In conclusion...

We have been discussing moral decisions for a couple of weeks. Analyzing other stories and movies and writing about how they came to the moral decisions, or not so moral decisions. However, in the end, I just don’t think I really fall under any of these particular categories, not completely at least. As a Christian, obviously, I find that the Bible is helpful in guidance. However, and maybe some would not agree, I do not believe during this time that Bible can help make all the decisions. It is used as guidance, not direct answers. The Bible was written many years ago, and cannot completely answer all the questions of this time. I have learned right and wrong through teachings from my parents, teachers, friends, and family. I learned right and wrong through experience. I have learned right and wrong through my mistakes. I have learned right and wrong through the stories of others. I don’t think you can find one person who would agree one hundred percent on everything they think is right and wrong with someone else. How could they? Nobody lives the same life. Everyone has different experiences, mistakes, friends, family, and teachers. It is even safe to say that even siblings don’t agree on all the things they feel are right and all of the things they feel are wrong. It just simply doesn’t happen. A perfect example is within my own family. My brother, sister and I all are very similar. However, we are not the same and definitely do not agree on all the things we have believed that are right and wrong. Even within our religious belief, it is slightly different. Everyone has their way of determining right and wrong. I personally pull from the past and those around me. I can feel it when it wrong. I know what I believe. As long as I know what I believe, I know I will be happy, satisfied, and live a fulfilled life. 

So What?

Traci Marie
November 20, 2013

                                                            So What?

            The way that I understand and make my decisions is first based on Virtue Ethics. I believe that my behavior should reflect the habits of my character. I am most concerned with the good moral character that I can demonstrate in situations. The phrase used in the Moonstruck reference, “I know who I am” best describes me when I am making daily decisions. I try my best to stick with this point of reference in making daily decisions. There are times in life situations where I still reference my moral compass but feel the need to consider the end results of the action and how it best suits all people involved. This would be an example of how I would use the theory of Consequentialist Ethics. I would most agree with the Utilitarianism point of view that an act is morally right if the total good of the action is more favorable than unfavorable to everyone involved; bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. I cannot say what is right for one situation will always be right for every situation or every person. I believe that we all deal with life in our own way and that no one way is necessarily correct or better than the other. My own personal belief is that we do the best we can in the current situation that is presented to us; that is what I do anyway. I walk by faith and go with instinct on what is the best solution at the time to the situation at hand.

What Now?

When I think about all I’ve discovered about the process and different theories of moral decision making, I realize the importance of the life choices and the affects of them throughout my life. Whether people realize it or not, we make moral decisions every day, and a lot of them have to do with small things that if alone, seem unimportant. When we combine all the little things that we make decisions about into a larger cluster, then we can see a pattern of character. We can either see someone make decisions that impact them or people around them in a positive or negative way. One of the classic categories of moral decision making is Virtue Ethics. Over the past four weeks, I have thought a lot about Virtue Ethics as they fit into my life. For instance, driving is a thing we do almost every day. If I jump in my car and drive like I am the only person on the road, I consider myself acting out of my character. Driving recklessly on the road is a negative outcome of a personal moral choice. I have thought about it, and I know that I am a “usual” law abider, and I believe that I am not selfish enough to consider myself the only person on the road. The problem is when I begin to speed and not follow road signs on a regular basis. This is when it becomes habitual enough that it looks as if that it is part of my character. I become someone looked at differently because of my actions. I look at the moral decisions that I’ve made in my life that define my character. Some examples of this could be choosing not to cheat on a test, remembering to take care of my pets, and choosing to love someone when they don’t deserve it. I think that the repetitive pattern of choosing to do these actions helps develop the person that I am today. I don’t mean that I am a perfect person and don’t make mistakes, but a lot of who I am, is because of the decisions I’ve made in the past. An older mentor said this once to me about the person that I wanted to be in the future. He said, “be who you want to be in 10 years, today.” I believe that if I want to be a person with good morals and ethics, I need to start making decisions today that will help me develop into the person that I want to be tomorrow.

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

Traci (Marie)

November 15, 2013

                                                Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

            Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson was a perplexing novel to understand. Dr. Jekyll was concerned with being moral and highly regarded in the community. He suffered from issues of evil desire. Mr. Hyde became his alter ego personality that eventually took him over. He struggled with the issue of his character of a good person and his character as a bad person. This moral dilemma drove him crazy. Dr. Jekyll eventually became so engrossed in Mr. Hyde that he could not control his bad behavior. Dr. Jekyll struggled with the moral dilemma of wanting to get rid of Mr. Hyde but knowing that in order to do that he would have to take his own life which was very much against his beliefs. It started as just an experiment to “let the evil side out” but eventually this evil side took over and he became a murderer. He had no conscience what-so-ever about doing the evil acts. Dr. Jekyll struggled until the evil Mr. Hyde took over completely. He describes Mr. Hyde’s behavior as “centered on self; drinking pleasure with bestial avidity from any degree of torture to another; relentless like a man of stone.” Dr. Jekyll was described as “waking again to his good qualities seemingly unimpaired; he would even make haste to undo the evil done by Hyde.” It sounds as if he tried to deal with it as long as possible and then just could not take it anymore. Did he make the right decision to “kill off” the evil? Or should he have stayed with his moral compass of not believing in the that sort of action….

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Jekyll's friends

In the novel, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde written by Robert Louis Stevenson, there is definitely a lot of decisions being made that seem to lack morals. In this blog, I am supposed to discuss the moral and ethical actions of the characters. I personally want to discuss the two characters of Mr. Utterson and Dr.Lanyon. First, I want to discuss Mr. Utterson. If I had to pick the best man out of the entire novel, it would be him. The entire novel he is disturbed by Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll’s relationship. He has a strong belief that Hyde is harming or blackmailing his friend. He continuously looks into the relationship trying to help his friend. I think this shows that he is on the right path of good moral and ethical decisions. He recognized that his friend was in trouble and stopped at nothing to try to help. Mr. Utterson is a good man. The next character, I want to discuss is Dr. Lanyon. Dr. Lanyon in the beginning was a good friend to Dr. Jekyll. However, one night Dr. Jekyll reached out to him and asked him to gather a drawer from his home and wait for someone to pick it up at exactly midnight. That same night he watched Mr. Hyde transform into Dr. Jekyll. At this point, he decided that Dr. Jekyll’s experiments were morally wrong and Hyde was harming people. Therefore, Lanyon lost his friendship with Jekyll. In my opinion, this makes Lanyon lack morals and ethics. He did realize that Dr. Jekyll’s work was wrong. However, he did not say anything to anyone. Innocent people were dying and Lanyon stood by doing nothing. When Hyde went missing for many months and the cops were searching for him, Lanyon should have turned Jekyll in. That would be the right action for Lanyon to take. Since he sat by doing nothing, I have made the decision that is he is lacking in morals and ethics. He is not the good man in this story, but Utterson is a good man. 

Moral Ethics

After reading the classic book written by Robert Louis Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I have noticed some themes and perspectives of the short story that attract attention towards the classic category of moral decision making. The author of this book seems to try to impose upon humanity certain aspects of social conduct and morality along with impulses of severe depravation and rather satanic activity. One of the classic categories that I see as fitting to this book is Consequentialism. As a refresher, Consequentialist Ethics basically says that an action in the right type of context can be considered “morally right” if the end results show a beneficial outcome. This can be portrayed in the book as Dr. Jekyll considers taking his life because his “other self”, called Mr. Hyde, becomes too evil and out of control to handle. Dr. Jekyll is disgusted with his evil self and knows that it would be better off to humanity if he killed himself than rather than cause harm to others. So, he sees this act of suicide as a “good and moral” act because he’d rather kill off his evil self than hurt others. Another theme from the classic categories of ethics is the theory of duty-based ethics. Duty based ethics is basically the notion that we have specific rights given to us because we are simply human, and since we live in an organized and civilized society, we are required to follow laws and duties even if they do not benefit us. Dr. Jekyll seems to understand that it is his duty to uphold moral and social law by acting a certain way unlike his counterpart, Mr. Hyde; who thinks that humanity does not possess rights and therefore commits acts unimaginable. He treats people with disdain, produces violence without a conscience, and acts as if there is no consequences for his actions because he does not react to the responsibility to uphold morality in the way that his counterpart does. Dr. Jekyll reflects on the acts that Mr. Hyde makes and passes judgment on them through the eyes of society. Dr. Jekyll notices his other self make choices without moral lenses because Mr. Hyde sees society not as a framework of moral ethics but as a space void of responsibility. Overall, I think Dr. Jekyll realizes the mistake he made by trying to live a double life. He finds that it immorality leads him to a complete loss of control even if the reason why he did this experiment in the first place was to experience the freedom of immorality without a conscience. I find this book an interesting topic of discussion because it brings forth the idea of moral decision making especially in a society that was notorious for hiding one’s evil acts in a facade of “righteousness”. 

Last Meeting November 12, 2013

Biblical Readings

Traci Marie

November 8, 2013

                                                               Biblical Readings

            In the verses in Exodus, the consequentialist theory is evident by the way that the Hebrew women refuse to kill all of the boy babies as the Pharaoh instructed. They decided to make their decision based on the outcome of what this act would mean. I agree with this theory in that different situations call for different decisions. People can have a certain moral code and then have a different opinion of an outcome based on the current decision that is being made at the time. In verses 16-17 it says, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Exodus 1:8-22 is an example of weighing the consequence of the action and then determining the moral responsibility. Romans 7:14-25 is an example of the inner struggle of morality. Paul is confessing that he struggles with his inner desires. He struggles with knowing what the “right” decisions are. Just the confession itself is showing that he had a moral compass. He describes in verse 22 that “in his inner being he delights in God’s law.” Verse 23 goes on to say “but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.” He depends on the Lord to deliver him from his thoughts.       

Readings in the Bible

In the different biblical readings assigned it was easy to see the different types of moral decisions to be made. In the case of Exodus 20:1-17, it is definitely duty-based ethics. God speaks and they follow. They follow Him simply because he is an authority. They assume what He says is right in all ways and intend to follow it. If someone asked them how they determined that the Ten Commandments were true and right morally, those who believed would have responded because God told me it was so. In this type of ethics it is as simple as that. The authority tells you what is right and wrong, and you listen. The next biblical passage to be discussed is Matthew 5:17-48. In this biblical reading it talks about Jesus reinterpreting the Ten Commandments. In this section, he takes the Commandments and tells them what they knew previously. Then he reinterprets it and tells them there is so much more than just the lines given. You have to dig deeper and make sure you don’t focus on just the words given. He wanted everyone to focus internally. He says you are just as guilty if you think it and never do it as the man who completes the action. According to the article provided, this passage is virtue ethics. It is considered this because we grew up with these basic teachings but we most interpret them for ourselves. We must go beyond those words and decide what is good. We have to know the differences from virtue and vices. If we simply followed the Ten Commandments word for word than I believe a lot of “evil” would slip through the cracks and be let off the hook. We have to know who we are and stick to the things we learned at a young age that have developed through the years. 

Finding Consequentialism in the Bible

I think that consequentialist ethics is an interesting topic to read about in the Bible. One particular passage in the Bible can be viewed in a consequentialist ethics point of view. It is in Exodus 1:8-22 when the midwives lie to Pharaoh about the Hebrew baby boys. They don’t tell Pharaoh the truth because they want to save the Hebrew babies. I find this passage interesting because we know there is not a grey area for lying in the Bible. In the Ten Commandments, it is written clearly to not lie. In fact, in Proverbs 12:22, it says that, “The Lord detests lying lips, but He delights in men who are truthful”. This is interesting because if we go back to Exodus 1:2-21, it says that, “God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, He gave them families of their own.” God ended up blessing the midwives for their lie, and he blessed the whole population of Israel along with it. For a lot of people who first read this passage, it may be a little confusing. I know I was because it has been so engrained in me that it is wrong to tell any kind of lie. This is when the process of moral decision making involving consequentialism comes to play. The benefit of lying to the Pharaoh was that the midwives would save and not kill hundreds of God’s people. I think lying in this case, made it possible for these women not to commit even more sins by helping cause the deaths of thousands of innocent children. In fact, if we look at it in retrospect, if the Hebrew population died off due to the fact that there wasn’t enough males, then ultimately Jesus wouldn’t come as promised. I think there is a lot to do with the fact that we have to look at this passage with the context of its time. Yes, it’s bad to lie to Pharaoh, but I would choose to lie than to kill many, many children. I think God would have a rougher time dealing with midwives who killed His people off than to midwives who lied to a pagan king in attempt to save His people.

Source Code

The Source Code was a very action packed movie. This movie is filled with explosions, gun shots, and chasing scenes. Most importantly, this movie is filled with moral decisions. There are three main characters, who make moral decisions, on this film. These characters are Captain Colter Stevens, Colleen Goodwin, and Dr.Rutledge. First, I want to talk about Dr.Rutledge. Dr.Rutledge was definitely not making moral decisions. He was only concerned for profit. Even when he saved millions of lives, he wasn’t excited about saving people. He was strictly excited that his program worked, not that it saved lives. He wanted to make money and gain all the glory. He is clearly not a moral man. The next person, who had to make moral decisions, was Colleen Goodwin. In the beginning, she was definitely justifying her morals by authority.  She did everything Dr. Rutledge told her to. Before she acted, she asked Dr.Rutledge. In the end, however, she makes a connection with Captain Colter Stevens. She realizes he is a person with feelings. She respects his wishes and terminates his life. She goes against authority and follows her heart. She decides respecting him and his wishes is the right thing to do, regardless of getting in trouble. Finally, we have Captain Colter Stevens. The only moral decision he had to make was to save the people or not. In the beginning, he was only considered about himself and his team. He didn’t want to complete the mission. He just wanted answers. However, in the end, he realized it was bigger than him and wanted to save the people. He made the moral decision that benefited him and others. He saved their lives and they would terminate his.This type of moral decision is called Utilitarianism. 

Source Code

Traci (Marie) Hollandsworth

November 1, 2013

                                                Source Code

            Source Code is a film about choices. Captain Colter Stevens was part of an experiment with the government. He had actually died in the war; but his brain was being used to travel back in time for answers to questions that no one else could get. Although he was very confused by the program he ended up being very cooperative and wanting to help save as many people as possible. Colleen Goodwin, the officer in charge of working with Stevens on this mission, became close to him. She admired him. The major decision that Captain Stevens was faced with was going on in this “alternate universe” to help others or dying completely. He ended up choosing the latter, but not before he ended up saving everyone in the past accident. Colleen Goodwin was faced with the decision of keeping Stevens alive to help with future incidents where he could possible save millions of lives or respecting his wishes of wanting to die. She struggled with this, but ended up respecting his decision. He had already come through for them in the recent project. Dr. Rutledge was the man in charge of the Source Code project. He promised Stevens that they would let him die after the mission was complete. He then changed his mind after he saw that the Source Code did in fact work. Dr. Rutledge was not concerned with the feelings of Captain Stevens. He was most concerned with the effect that the Source Code project would have on his reputation and the rest of society as a whole. There were many different ways to choose here. Some of the choices were only looking out for themselves and others were looking out for lots of people. Who is right? I believe it depends on each individual situation and each person’s unique beliefs when the situation unfolds.