Moral_Issue

GROUP A The columnist signed an employment contract with this newspaper chain and worked there for several months before breaking her contract and pursing an employment with another newspaper chain. Is this is a case of right versus wrong and did she behave ethically' According to Carlos Rogers one becomes a person, by self-affirmation rather than self-evaluation or self-criticism. We must first satisfy our needs and desire and should not be concerned with the standard behavior of society (Ruggiero, 2012). The columnist made her decision based on the teaching of Carlos Rogers and she has to satisfy her need and what’s best for her life. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, what I feel is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong (Ruggiero, 2012). The columnist choose to follow the Jean-Jacques Rousseau philosophy as well by doing what you feel is right for you. We can say that the columnist is ambitious and driven who saw an opportunity to make more money and followed her feeling. Is she ethically wrong' In my opinion no, because Moral relativism states that it is common today to believe that decisions about right and wrong are on personal beliefs. The columnist is the only person who knows whether she made the right or wrong decision by breaking her contract. The employer believed that they were wronged by this columnist who used them to gain a better job and high compensation with another company. The employer did not break their end of deal, and they could also use the Moral relativism (Ruggiero, 2012) motto as well and do what’s best for them. For instance, the employer did not find another columnist who was willing to do the same work as the current columnist for a lower compensation and break their end of the contract. The columnist would not be delighted if the employer acted in their best interest and replace her with a lower paying columnist to do her job. I think both Augustine and Aquinas would applaud her for following her virtue and doing what is right for her as an individual. Aquinas believed that we all have to find something in everyday rational that will help us to come to the best conclusion for one’s self and that is what the columnist did. Her one big reason was that she wanted to make more money and that was her reason for breaking her contract. The pilot only has a month to go before he is eligible for retirement. The doctor knows this and wonders whether, under these unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding the information about the pilot's condition. My response to this from a moral choice, I would think the doctor was right and wrong in disguising pertinent information about his patient medical condition from him. The doctor from her assessment thought it is an innocent heart murmur and that his patient has a month from retirement and she thought by disguising this information she was doing a moral thing. The heart murmur does not inhibit the pilot from performing his jobs and puts no restraints on his life. We can say that what the doctor diagnosed was an innocent murmur that will never affect him in any way. If this is the case with this pilot then the doctor is warranted in suppressing the information about his condition. However, if the doctor diagnosed an abnormal murmur then she is wrong in suppressing the information which not only affects the pilot’s health but also all the well-being of the passengers as well. Dr. Samuel Johnson explained that feelings are not a reliable guide in moral matters (Ruggiero, 2012). If I were to access this situation with Dr. Johnson’s tendency then the doctor made a wrong decision by not the telling his patient about heart murmur whether it was innocent or abnormal murmur that she found on his last check-up. The doctor used the feeling’s approach for not telling his patient about the heart murmur as the patient’s doctor she knows his medical history and after discovering the heart murmur during the recent check-up it was not alarming and not a cause for concern. The pilot has a month left to retire and he was not going to doing any further harm to his recent health ailment and wanted the pilot to retire with less stress and worry. Augustine and Aquinas would not agree with the method the doctor is thinking about taking with the pilot health condition. One reason is because this matter does not affect him personally nor is his virtue. Though the doctor is trying to do a good endeavor and allow the pilot to enjoy the few weeks before his retirement worry and care free, but she is also doing him a disfavor by not giving him the option to make the choice of whether he wants to retire now or continue working till his retirement time. Ethically the doctor has to follow the law and communicate any findings and diagnosis to their patient so they can come to a position in dealing with the symptoms and treatment of their diagnosis. References Ruggiero, V. (2012). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill.