CASE STUDY

Case Study

Case Study

Introduction

Ethical reasoning is a form of practical reasoning wherein one attempts to give or find reasons for morally approving or disapproving actions. All reasoning involves premises that lead to a conclusion. A premise is a judgment, expressible in a statement, which contains two elements. The first is the subject, and the second is what logicians call a predicate. The predicate is what is asserted about the subject. There are two types of reasoning, practical and theoretical, and they each have their own characteristics. This paper reviews two comprehensive models of ethical reasoning, such as Utilitarianism, Wallace's Ethical Contextualism and Kant's Formalism and applies these two reasoning to the case study provided in a concise and comprehensive way.

Wallace's Ethical Contextualism and Kant's Formalism

In the context of ethical reasoning I will say that ethics is a systematic and critical analysis of morality, moral of the factors that guide human conduct in a given practice or company. As fishing is an interaction between humans and the aquatic ecosystem, the ethics of fishing refers to values, rules, duties and virtues relevant to well-being and the ecosystem, providing a critical policy analysis of the moral issues at stake in this sector of human activity.

The mother in the case provided must know that Wallace's Contextualism is a philosophical perspective about the way the world works. Clarity about the goals of analysis is critical to contextualists because goals specify how a pragmatic truth criterion can be applied. There are two broad categories of contextualism in psychology (Gifford & Hayes, 1999). Descriptive contextualists seek a personal understanding of the participants in the whole event. Psychologists of this kind see psychological science as a field that is similar to history. Wallace seeks the prediction and influence of events as a single, integrated goal. Psychologists of this kind see psychological science as a pragmatic experimental field. Behavior analysis is an example.

Understanding the contextualistic nature of certain approaches helps make sense of features that would otherwise be mere dogmatism. For example, the “environmentalism” of behavior analysis is a direct result of its goals and pragmatic philosophy. Verbal analyses generate rules for people, not rules for the world (Gifford & Hayes, 1999). Scientists who seek to predict and influence psychological events must have rules that start with in the environment because that is where the scientists (the rule followers) are with regard to the behavior of others. Thus, factors are sought that are external to the behavior of the individual being studied and are manipulable, at least in principle. Only variables of this kind could lead directly to behavioral influence as an outcome.

Contextualism is usually contrasted in behavioral psychology with mechanism. In mechanism, parts are primary, not the whole, and the goal is a comprehensive predictive model of the parts, relations, and forces that together make up the “machinery” of human beings. Computer-based information processing models or their antecedent, S-R (stimulus-response) psychology, are examples. Because of their divergent analytic units and purposes, disagreements between contextualists and mechanists are difficult, or ...