bombing

bombing

Home
Psychology homework help
Write a minimum 5 double spaces pages case study critical analysis’ essay. Refer to required readings!
Case Study

Attached Files:

· File Case Study_Torture the bombing suspect.pdf (8.922 KB)

Your primary objective is to analyze and interpret an ethics’ case study and apply critical thinking to best interpret main case issues, and their resolution in light of the facts provided. Write a minimum 5 double spaces pages case study critical analysis’ essay. Refer to required readings!

Your primary objective is to analyze and interpret an ethics’ case study and apply critical thinking to best interpret main case issues, and their resolution in light of the facts provided. Please, follow the next instructions:

1. Quickly read the case. Get a feel for the content and the information that needs to be analyzed. Focus on the first few and last few paragraphs which often provide strong insights into the problem(s) and issue(s).

2. Read the case very carefully. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the person(s) involved and develop a sense of involvement in the issue(s).

3. Note the key problem areas.

4. Note all relevant facts for each problem area.

5. Logically derive a set of conclusions/responses to the questions that focus on the key issue(s).

6. Write a minimum 5 pages double spaces case study critical analysis’ essay.

Important:

In your essay you should refer to the readings provided in the Learning Modules, use footnotes.

Readings

http://bks0.books.google.com.pr/books?id=PZTqqhu03-gC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE732_ihGGpLKay9IdbKEj0Ayup0us-JGcdN4JLVyphurimLwvn17a71z7PzeQvPlaPXpwQ8ncIOVsuLG2hnqIW7Rq4SXRo6xDEk1kVOUJgSa0MZDnTiQ2vxTU5juSDtRN4G3f_Xu

I. Introduction

In my paper I am going to focus on a ‘fundamental’ moral principle. I will start my

presentation from an example-phenomenon through which I will try to inquire into a value

response and how a moral principle follows from it.

II. The way to a ‘fundamental (personalistic)’ moral principle

At the end of Plato’s dialogue Phaedo1

, we have beautiful description of the heroic

death of the philosopher who, till the last moment of his life, lived according to that in which

he believed and taught others to believe in. What do we experience and perceive while reading

this description?

When we read it, we are deeply moved and touched by this scene. We admire the

attitude of this man who is not afraid to die for that in which he believed; we esteem his 2

attitude by which he is not afraid to die for the truth. We marvel at him who, even in the

moment of death, selflessly speaks about the value of truth and teaches his friends not only in

his words used to express the truth and its value, but also in his conformity to both in his very

life.

Our marvel and admiration is not motivated by our subjective feelings, nor by the fact

that we associate Plato’s account of Socrates’ life with something that happened in our own

lives, and now we just express our sympathy with the situation described. We are not

motivated by the feelings which Plato’s description evokes in us. Instead, we are motivated by

the objective content given in Plato’s description itself, that is, the heroic death of Socrates.

Thus, we are not motivated by something purely subjective, something imposed by us, but we

are motivated by something objective, i.e., by the heroic death of Socrates.

One could say that we experience admiration for Socrates’ attitude in the moment of

his death because Plato described it in very beautiful language, and it is true that he really did

describe it well. Most of us have a translation of the beautiful Greek text which might not

have been as beautiful as the original Greek text, but we still experience admiration. Thus, it

is not the beautiful work of art embodied in the written text that motivates our admiration.

However, the beautiful description of the heroic act, perhaps, makes the act and its value more

perceivable, but still, it is not essential to perceive the mentioned nobility of the act. One can

also admire the work from the point of view of its technical value, including the skills of the

author, leaving aside the heroic act described by in the work, but in our case we do not focus

on the literary value of the work itself. We are interested in the extraordinary behavior of

Socrates described by Plato, and it is this which motivates our admiration. It is exactly

Socrates’ attitude, which evokes in us marvel, admiration and high esteem. Our admiration is

1 See: PLATO, Phaedo, 116 D – 118 A in The collected dialogues of Plato. Including the letters, edited

by HAMILTON E. and CAIRNS H., Princeton University Press 198010. 3

a response to the Socrates’ attitude, our admiration is a response to the call of the value of his

heroic death.

Towards this heroic behavior, one might also be indifferent and might even assume a

negative stance, such as hatred. However, we would perceive such responses as being

disharmonious, illegitimate, out of touch, and completely inadequate with respect to the logos

of the given morally heroic behavior. This disharmony arising from an indifferent or negative

attitude to the heroic death reveals that the value in question (value of the heroic death) is not

something neutral, nor is it a disvalue.

In our daily life, we encounter many situations towards which we respond with esteem

and admiration, or with contempt and disapproval. For example, when we see a person

helping somebody in need, we respond to such an act with esteem, but when we notice that

somebody is lying to achieve something, we consider such behavior ignoble and respond to it

with appropriate contempt.

The special quality of those acts is brought into relief when we compare them with

such acts as «eating food», «washing oneself» or even with such an act as the admiration of a

work of art. If we respond to somebody’s eating food with reverence, then such a response

would be quite ridiculous. We perceive the inadequateness between eating food and a

response of reverence to it. The importance in itself of these two things is qualitatively distinct

in each case. We can praise somebody’s elegant way of eating, but revering such an act would

be quite out of place, though reverence would be in order in the case of a holy person. Thus,

we recognize the adequateness which obtains between the act of reverence and a holy person.

Reverence is an adequate to such a person; in other words, it is the due response to a holy

person. The same is true in the case of our admiration in the face of Socrates’ heroic death.

What is immediately given here, when we compare the manner of eating food and a

morally heroic death, is the ontological and axiological difference between those acts, that is 4

the distinct being and value of the acts. We notice the greater depth2

and importance of an act

of heroic death in comparison to act of eating food, or we notice the higher worth of an act of

admiration to somebody’s heroic behavior in comparison to an admiration of Leonardo

DaVinci’s Mona Lisa. We perceive that, in those different acts, we encounter different values

which call for a different response. We also notice that certain act-responses are appropriate to

certain value-objects, but not because of us, but because of the value-objects in question.

The difference between an act of eating and a heroic death is not only a difference in

degree, but in quality or kind, i.e., these acts possess something that the other does not. One of

them possesses moral value, while the other is morally irrelevant3

. The act of eating possesses

a lower value, perhaps an aesthetic one, in comparison to a heroic death. Thus, the call issuing

from the value of the act of eating must be distinct in comparison to the latter one. The act of

heroic death, so to speak, «catches us» and lets us not pass it with indifference, while the

elegant manner of eating does, at least from the point of view of its moral irrelevance. The

admiration as the response to the moral value of the heroic death is morally good not only

because it responds to morally relevant value, but also because it must be a free act, i.e., free

in the sense that we are responsible for it.4

Thus, if we ask why Socrates’ attitude evokes in us admiration, the answer is that it is

because Socrates’ attitude presents itself as worthy of admiration and marvel. As we said

before, it is not I who posits or imposes the quality on the object, but it is the object which

reveals its value to me. By perceiving this value, we are able to respond to it in a right way; by

perceiving a value for its own sake we are able to give the appropriate response to it. Still, it is

not I who decides what response is due the object, but it is object itself which speaks to me

and demands the due response. Therefore when the value of an object is adequately perceived

2

See: VON HILDEBRAND D., Ethics, Franciscan Herald Press, p. 238.

3. See: Ethics, p. 265 and p. 279. 5

and grasped we ought then to be moved and touched by the value, as in the case of Socrates’

heroic death. It is important to notice that the oughtness increases5

in accordance with the rank

of the value, e.g., the elegant way of eating does not issue such an oughtness to be praised as

does the oughtness of the admiration of the heroic death. Thus we can say the higher value,

the higher oughtness.

As we said above, it is the value of an object which issues the oughtness. It is not I

who issues the oughtness. I respond to the value of an object for its own sake; I respond to the

value not because I can achieve something by this response, but on the contrary, I respond to

the value in the adequate, due way because of the value itself. This due relation of the act to

the value occasions the possibility of raising the fundamental principle: that an adequate

response is due to every value.6

A. Conditions of a value response

In this paper, we already implicitly alluded to the conditions of a value response. Let

us now explicitly mention them in brief. In order to give the due response to the object in

question we must first perceive the value. Without perception and an understanding of the

value, we are not able to respond to it. If we do not perceive and understand the value of the

heroic death, we be unable to respond to it at all or we respond to it in an inadequate way.

Another condition of a value response would be the good will7

. For we can perceive the value

4. See: Ethics, p. 281. «…the impact and urgency of the call to give an adequate response increases in proportion to the rank of the value, i.e., that the oughtness itself of an adequate response increases according to the rank of the value.»,

6. in Ethics, p. 249.

«Not for the sake of the responding person, but for the sake of the value of the object to which the

response is addressed, should the adequate response be given», in Ethics, p. 248, see also p. 251.

7. See: Ethics, p. 230. 6 and have awareness of it, but still can respond in the wrong way, or not respond at all, and this can be due to our own particular subjective interests or to our bad will (Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor).

B. Fundamental (‘Personalistic’) Moral Principle

One way of showing that the fundamental moral principle is a personalistic one is to

show the characteristics of person, to show that the person is bearer of moral values.

Apart from the being of a value as an object of value response, we also have the value

inhering in a personal being. A person can be an object of an act, can be an object of a value

response, but a person is a different type of object, a person is a subject, a person is not a

something, but a somebody. A person is a subject, to whom all the objects stand in relation, is

rational, spiritual and free (sui iuris and alteri incoummunicabilis) being.8

Through these

characteristics we perceive the profound difference between persons and other objects and

between the value of the person and value characteristics of other objects.

The person as a rational and free being, and thus a bearer of moral values, presents

itself to us as a completely unique morally relevant value, among the values mentioned here.

As the value of the object motivates the quality of the due response9

, and, in the case of the personal being with which we are presented with something most uniquely precious and valuable – we recognize that the due response to the person must also possess the adequate word and character which corresponds to this ultimate preciousness and value. The person as

a subject, bearing those above-mentioned characteristics, presents itself to us as a morally

8. See: WOJTYŁA K., Love and Responsibility, translated by H. T. WILLETTS, Ignatius Press, pp. 21-24.

9. See: Ethics, p. 237. 7 value, and as such should not be treated only as an object of use or only as a means to achieve an end. The person is a value in itself and should be treated for its own sake, should be affirmed for its own sake, should be loved for its own sake, since love is the most perfect way to affirm the personal being for its own sake. The most perfect way does not mean that if we do not love a person we cannot give the appropriate response to her, for we can have other appropriate responses to a person such as a friendship, admiration or we can like a person and of course it is impossible for the human being to love all the persons. The most perfect way means that among the acts which refer to the value of the person love is the highest, most adequate, most right response to the value of the person, since it responds in the most perfect way, in the most due way to the value of the person10. In this way we came to formulation of the personalistic moral principle11: that love is a due response to the person, the due response to the moral value of the person is love.

III. Conclusions

I my paper, using the phenomenological method, I tried to reach an understanding of

the fundamental, personalistic moral principle. Starting from the example of Socrates’ heroic

death, I sought to show a deep relation between the value and the response due it and what

follows from this as the valid moral principle. I hope my effort at least to some extent brought

me to the desired conclusion. I am aware that I omitted many issues which are interesting and

important for our topic, but the length of the paper does not permit an exhaustive treatment of

all the pertinent issues.

Blog ArchiveCopyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com Read More
Applied SciencesArchitecture and DesignBiologyBusiness & FinanceChemistryComputer ScienceGeographyGeologyEducationEngineeringEnglishEnvironmental scienceSpanishGovernmentHistoryHuman Resource ManagementInformation SystemsLawLiteratureMathematicsNursingPhysicsPolitical SciencePsychologyReadingScienceSocial Science

"Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now