Marc’s MSLD Reflection Blog

Over the last nine weeks my perception of ethics has changed in certain ways, and in other ways it has stayed the same.  Nine weeks ago I would have had a hard time giving an accurate definition of ethics.  Today I would still struggle to define ethics,  although I understand more than I did a few weeks ago.  Ethics concerns the right way to act.  However, saying that ethics is the right way to act does not define it clearly enough.  I have struggled to really get a grasp on ethics, because who decides what the right way to act is?  Should society decide?  Is it up to the individual?  Is there a board that determines appropriate conduct?  There are times that society has been wrong about what is right.  For example, when slavery was generally accepted by society, that did not make it ethical.  At times it seems like we condescendingly look to our ancestors and think they were foolish and unenlightened.  How could they make such unethical decisions?  Will our descendants think the sa

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in December of 1791 states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const. amend. II).  Although parties from different sides of the debate have argued various interpretations of this constitutional amendment, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.  A 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (as cited in Brooks, 2017, para. 14).  This controversy has heightened in recent years as high-profile mass murders and school shootings have occurred repeatedly.   The question of how to reduce firearm related deaths is co

Most people are not inclined to put their own needs and wants aside to satisfy the needs and wants of other people.  In fact, many people hold that people are only motivated by their own self-interest.  This is known as psychological egoism and it is “the theory that everyone’s actions are always and completely self-interested” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272).  The theory holds that everything a person does, regardless of how noble or charitable, is motivated by the potential for some kind of personal benefit.  Even exceptionally benevolent people, Mother Teresa for example, are assumed to engage in their benevolent acts because it brings them happiness; they are therefore motivated by self-interest.  In contrast to psychological egoism, ethical egoism is a prescriptive theory that claims “that people ought to always and only act to promote their own self-interests” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 272). Although I believe that many people are primarily motivated by self-interest, I think ther