{"id":6069,"date":"2021-03-02T20:33:36","date_gmt":"2021-03-03T01:33:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/?p=6069"},"modified":"2021-03-02T20:33:36","modified_gmt":"2021-03-03T01:33:36","slug":"blog-post-for-3-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/2021\/03\/02\/blog-post-for-3-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Blog Post for 3\/4"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the podcast episode, I was intrigued by the discussion of how the basic determinants in evaluating moral ethics overlap. In the reading, it seemed less obvious that all three types of reasoning, consequentialism, deontic, and aretaic, commonly overlap in the ways that they can. To break down these forms of reasoning into consequence, action, and intent, it is more apparent to me how often all three of these forms of reasoning appear in everyday or just common societal situations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond the discussion of the general acceptance of killing as an immoral action based on all three forms of reasoning, I want to explore the generally accepted moral good of donating to charities. This question is obviously closely related to our upcoming GivingGames project and we would all have different thoughts and ideas on this generally accepted topic. On the basis of consequentialism, we would have to consider the consequences of someone donating their time or money. Some consequences could be curing cancer, eradicating disease, or providing clothing to a child in need. All of these things would arguably be good, and thus donating to charity would be good. But, some consequences could also be supporting a political campaign that could be against your beliefs or a child dies because the promised materials never actually get to them. These consequences are obviously not good, and thus donating to charity would be bad. On the basis of deontic reasoning, we would have to evaluate the actual action of giving and furthermore the universality of the action. I think that the action of giving itself would be good because intrinsically the action of giving is not considered to be immoral. If we consider the universality of the question however, I would say that giving fails Kant\u2019s test. I don\u2019t think that everyone ever should be donating to charity. Some people don\u2019t have the means to support themselves and therefore should not feel obligated to donate to charity if we evaluate it from a deontic perspective. For aretaic reasoning, which I think is super important in the context of our GivingGames project, the intentions a person has would need to be evaluated. Some people donate to charity because they want to achieve a goal (like curing disease), or support a person close to them who have suffered through an illness, or help a community that is close to their heart. I think all of these reasons would be a sign of a virtuous person and therefore a moral action. But, we all know that some people donate to a charity in an act of virtue signaling. They desire the glory rather than the actual good that comes from their donation. In this case, I don\u2019t think donating to charity would be a moral action at all.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

All of this being said, the complexity of evaluating the morality behind things within society happens way more than I have ever considered. As rational beings, we are constantly evaluating the situations that confront us to determine whether they fit into our definition of right and wrong. And we are constantly evaluating our definition with the way our cultures and environments also define the same things. Like Dr. Bezio said, no wonder philosophers still have jobs. \ud83d\ude42<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the podcast episode, I was intrigued by the discussion of how the basic determinants in evaluating moral ethics overlap. In the reading, it seemed less obvious that all three types of reasoning, consequentialism, deontic, and aretaic, commonly overlap in the ways that they can. To break down these forms of reasoning into consequence, action, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4546,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41194],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reading-responses"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4546"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6069"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6069\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6070,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6069\/revisions\/6070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/criticalthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}