Weekly reflection

Description

That original assignment included the following paragraph: Parts of the Assignment. You should: (a) describe the decision; (b) explain why you identified the decision as having a moral dimension; and (c) either explain how the decision maker achieved an ethical outcome (if he or she did) or explain how and why the decision maker failed to achieve an ethical outcome. Please be sure you address all three parts of the assignment—dividing your text into paragraphs might help you to be sure you didn’t omit part of the assignment. I want to say a bit more about part “c.” Now that you have the Ethical Lifestyle Model you should be able think more carefully about how a decision either derails or doesn’t—that is, to fit your example into the ELM. When you are describing an unethical outcome (whether by you, by someone you know, or by a public figure such as a politician or a business executive), try to figure out where the person got derailed (Awareness, Judgment, Intention, Action, or Reflection) and explain to the reader why you have identified that specific component as the point of derailment. When you are describing an ethical outcome, ask yourself a different question, as follows: At what point did the decider come closest to derailing? (Or, perhaps, at what point was the decider most tempted to derail?) It may be that—with either an unethical or an ethical outcome—you will decide that you need to discuss more than one derailment location (Awareness, Judgment, Intent, Action, Reflection). You can do that. But it will help you to better understand the ELM if you begin by trying to find the one component where derailment occurred (or was a possibility)