PURCA, KAE DANICA V. MR.

ALBERT ARDIENTE
BET-EET-3

Instruction: Out of these topics, just choose (5) and make research. Elaborate your ideas and
justify your side.

Does moral behaviour lead to happiness?

To the ancient Greeks, happiness is the end goal of life. Virtuous behavior contributes to

moral excellence. Moral excellence can contribute to a happy life. being a moral person is

essential to living a life of happiness. A person achieves happiness by possessing the

dispositions or tendencies to make the right choice at the right time in the right way. Morality

applies to one’s personal beliefs and choices in life. Ethics is a set of rules that contribute to

leading a moral life. We can view ethical behavior as a pathway to achieve a moral life; hence, a

happy life.

We all face moral dilemmas in life. For Aristotle and Plato, the founding fathers of

virtue, we cannot use a general principle to determine the right course of action. Instead, we

need to look at what good and virtuous people would do, as these people would be able to

really understand a situation and see what is best to do.  While Happiness depends on

ourselves. Aristotle saw it as the central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. Aristotle

believed that a genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions,

including physical as well as mental well-being.

Moral behavior is key to the happiness of every person because it is the highest level

that a person can reach to say that we have a good life based on Plato. having a good life is
associated with being happy because it is really something we can only achieve if we have

moral behavior.

Today, what most people want from life is the realization of fulfillment of one’s talents

and potentialities, especially considered as a drive or need present in everyone. We seek to

fulfill our purpose in life. We devote time and effort to what Maslow called self-actualization,

the highest human need and one that leads to happiness. Self-actualization is a state in which

people are at their very best.

Why do many people pursue hedonistic lifestyles nowadays?

Hedonistic lifestyle is oriented towards pleasure and enjoyment. It is closely related to

happiness which is also oriented to meet the needs of individuals to obtain the satisfaction.

Based on psychological hedonism, in philosophical psychology, the view that all human action

is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has been espoused

by a variety of distinguished thinkers.

Because its defenders generally assume that agents are motivated only by the prospect

of their own pleasures and pains, psychological hedonism is a form of psychological egoism.

Psychological egoism is a broader notion, however, since one can hold that human actions are

exclusively self-interested without insisting that self-interest always reduces to matters of

pleasure and pain. As an empirical thesis about human motivation, psychological hedonism is

logically distinct from claims about the value of desires. It is thus distinct from axiological or
normative hedonism, the view that only pleasure has intrinsic value, and from ethical

hedonism, the view that pleasure-producing actions are morally right.

Hedonistic theories of conduct have been held from the earliest times. They have been

regularly misrepresented by their critics because of a simple misconception, namely, the

assumption that the pleasure upheld by the hedonist is necessarily purely physical in its origins.

This assumption is in most cases a complete perversion of the truth. Practically all hedonists

recognize the existence of pleasures derived from fame and reputation, from friendship and

sympathy, from knowledge and art. Most have urged that physical pleasures are not only last in

a day in themselves but also involve, either as prior conditions or as consequences, such pains

as to discount any greater intensity that they may have while they last.

The earliest and most extreme form of hedonism is that of the Cyrenaics as stated by

Aristippus, who argued that the goal of a good life should be the aware pleasure of the

moment. Since, as Protagoras maintained, knowledge is solely of momentary sensations, it is

useless to try to calculate future pleasures and to balance pains against them. The true art of

life is to crowd as much enjoyment as possible into each moment.

Euthanasia justified: would you kill a person for mercy?

Euthanasia was judged more justifiable for conditions associated with physical suffering

and negative impact on other people. The weight given to physical suffering and negative

impact on others in evaluation of justifiability of euthanasia also differed based on personal

characteristics. Its example is the movie Me Before You in 2016 where the Main character Will

Trayno has a perfect life after had a disease that he could no longer move his body after the

accident, Will decides to go through with his assisted suicide where there is a privilege and

rights the persons suffer from illness to decide for himself in the best possible way and with the

consent of the family. The euthanasia first used was on 1870, Samuel Williams first proposed

using anesthetics and morphine to intentionally end a patient's life. A mercy killing is the

intentional ending of life of a person who is suffering from a terminal, painful illness. The term–

also called “right to die”–is most often used to describe voluntary euthanasia, though it is also

used in reference to non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia would

release precious resources to treat people who could live. Family and friends would be spared

the pain of seeing their loved one suffer a long-drawn-out death. Society permits animals to be

put down as an act of kindness when they are suffering; the same treatment should be

available to humans.

For me it is not, especially in the religion I grew up with that only the lord has the right

and dictates the boundaries of our lives even at the lowest points of human life we still have no

right to kill it because we are not the creator, it is also in Devine commandments of God do not

kill that is why it is not a moral act. Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by

law. It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any

circumstances. Human life deserves exceptional security and protection.

 The Good Samaritan dilemma: why people don’t help strangers in the streets?

In 2 Corinthians 9:6-8, Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to

give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to

bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound

in every good work. The Samaritan’s dilemma is inherent in private charity too. A dilemma

arises generally because there is a positive relationship between the amount of work a person

will do and the financial rewards received from work. Stated differently, there is a trade-off for

the aid recipient between work (or income) and leisure. The man doesn’t help the people on

the street not because they are not Good Samaritan but they do not want to help in the way of

giving coins which may be a concession for them to be lazy but in a way that will make them

more profitable for a long time. They just want to make sure that their help goes in a

worthwhile way not because they are looking for return but because their energy to help others

don’t want to waste it. The idea that when presented with charity in some locations, a person

will act in one of two ways: using the charity to improve their situation, or coming to rely on

charity as a means of survival

It is much more difficult to cope with the Samaritan’s dilemma when low-income

problems are addressed through the political process. Moreover, this dilemma is endemic in

government programs to assist the poor. In short, in collectively assisting those less fortunate

through the government dole, the number of the poor increased because work incentives were

adversely affected. The Samaritan’s dilemma is not only about the detrimental effects help can

have on the beneficiaries. As James Buchanan explained in his 1975 essay, the dilemma is about
inequality, strategic courage, and individual responsibility. It was a means for Buchanan to show

how ethical courage matters to the promotion of equality.

Meaning dilemma is different from being good Samaritan how we want to understand it

in different ways but the same purpose is to help different understanding. it also affects the

saying "how can you help the needy if you yourself are also in need" so it is an act that is in

accordance with your will.

Is donating organs morally justified?

As Saint John tells us, “For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son,

that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) By

knowingly choosing the donations of one's bodily organs, one is acting as Christ would act—

giving life to humanity.

Committing to be an organ donor is a generous decision that can save the lives of up to

eight individuals, and even more if a donor can give corneas and tissue. Almost anyone,

regardless of age, race or gender, can become an organ and tissue donor, and there are no

costs to the person's family or estate.

Historically, we've treated organ donation as a heroic gift. But it is not heroic; it is a

duty. People should feel a strong obligation to donate organs and tissue unless they have a
powerful religious reason to oppose it. Doctors and nurses have an obligation to request organ

and tissue donation.

The ethical justification for the use of organs from living donors begins with a

consideration of the potential benefits, mainly to the recipient but also to the donor, balanced

against the risks to the donor, understood in terms of both the probability and the magnitude

of harm. Before a potential living organ donor makes the decision to donate, she or he needs to

have an accurate understanding of the risks and the potential benefits associated with the

donation.

In addition, the act of donation may result in some negative psychosocial consequences.

For example, lingering health problems could delay or prevent a return to work, and may create

difficulties in obtaining life, health, and disability insurance (Russo and Brown, 2003).

Furthermore, the donor may confront significant financial costs. These costs, which may be a

major disincentive to prospective donors, include lost wages as well as travel, lodging, and

other expenses. For these reasons, the federal government and transplantation organizations

have begun to take steps to make organ donation as financially neutral as possible.

Like all major religions, organ, eye and tissue donation and transplantation is

permissible within the Christian faith. Major Christian denominations also all agree that

donation is an act of love. No religion formally forbid donation or receipt of organs or is against

transplantation from living or deceased donors.