II. Argument
a. Preliminary Argument (Opinionated)
It is considered as inappropriate for a teacher to be involved in this issue, to have an affair with their students. In my moral view, this is not accepted in the society. As a mentor of good moral, you must be the one to lead to the betterment or improvement of students or the majority. And not only to satisfy yourself, but to the also the others specifically the students.
b. Counter Argument (Theoretical)
i. “They believe in feelings over reason and legality, and they place pleasure over professionalism”.
We can actually say that a teacher and student relationship is believed to bad as a moral judgment of the society,but it’s not ethical to deprive a person from that pleasure. He might …show more content…
Final Argument (Theoretical)
There is a philosophical view or theory, about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face, called the Utilitarian. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
If we talk about the majority and society, self-interest will become a problem. People often need to judge what is best not only for themselves or other individuals, but also what is best for groups, such as friends, families, religious groups, one’s country, etc. Because Bentham and other utilitarians were interested in political groups and public policies, they often focused on discovering which actions and policies would maximize the well-being of the relevant group. Their method for determining the well-being of a group involved adding up the benefits and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one action or policy. The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its
a. Preliminary Argument (Opinionated)
It is considered as inappropriate for a teacher to be involved in this issue, to have an affair with their students. In my moral view, this is not accepted in the society. As a mentor of good moral, you must be the one to lead to the betterment or improvement of students or the majority. And not only to satisfy yourself, but to the also the others specifically the students.
b. Counter Argument (Theoretical)
i. “They believe in feelings over reason and legality, and they place pleasure over professionalism”.
We can actually say that a teacher and student relationship is believed to bad as a moral judgment of the society,but it’s not ethical to deprive a person from that pleasure. He might …show more content…
Final Argument (Theoretical)
There is a philosophical view or theory, about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face, called the Utilitarian. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
If we talk about the majority and society, self-interest will become a problem. People often need to judge what is best not only for themselves or other individuals, but also what is best for groups, such as friends, families, religious groups, one’s country, etc. Because Bentham and other utilitarians were interested in political groups and public policies, they often focused on discovering which actions and policies would maximize the well-being of the relevant group. Their method for determining the well-being of a group involved adding up the benefits and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one action or policy. The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its