Moral Responsibility 2 PDF

Moral Responsibility 2 Moral Responsibiliy 2 Lesson Outline: Elements & Mitigating Factors Diffrences of Talbert & Frankfurt Theries of Moral responsibility Case Studies  1. Juvenile Offenders: When a young person commits a crime, their age and developmental stage can serve...

Moral Responsibility 2 Moral Responsibiliy 2 Lesson Outline: Elements & Mitigating Factors Diffrences of Talbert & Frankfurt Theries of Moral responsibility Case Studies  1. Juvenile Offenders: When a young person commits a crime, their age and developmental stage can serve as mitigating factors. Research shows that adolescents often lack the maturity and impulse control of adults, which can affect their decision-making. Courts may take this into account, leading to reduced sentences or alternative rehabilitation options rather than  2. Mental Illness: An individual suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of committing a crime may have diminished capacity to understand the nature of their actions. In such cases, the presence of a diagnosed mental disorder can be a mitigating factor during sentencing, potentially resulting in treatment rather than incarceration. This acknowledges the impact of their condition on 3. Coercion and Duress: If a person commits an act under threats or coercion, their moral responsibility can be significantly diminished. For example, if someone is forced to commit a crime against their will due to the threat of harm to themselves or their loved ones, this duress can serve as a mitigating factor. Courts may view this as a lack of true voluntary action, which can lead to lesser  4. Lack of Intent Description: If an individual did not intend to cause harm or commit a crime, this lack of intent can be a mitigating factor. This can apply in cases of accidents or misunderstandings.  5. Cultural and Societal Influences Description: Cultural background and societal pressures can influence behavior, potentially mitigating moral responsibility. Individuals may act based on cultural norms that differ from the mainstream. Research on concrete and real cases following the 3 mitigating factors (For those who are not able to portray character)  1. How do Talbert and Frankfurt's theories of moral responsibility differ in their emphasis on intention and control? 2. Do individuals have a moral responsibility to act in accordance with societal norms and values, or should moral responsibility be determined on an 3. Can individuals be held morally responsible for actions that are the result of external influences or personal circumstances beyond their control? 4. How do conscience and moral reasoning play a role in guiding individuals towards ethical behavior and fulfilling their moral 5. What implications do Talbert and Frankfurt's theories have for the legal system's understanding of moral responsibility and accountability?  Scenario 1: Drunk Driving Accident John, a licensed driver, gets drunk at a party and decides to drive home. On his way, he loses control of the vehicle and hits a pedestrian, causing severe injuries.  Scenario 2: Unintended Consequences of a Medication A doctor prescribes a medication to a patient, following standard medical procedures. However, the patient experiences a rare and unforeseen allergic reaction, resulting in  Talbert argues that individuals have moral responsibilities based on their intentions, actions, and decisions. This means that individuals are morally accountable for their thoughts, motivations, and behaviors, as well as the outcomes or  Intentions refer to the underlying motives or reasons behind an individual's actions. Talbert emphasizes that moral responsibility is not just about the outward behavior or actions of an individual, but also about the internal intentions  For example, if someone performs a seemingly good deed but does so with malicious intent, they may still be considered morally responsible for their actions. Actions encompass the concrete behaviors and choices that individuals make in various situations. Talbert suggests that individuals are responsible for the actions they choose to take, as these actions have real-world  For example, if someone chooses to steal from a store, they are responsible for the act of stealing and the harm caused to the store owner.  For example, if someone chooses to steal from a store, they are responsible for the act of stealing and the harm caused to the store owner.  Decisions refer to the process of making choices and taking responsibility for the outcomes of those choices. Talbert argues that individuals have the power to make moral decisions and should be held accountable for the consequences of those  For instance, if an individual decides to drive under the influence of alcohol and causes an accident, they are responsible for the decision to drink and drive and the harm  Furthermore, Talbert emphasizes the role of conscience and moral reasoning in guiding individuals towards ethical behavior. He suggests that individuals should strive to act in accordance with their ethical beliefs and values in order to fulfill their moral Overall, Talbert's perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of intentions, actions, and decisions in shaping an individual's moral responsibility. By considering these factors, individuals can better understand their ethical obligations and strive to act  On the other hand, Frankfurt (1969) presents a different perspective on moral responsibility in his essay "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility." Frankfurt argues that individuals can be morally responsible for their actions even if they do not have alternative possibilities.  He introduces the concept of "hierarchical control," which suggests that individuals can be held morally responsible for their actions if they have the ability to reflect on and control their decisions.  Frankfurt's theory challenges the traditional idea that individuals must have alternative options in order to be morally responsible. He suggests that moral responsibility is a complex concept that involves individual agency and control over one's  Examples: 1. A person decides to cheat on a test in order to get a good grade. Despite knowing that cheating is unethical, they prioritize their own interests over moral considerations. 2. A government official accepts a bribe in exchange for favorable treatment towards a business. The official's actions result in  3. A company pollutes a local river in order to cut costs and increase profits. The company prioritizes financial gain over ethical concerns for the environment. 4. A teacher plagiarizes a student's work in order to publish it as their own. The teacher's actions violate  5. A parent neglects their child's needs and well-being, resulting in harm and neglect. The parent fails to fulfill their moral responsibilities towards their child. THANK YOU!