blinded. And, if we wish to combat fraud, we must recognize that much of it is inadvertent.
Maximizing welfare:
Utilitarian/Consequentialist
Aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people possible.
Promoting wealth, raising living standards, and boosting economic growth
Result/goal/incentive focused
Respecting Freedom:
Libertarians/Deontological.
Individual rights must be respected.
Who makes the decision, not what makes the decision.
Oriented toward procedures and rules.
Promoting Virtue:
Virtue Ethics
Religious rights and cultural conservatives
The pleasures of life
Cultivating the attitudes and dispositions, or character attributes, that a decent society requires
Maximizing welfare, honoring freedom, and developing virtue are the three ways mentioned by Sandel. Insulin costs a lot of money and has been increasing in recent years. People with diabetes have no choice but to spend a lot of money on insulin as a result of this. People are also forced to ration their insulin as a result of this. The maximization of welfare is used to justify the high cost of insulin. The insulin business controls the price of insulin, which makes them extremely wealthy. Individual freedom is at the heart of the argument against the high cost of insulin. People with diabetes are unable to choose whether or not to purchase insulin. Their lives rely on it, forcing them to pay the astronomical price for the drug. I believe that maximizing welfare is the worst option since it ignores individual rights in favor of the entire market, wealth, and numbers. Sandel disputes the idea that government and policy should be morally apolitical when it comes to difficult moral issues. He contends that engaging, rather than avoiding, our fellow citizens’ moral convictions may be the most effective approach of achieving a just society.
References
Katz (2018). “Secular Morality”. In Brandt, Allan; Rozin, Paul (eds.). Morality and Health. New York: Routledge. pp. 295–330.
Narvaez, D (2017). “Moral complexity: The fatal attraction of truthiness and the importance of mature moral functioning” (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 5 (2): 163–181. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.187.2813. Doi: 10.1.
