Born A Crime – Understanding Access and Success

at
Categories
Tags

 

Upload your response here. What I want to see here is that you are exploring these ideas, and can offer some specific responses. There isn’t a right or wrong answer, but you’ll need to hit each element of this prompt to get credit. A couple of well-written, thoughtful paragraphs should suffice here.

After reviewing the module content and reading the accompanying articles, consider Noah’s reflection on his partnership with Andrew:

1.”People love to say, ‘Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.’ What they don’t say is, ‘And it would be nice if you gave him a fishing rod.’ That’s the part of the analogy that’s missing. Working with Andrew was the first time in my life I realized you need someone from the privileged world to come to you and say, ‘Okay, here’s what you need, and here’s how it works.’”

2.Within his reframing of the fishing analogy, where does Noah place the responsibility for equitable access to resources and opportunities?

3.Think back to your schooling or the lessons you received growing up. In those contexts, who was responsible for ensuring individuals had equitable access to resources and opportunities?

4.Reflect on a time in the past when you served as an “Andrew” to someone else. What opportunities or resources did you have to support that individual?

5.In the extended metaphor of the analogy that Noah references, a fishing rod represents a key piece of equipment that enables the individual in question to satisfy important needs in a relatively self-sufficient way (in this case, the need for sustenance, through fish). Think about a major issue in society which is of interest to you, and locate the “fishing rod” in that context. Make sure to explain why you have chosen that particular social issue.

 

Sample Solution

e used to justify the action, and it is the action itself and the motivation behind it which matter. In general, deontology requires people to behave with principles and duty. Principles are the laws that people apply to themselves and cannot be broken under any circumstances, and duties are the actions motivated by the principles. As an example, an individual’s principle could be not harming others whatsoever, therefore their duties are to restrain themselves from getting into fights with others. Principles are not the same as rules, for that rules are from others, but they do often work together. Deontology indicates that it is moral when people follow their principles all the time, and the action matter much more than the consequences caused by it. Gray and Schein (2012) have set an example that in the centre of deontology, lying should be despised whether it is for a good result or not. Corresponding to principles, duties are what people “ought to do” caused by pure heart instead of benefit. The reason for setting these laws, from famous deontologist Immanuel Kant’s point of view, is humans’ ability to set “ends” and requirements for ourselves is what separates us from other animals. He explained that by resisting temptation caused by our natural instinct, humans are set free from the pressure given by nature, therefore deontology could be called Kantian Ethics. If people give up on morality, there would be no difference between humans and animals who cannot reason. In brief, deontology suggests acting on proper reason motivated by principles, and if something is wrong, it should not be done in any situation.

With utilitarianism and deontology explained, now we can apply them to fictional scenarios. One kind of scenarios is moral dilemmas. These dilemmas are full of paradoxes, most include harm to one group of characters and one action could transfer the harm to another group. The most well-known moral dilemma is probably “The trolley problem”. In this story, a trolley that cannot be stopped is going to run over five people. The good news is, if someone pulls the brake, the track under would be switched to aside. Nevertheless, another person is tied on the track as well, if the person making decision wants to save five people, the redirected trolley would kill him. In general, is one life less valuable than five? For utilitarians, killing the one person does not seem to bother them. As mentioned before, utilitarianism is about maximising the happiness. Saving five lives would be more important for increasing pleasure overall. In Crockett’s (2016) explanation, “The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.” Although killing one person seems wrong, the consequence of saving 5 lives would make it moral in utilitarianism. In contrary, deontology insists for no matter what reason, performing murder is always immoral and against basic principles. Crockett (2016) stated that from deontological point of view, killing is simply wrong, even if it brings benefit.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer