Ethical motives Of A Cheater Essay, Research PaperDeceivers Never Win, Oh delay they do they re DeceiversCheat is defined in the dictionary as, to lead on by hocus-pocus ; swindle, nevertheless the dictionary fails to state you if it is right or incorrect to rip off. Peoples have many different beliefs when it comes to rip offing ; some think its mulct to make while others wholly disapprove. I intend to demo the different beliefs, from different positions of people, and besides intend on turn outing which beliefs have the strongest and weakest statements.An ethical egotist could reason that we have an duty to rip off. Ethical egotists maintain the belief that we should move egotistically. We should make things that we believe in our opportunism, which is our ain echt involvement. Egoist would rip off to profit themselves, they believe that their ain involvement receives much more weight than everyone else s involvement.
Egoist realize that we are entirely responsible for their ain lives, hence if rip offing would profit their lives so rip offing is acceptable. If we did non rip off it would convey possible bad luck to our lives.However, it could besides be argued by ethical egotist that we do non hold an duty to rip off. Egoist would hold that morality is about get the better ofing our selfishness and populating our life with positive concern for the well being of others. Cheating is non looking at the well being of others, but instead making the complete antonym.
Unless everyone in the state had the replies to the trial, so it would be considered good to rip off. Ethical egotist besides like to believe of themselves as good people, therefore they would desire others to see them in the same manner. A deceiver would non be regarded as a good individual but instead, a bad individual and a prevaricator.A useful would likely hold with cheating.
Utilitarianism believes that ethical motives are based on the felicity or wretchedness of people. If a individual cheated and got an Angstrom on the trial, they would evidently be happy. Utilitarians besides have the inclination to look at the short-run affects of a state of affairs.
For illustration, rip offing would ensue in an A, nevertheless the wide position is that nil would be fiftyearned, or if they were to acquire caught rip offing they would neglect, hence in actuality they are non profiting at all.Deontology on the other manus would reason that you should non rip off. Deontology assumes that we all have clear sets of responsibilities that we ought to obey, these are given to us from God or our ain ground. Therefore cheating is evidently incorrect, so you ought non to rip off. Deontology believes that you have a set of responsibilities that you follow.
In deontological moralss, an action is considered morally good because of some feature of the action itself, non because the consequence of the action is good.Of the three attacks to moralss that are mentioned above I think that the egotists support of rip offing makes the best statement. Although, I personally do non believe in rip offing I do believe that egotist do warrant the act of rip offing. Egotists feel that we should set our egos before all others and that we should make what makes us happy. They feel that whatever will profit us most will in bend make us happier.
I think the comparing of the strongest statement brings out the failings in the other two statements. I feel that utilitarianism does non hold as strong of an statement for cheating, because they do non look at the full state of affairs and besides they are interested in the felicity of themselves, rip offing is non needfully ever traveling to do you happy. I believe that deontology has the weakest statement, they live by what you ought to make.
They base all their determinations on God or ethical motives that they were taught, they do non believe on their ain ; they are told of their responsibilities. It seems to me that deontology is about robotic in a sense. These two statements seem to concrete for people to really keep.I do non believe that any of the attacks to moralss would state that you had an duty to rip off, but instead they explain their logical thinking for why it would be acceptable to rip off.
All three of these attacks have strengths and failings, I believe that egoist do the strongest statement, while deontology makes the weakest. However, it is genuinely up to the person and their beliefs to make up one’s mind whether cheating is obliged or non.