It values, and is even punished by

Published by admin on


It is morally and ethically right to help this person and stop the fight. However, he thinks he may not be able to efficiently aid the person and would only make the situation worse for the both of them. So he rejects what is right and does not help the person. This man was immorally and unethically wrong in his action. It was clear that the right choice was to help the person and the wrong choice was to walk away. This action should have been guided by his theories in ethics and morals. In this example, there are two distinct choices to act upon.

It is clear that one option is morally and ethically right, while the other is morally and ethically wrong. During these situations, the standards of ethical absolutism are followed and our theories in ethics and morals should guide our actions. In the Iranian society, women wear a veil or purdah to conceal them in public. It symbolizes purity, sanctity of life, socialization and protection for women in this culture. Here it is wrong for women to be seen without the veil. It goes against their cultural values, and is even punished by law.

American society views the wearing of the veil as an oppressive demonstration of male superiority. In this culture, it is wrong to forcibly make an individual inferior to another in any respect. Different cultures have different ideologies of what is right and wrong. People are brought up from different backgrounds and have unique experiences from which they develop their Moral Framework. In this example, it is unclear what is right or wrong. This is because both the Iranian and American societies have different cultural values that set their ethics.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

These societies each have a separate, but equally valid explanation for their ethical views. During these situations, the standards of ethical relativism are followed and there are no true rights and wrongs to guide our actions. During the 1940’s towards the end of World War II, the United States wanted an unconditional surrender from Japan. However, they were stubborn and determined, willing to continue fighting at all costs. So the United States got top scientists to build a “super weapon” to ensure United States victory.

The atomic bomb was built on April 6, 1945. In Japan, it appeared the United States was slowly but surely gaining control of Japanese military bases using island hopping techniques. Although as time passed, it became increasingly difficult to gain bases and the United States lost more and more soldiers. So only three days after the atomic bomb was built, the United States used it to bomb Hiroshima, a central city of Japan. Two days later, the United States bombed Nagasaki, another heavily populated, civilian city of Japan.

President Truman justified his decision of using the bombs by saying, “It saved American lives. ” He states that by using the bombs, he ensured the end of the war saving future lives. In this example, there is a moral principle that it is wrong to kill. However, this is a war where people die practically every day until the war ends. There is also a moral principle that if you kill to save others, then killing becomes acceptable. So while one moral principle states killing is wrong, another states it is right.

During these types of dilemmas, one follows his Moral Framework to decide how to act. President Truman knew the Japanese would not surrender unconditionally and more people would die because of this. In addition to this, he knew the atomic bomb would show Japan they had no chance of victory leading to their surrender. In using the atomic bomb, he did the right thing killing Japanese citizens in order to save more future American and Japanese lives. President Truman portrays an example of a less parsimonious Moral Framework.

There are people who criticize this action and question if the ratio that died was really lower than the amount that would have died in the war. It will never be known for sure, but based on the situation President Truman believed he was doing the right thing. During these situations, it is uncertain whether our theories in ethics and morals should guide our actions. One must follow his own Moral Framework and what he believes is more right and will override the other decision. Ethics and morals help define how people distinguish what is right and wrong.

When this is clear, our theories in ethics and morals should guide our actions. When this cannot be defined, our theories in ethics and morals cannot guide our actions. When it is unsure what is truly right or wrong, it is indefinite how one should act. The best way to decide is to follow one’s Moral Framework (whether it should be more or less parsimonious is unknown) to determine which decision is more right than the other. Our actions should be guided by our theories in ethics and morals depending on the situation at hand.

Word Count: 1,411.

Categories: United States


I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out