Categories for Critical thinking

Creativity in Critical Thinking Essay

Creativity in Critical Thinking Essay

In the health care profession, the skills, and abilities to think critically are an essential component of professional accountability and quality care. In order to manage the complexity of the work environment, and patient care issues, critical thinking will enable nurses think more effectively, and work through challenges to achieve the best possible results. There are many ways critical thinking can be used in nursing profession.

Critical thinkers in nursing, demonstrate habits of the mind include flexibility, creativity, inquisitiveness, intellectual integrity, intuition, open-mindedness, perseverance, and reflection to manage complex matters in the health care arena (Rubenfeld, Scheffer, 2010).

Nurses use creativity, one of the habits of mind in critical thinking to educate their patients. Example of Creative Thinking in Patient Education To provide safe care to the patients, nurses must utilize critical thinking abilities in the assessment of patient issues, the planning of care, and the implementation of care.

Careful examination of all the aspects of patient care helps the nurse to reach a better outcome imparting education for the patient.

When providing education or information to a patient, the nurses apply creative thinking, by using the counseling dialogues help the patient raise questions of why, how, and who. The nurses guide patients through identifying, and exploring the problem, consider the patient’s choices, choose a plan of action, and evaluate the results (Ranklin, 2005). For example, reducing falls in the inpatient unit.

Fall risk assessment is a key safety issue in many inpatients. Identifying the risk for fall on patient admission, and implementing measures and reevaluate the patient is essential to prevent falls on the unit. Moreover educating the patient and families is a necessary step in preventing patient falls. Evaluation of an Example of Creative Thinking The presented example is a way of creative thinking to impart education to the patients. Firstly, visual observation of the at-risk patients helps the staff, patients, and families to prevent falls.

Identification tools on the doors, at the bedside, yellow socks, and falls band on the arms enable the health care professionals to target implementation of fall prevention to the patients. The sign at the bedside which says, “Please call, do not fall”, and the bed alarm reminds the patients and their families that, they are at risk for falling. Participating communication with other health care personals regarding fall risk in a regular shift report, and creating visual cues in the patients’ rooms, alarm the nurses and other health care professionals to prevent patients getting harm from falling.

Justification of Creativity in Critical Thinking Creative thinking helps the nursing professionals identify biological, behavioral and environmental risk factors. Patient fall is preventable by implementing effective, and creative fall prevention programs, and thus help the patients live better. Creative thinkers must have knowledge of the clinical problem. They should have the ability of assessing the present problem, and be knowledgeable about the underlying cause, and be able to overcome the situation.

Creativity in critical thinking boosts the nurse’s ability to modify, and expand the existing knowledge in patient related situations. In creative thinking, health care professionals take initiative, examine strategies to use, and recognize the consequences of strategies, and make the decision. Creative thinking remains a key ingredient for individualized client care. In that nurse identifies the specific need of each patient, and makes interventions specific to those needs.

Without creative thinking, nursing care would become consistent and routine. There is a strong relationship between critical and creative thinking. In order to provide education to the needy clients, nurses’ needs to utilize critical intelligence and to be a critical thinker (Daniels, 2004). Hence, hospitalized patients need an individual assessment when educating them. It is important that, nurse must learn to utilize critical thinking skills natural way when providing care to the patients.

Creative Photography Essay

Creative Photography Essay

What are three examples of forms of music? One example of forms of music Describe each form. What is form in music? Critical Thinking Questions Music has sometimes been referred to as a “universal language. ” Why has this description been applied to music? Emotions are a common feeling shared among human beings. Music communicates so many things that everyone can understand without having to speak a word . It communicates love, frustration, hatred, war, friendship, commerce, marriage, separation, unity, confusion.

Music is referred to as a Universal language Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Yes I agree Why? Music is universal it provokes the same feelings no matter what kind or style it is music cultivates everyone’s inner feelings.

and thoughts Why is musical notation important? Musical nation is important What benefits do musicians and others receive from being able to write down and note aspects of a musical piece? In the first part of the module, we discussed how music is everywhere in society.

What are some of the ways that we use music? How do you use music in your own life? Music can help influence the mood or feeling in a place by the way in which it is played. What is a specific example of this that you have experienced? Discuss the experience (what was the song? how was it played? how did the mood/feeling change? ). For example, you might discuss an experience at a concert, religious service, or another place where music played a part in creating the mood.

Source Review for Text Essay

Source Review for Text Essay

In the article “Unleashing the power of the annual report at DTCC”, Goldstein (2005) points out the reason why communication opportunity and unique marketing should be seized. This article is related to the report of efficiently communicating of the annual report; however, it is not a useful source for its limited relevance and potential bias.

This article is about marketing process and communication. Goldstein (2005) argues that annual report cannot reach readers whatever in which form, online or printed, if the report is not modern.

In order to support this argument, Goldstein presents several advantages of annual reports. Annual report provides a chance to coherent forward-looking stories and to shows how to perceive a company. A company’s annual report is also the best opportunity to leave a deep impression to shareholders so that staffs can provide a “unique voice” to tell a clear and consistent story about the direction and increasingly diverse shareholder audience can be resonated with staffs.

There is potential bias on the part of the author, which is a decrease to the reliability of the source.

Base on his own experience and opinion, Goldstein (2005) makes his opinion subjective. Else, the author is a managing director of Depository Trust and Cleaning Corporations (DTCC); this reduces the reliability of the information since it can be viewed as a form of self-promotion.

The limitation is that the author puts himself in DTCC’s position, and it makes his opinion narrow. Although the author offers some suitable advice on making a better annual report, for instance, choosing a central theme and developing a secondary theme, etc. Most of the examples come from author’s personal experience, so there is not enough evidence to prove the author’s opinion.

Goldstein, S, 2005, “Unleashing the power of the annual report at DTCC”, Strategic Communication Management, Vol.9, Issue.3, P30-33.

Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay

Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay

The aim of this paper is to logically apply reason to assess the arguments for the legalization of marijuana, and by doing so point out flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper will assess the credibility and the source of these arguments, and present counter arguments to conclude that marijuana should not be a legal drug in California and the rest of the United States. First I will consider The National Organizations for the Reform of Marijuana Law’s “Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use” which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed.

Second I will consider the claim “that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner” and also consider the source of this claim. Third I will emphasize the negative social effects of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that given these factors, legalization of marijuana would be harmful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical benefits.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to have marijuana legalized in a taxable way as tobacco and alcohol currently are. This organization rationalizes it’s arguments with a document called the “Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use” in which is attempts to justify marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very title of the document is ambiguous, the word “responsible” is a very circumstantial term and is subject to many different interpretations.

Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial “code of ethics”, however we can evidently see with alcohol and tobacco that there is abuse regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what “responsible marijuana use” is ( 4 ); their first point is that marijuana is to be for adults only, and that it is irresponsible to provide marijuana to children. The terms “adults” and “children” again are ambiguous, it is not clear where the line is drawn between what defines an adult or a child.

This is a concern because many would assume a child is no longer a child after eighteen years of age, thus it can be determined that eighteen and over is considered a “responsible” user. It need not be said that current alcohol restrictions limit a user to twenty-one and over.

According to a 2005 Monitoring the Future Study, “three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and about two in every five 8th graders have consumed alcohol”( 5 ), with this evidence it would be wishful thinking to assume marijuana would be any different. To further consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 use marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that number would increase drastically.

Second the NORML’s “Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use” attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by claiming that if legalized responsible users will refrain from driving ( 4 ). Although an illegal drug, it is not surprising that there are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many states. California who just recently had a proposition for the legalization of marijuana has some of the most relevant statistics; there are various counties in California that have a 16% or higher marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to include the the amount of non fatal accidents that would occur annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and Alan Crancer projected that traffic fatalities would increase by as much as 300% with legalization ( 3 ).

Third NORML claims that “The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly”. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the individual to determine what set and setting is actually appropriate for usage. It could be assumed under this principle that its safe to use marijuana while caring for children, elderly, while driving, and also very relevantly while working. Forth NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will “resist abuse”. They define abuse by: “Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be.”

A clever statement however invalid and illogical. Drug abuse is defined as an uncontrollable urge for constant seeking of intoxicants ( 2 ). Many users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has destroyed their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the numbers of active addicts, and make marijuana readily available for them, and being legal, consequently restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done.

The final claim made by NORML is a “Respect for Rights of Others” in which they attempt to justify the fact that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. Again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many still cultivate marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with public and private use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause prefer the vagueness, in which there are no absolute lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalization and does not seem to give a valid or true pretense to satisfy desires.

The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that “marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner”. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical bill or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was made illegal by the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970 to stop the violence and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, like the Netherlands, and we have seen the damage drugs can have on society as a hole, like the dangerous drug cartels that rule Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization is Robert Lee.

Lee is president of “Oaksterdam University” a school that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem highly logical to acknowledge that this man is not interested in the social repercussions of legalization. His motive is clearly for the profit that can come from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school.

Another strong voice in pro-legalization is the company S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a dramatic increase in profit and sales due to the fact that they can open up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the research done, are interested in the negative and adverse affects of legalization and only interested in the lucrative value of legalization.

It is also important to analyze the negative social effects of marijuana on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. Recent proposition 19 in California stated that: “No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.” Basically stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ).

Proposition 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would loose billions of federal dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. Not only would government loose money but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as noteworthy as the social repercussions.

Marijuana is known to cause A-motivational syndrome, which is a depressed state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore “the gateway theory” blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. Lastly marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause cancer ( 3 ).

In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law’s definitions and reasoning for a “responsible legal” user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack sound reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that marijuana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claim’s motives are not sound in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the wrong idea of controlled use.

Together We Stand Outline Essay

Together We Stand Outline Essay

Suppose you live in a new suburban community that combines all the amenities and benefits of a tight-knit small community with the benefits of living close to the big city. Some years pass, and several children and adults in the community start developing extensive and similar illnesses. You think this is clearly not a case of genetics, and you become suspicious that something has gone wrong in the development planning and execution of your community. You start researching possible causes for the illnesses plaguing the community and, upon further investigation, find out that a company’s unsafe chemical-disposal practices may be to blame for the calamity.

You decide to notify your community of your findings so that everyone can unite in a fight for justice.

Create a detailed outline that you would use for composing the letter, which you intend to have published by your local newspaper, addressing your concerns about the community’s health. Address the following in your outline:

Describe the types of questions that you asked yourself to ensure that you used critical thinking in your research and analysis of the problem.

Explain what strategies you would have applied, if actually investigating the problem, to help foster critical thinking and to help lead you to the root cause of the illnesses. What assumptions did you have to be aware of to ensure that they did not interfere with your critical analysis of the situation? What fallacies did you encounter as you researched possible causes for the illness?

Cite any sources and references consistent with Associate Level Writing Style Handbook guidelines.

The Critique of Critical Thinking Essay

The Critique of Critical Thinking Essay

To think is already an achievement in itself, but to think critically is a lot better than settling with what one already know. To critically think enables the individual to explore new perspectives and world-views, contrary to a dogmatic stance on beliefs and thoughts. To think critically entails a deep and broader look into a subject or system of thought, that to expose an ideology is to not look on its only positive aspects but also to explore more on its adverse  and corresponding developments in that field.

A dogmatic world-view will limit the intellect into a specific area of advocacy or belief and it rejects any idea that is outside or alien to the existing thought. This often results in a backward progression of intellectual capability since there is no room for exploration of different ideas. In addition, a restrained or limited intellectual capacity to understand more things does not ultimately guarantee a real grasp of truth. But through critical thinking, there are many accounts and views that may help in achieving a clear understanding of the truth.

            In line with critical thinking is the ability to take into account other sentiments, world-views and opinions of different people and cultures, combining them into a synthesized argument. The main point of critical thinking is to necessarily limit the borders of thinking into a single belief but also reconsiders other individual’s own sentiments and formulating a new idea.

This also brings for an opportunity of discourse and not debate since in debate an idea must be defended rhetorically in order to prove its credibility. In discourse however, it consists of a discussion between different individuals with no use of any rhetoric method. The discussions are not limited to a side that would win but the main aim is to create or improve an idea or concept.

            In summary, to think critically enables the individual to consider other opinions other than the self.

Evaluating Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing Essay

Evaluating Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing Essay

This paper that I am writing on is a piece of paper; that is undeniable fact. Hundreds of years of development and definition also back up this statement as do any scientific experiments carried out upon it in an effort to prove that this piece of paper is indeed a piece of paper. Yet through reasoning the fact that this is a piece of paper can be disputed and even proved wrong. Reason seems like an excellent way to work out the world around us.

It uses all of the facts available to come up with a suitable hypothesis which can be tested and either proved or disproved through experimentation. This is the foundation of science, which is what the majority of people would trust. So anything proved through scientific means is therefore and irrefutable fact. Of course, in every experiment write up there is an acknowledgement that the data collected might not be completely accurate or that the interpretation of results might be wayward but again this is perfectly reasonable.

It is reasonable to assume that despite your best efforts you may have got the answer wrong and another answer, no matter how unlikely, may be correct.

As well as reason being proved by scientific experiment it can also be proved by historical fact. For example, it is undisputable fact that on 30th May 1431 Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. That cannot be argued with, it was that date and will always be that date no matter what happens in the future and every history text or website would agree with that fact. So it is therefore illogical to start claiming that Joan of Arc died last week as historical facts, which are perfectly reasonable, tell us otherwise. However, does reason really help us in our quest for knowledge or is it a poor way of finding out about the world? Despite much scientific investigation and historical knowledge there are many questions in the world that are left unanswered and unexplained. These questions are sometimes fundamental to life itself. For example, how are we conscious beings that can interact with the world beyond purely animal instincts? This question could possibly be explained by the electrical impulses in the brain that form our thoughts but how can we have developed into any kind society purely through electrical impulses? In this case, using reason to explain what is happening almost seems unreasonable as the potential answer seems not to be able to completely cover the question.

After all, if it is only electrical impulses, then what need is there for a person to be able to be able to create a symphony with an orchestra? As well as reason not being able to answer some questions there are some problems with following logical arguments. Logical fallacies are the main example of this. This is where through looking at two or more facts a conclusion is drawn which is false. For example: Cake is food, food is tasty, and therefore cake is tasty. However, this is obviously not true as whilst some cake may be tasty, perhaps even the majority; this does not mean to say that all cake is tasty. After all a burnt cake is not that tasty! Also not only is the conclusion false the two facts through which the conclusion is derived can also be said to be false. After all, any cake that I bake should not be classed as food and not all food is tasty.

This statement is far too general and is a large problem with logical fallacies as they generally come to a wrong conclusion, both through the ignorance of other factors as well as the fact that often the facts are not completely accurate in the first place. Lateral thinking is also something which at first seems illogical yet (often) in hindsight becomes logical. It is creative thinking which does not merely follow the most logical steps to reach an answer. For example a suggested solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East was to ship vast amounts of Marmite to the area. This seems utterly senseless, as surely holding talks and making agreements between the two sides would be the best steps forward. However, on examining the idea further it becomes logical, if creative! In the typical diet of people in the Middle Eastern area there is a lack of zinc due to the main diet of unleavened bread. This lack of zinc creates aggression.

Marmite contains a lot of zinc and therefore could be used to solve the problem in the Middle East. Whilst this solution does not seem reasonable it would work and so shows that reason is not always the best policy. There is also a difference in opinion between what people may think is logical and illogical. Many people in the world take illogical decisions and believe illogical knowledge. Or they seem to do so. Religion is a major factor in many people’s lives and it affects many of the things that they think and do. Due to this people may make a decision that seems illogical to secular people which is perfectly logical to religious people. This brings up the question of; what is reason? After all if two different decisions about the same thing are made and are both reasonable to those people it begs the question of whether or not reason itself can be defined. Is reason just a matter of opinion or is there a yardstick by which all reasonable decisions can be made.

If we look back at the British Empire one of the purposes of that was to; “Make the world England” rather then to respect what other cultures thought and did. In many small islands in the Far East a warrior culture was common and often tribes would fight each other for prestige rather then for anything else. However, to the British this seemed barbaric, yet without it the culture fell apart. For them it was reasonable for this to take place, the knowledge they had seemed to point to the fact that this was a good thing. But not for the British who had a very different opinion through the knowledge that they had acquired. To conclude reason as a way of knowing has both strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses are that a difference of opinion means that people will reason differently too making it an irregular method of making decisions and acquiring knowledge. Reason may also not be the best policy as more creative solutions may be better which can be derived through lateral thinking.

Also logical fallacies call into question the validity of reason as they produce false results through logical steps. As well as this we cannot answer some fundamental questions through reason. However, reason is often the best way that we can make decisions in the world. Scientific experiment and historical knowledge are two very good examples of how reason cannot be changed and is therefore very valuable as it allows us to have consistency with our knowledge. Of course religion means that some inconsistency comes into play with our knowledge but on the whole reason is often the best policy.

Thought and Thinker Essay

Thought and Thinker Essay

• What is critical thinking?

• What are the three most significant things that you learned about critical thinking during this class?

• How has your critical thinking changed since starting this course?

• Reevaluate your stage of development in critical thinking and why you placed yourself in that stage. If your rating has changed since Week One, explain why you think this change occurred.

• How do you plan to move yourself from your current stage of development in critical thinking to the stage of master thinker?

Format your paper consistent with Associate Level Writing Style Handbook guidelines.

According to Ruggiero (2012), thinking is any mental activity that helps formulate or solve a problem, make a decision, or fulfill a desire to understand. Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analysis of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs (Kurland, 2000). From the definitions, we see that there is a big difference between thinking and critically thinking.

As human beings we think all day, every day. We think about what we are going to wear in the morning, what task we have to complete at work, what we have to do after work, and even what we have to do the next day. When you are critically thinking, you are analyzing and breaking things down. For instance, when someone presents an idea to you at work. When that idea is presenting to you, you immediately begin to dissect the idea; how it will benefit, what is the systematics, what will it take to get the idea approved, etc.

The three most significant things that I have learned about critical thinking during this class are the kind of thinker I am, the steps to take to not let my habits hinder my thinking and telling the difference between an issue and a problem. The beginning of the class was an eye-opener to me. Since I had taken the CAP class at my previous education institution, I never thought about what kind of thinker I was. This class has made me see that I am still a beginner thinker; trying to improve without regular practice (Ruggiero, 2012). Chapter three taught me many things about myself also. There were things that I knew I did out of habit but did not know that sometimes my habits hinder my thinking capabilities. I never took the time to distinguish the difference between an issue and a problem.

After going through week 5, I learned that they are both different although they go hand in hand. My critical thinking has changed since starting this class because now I am able to understand the importance of critical thinking and how to use it appropriately. The stage of development that I placed myself in at the beginning of this course has changed slightly. I went from a “beginner thinker” to a “practicing thinker”.

This change has occurred because I went from trying to improve without regular practice to acknowledging the practices and including them in my daily critical thinking. I plan to more myself from being a “practicing thinker” to a “master thinker” by using all my skills acquired from the practices and involving them in my everyday thinking. I am thankful that I had the opportunity to participate in Humanities/111. With the skills and practices that I have learned in this course, I am able to work more efficient in my upcoming courses.


Kurland, D. (2000). What is Critical Thinking?. On Retrieved from
Ruggiero, V. (2012). In The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought, Tenth Edition, Chapter 1 and 3.

You may also be interested in the following: beginning thinker

Critical thinking Essay

Critical thinking Essay

Utilitarianists are often persecuted for holding a morality in which the end always justifies the means, no matter how repulsive it may be to intuitional moral standards. Hare attempts to quiet controversy by combining act and rule utilitarianism in daily life in such a way that internal moral standards are satisfied and overall good is promoted. Kymlicka stays firm in his opposition to Hare’s theories and shuns the idea of consequentialism having intrinsic value greater than that of intuitive moral standards.

Hare’s process of critical thinking combined with intuitionism leads to a flawless conclusion based on systematic procedure that will benefit the most people in the long term even against Kymlicka’s well thought out arguments. Kymlicka thinks that utilitarianism bypasses immediate obligations that should be fulfilled. He believes that utilitarianists’ foresight actually hinders their ability to do what is “right” or “just” in the present.

He also believes that utilitarianism gives too much weight to illegitimate preferences, meaning that utilitarianists can often choose to do the worse option in consideration in order to satiate a desire for immoral happiness.

In the specific case that he puts forward, Kymlicka uses the simple example of an everyday action in which a loan is given to him and he faces the moral dilemma of whether or not he should repay it. He believes that the utilitarianist might keep the money or give it away rather than repaying it if he thought that it would produce the most good in the end to himself or some other party.

One may argue that by loaning out money it is consensual and therefore cannot be categorized as theft when the amount is not repaid. However, the loan was made with the qualification and equal understanding that the money would be repaid. Since Kymlicka uses the term “loan,” he is very much aware that he has the obligation to pay the money back. This may be called breaking a promise as well as theft, so it is doubly breaking a moral standard. Herein lays Kymlicka’s problem with utilitarianism and its criteria of morality. Phil 434 First Writing Assignment 1.

Due Mon. Sep 13 Hare believes that there are two levels to moral thinking – critical and intuitive. Critical thinking is systematic and calculated while intuitive thinking is vaguer and based on feelings rather than a systematic procedure. It is said that each person starts at the intuitive level and then progresses to the critical level with age and maturity in understanding. He uses the example of two beings from opposite ends of the spectrum to show what one must be to think purely critically or intuitively – an archangel and a prole.

The archangel has no human flaws thus can think critically all the time, and a prole has human flaws to an extreme degree thus must rely on intuitive thinking all the time. Consequentialism is the major theme of critical thinking, which aims to promote the most good to the most people in the end. He postulates, however, that since the human condition is flawed and cannot predict with certainty and without bias what is best in the long run, intuition must be used.

Where intuition comes from is a controversial subject – but most believe that upbringing and environment have a strong effect on it and therefore may be tampered with. Since both levels have the possibility to be flawed, they must be used in conjunction. Vacillating between the two is the only way to make good moral decisions throughout one’s entire life. It can be argued that the two levels agree many times in normal day-to-day cases since there is a commonality to moral thinking, such as the law of non-maleficence.

Both place in high respect accomplishing what is “good,” but both have different criteria as to what qualifies – namely what promotes the most good versus what you intuitively know to be the right thing to do. According to the utilitarianist, in a perfect world, critical thinking would be used all the time. Since humans have limits, however, Hare allows and even encourages intuitionism to be used and used often even though he views critical thinking to be superior. One cannot expect to sever himself of all emotion and possess the capability to see the exact outcomes of all possible Phil 434 First Writing Assignment 2.

Kantianism Essay

Kantianism Essay

The thought of justifying means rather than ends seems to be more ethical in the long run, even if not more productive. As an officer we have trouble in this way of thinking for two reasons. First, we are in a profession in which our ends are what matters. We must produce the results that are needed, when they are needed, or we have failed to perform our duties. This means we have let down those in charge of us, as well as those whom we lead.

Second, our means of doing things are also very important.

We as officers must be moral in our decisions, for if we aren’t then we also fail to do our jobs. If we go about achieving a good end through bad means then we are no better than our enemies. Maxims are rules of law that we apply in our decision making to be considered rules of the Universe as a way of deciding if our actions are moral or immoral.

One example of a maxim would be “I can use rob a bank or take money from people for financial gain”. When applying Kant’s rules we test it first to see if it can be generalized.

This would end up as “anyone can use force to get what they want. This would not make sense in the long run because if everyone used force to get what they want then the world would be anarchic and full of chaos. Another example of a maxim would be “I won’t help this drowning person because they probably won’t pay me. ” It almost makes sense to do this as doing something for little gain sometimes seems useless. However; if this were to be applied as a general rule then no one would ever get help unless the Samaritan deemed it profitable to them. Both of these show how decision making in Kantianism is the key factor in deciding what to do.

There are both good and bad sides to Kantianism. First, as stated previously, we need to do things based on moral reasoning and not just end results. We can’t be officers who can go to the limit of Utilitarianism and allow for things such as an Omelas society. We do need to consider the good of the whole but we must do things that are moral by reason. We need to rationalize why and how we perform so that we can lead the way we’re supposed to. Kantianism is a good means for this and will allow officers to not only have good ends, but a good means of achieving them.