Critical Theory and Critical Genres †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Critical Theory and Critical Genres. Answer: Introduction: Ethical theories are able to play critical roles in explaining the ethical decision making. The ethical theories have been developed to explain what one or group of people takes to attain ethics in different situations (Waller, 2010). This paper will analyze the role of ethical decision making using two ethical theories. In order to achieve the result, the paper will use a case study of women who are experiencing violence perpetrated by their male partners. The theories also help to explain the thinking of the groups and support the decision making process. This group has to make key ethical decisions in order to address the issues facing them (Henning, 2015). In the process, the group has to control the emotions and reactions to ensure that they make ethical decisions. This paper will look at the role of the utilitarianism and deontology ethical theories management in influencing the decision making for the mentioned group (Cranmer Nhemachena, 2013). These theories will provide dif ferent suggestion on handling the violence situation and helping in achieving happiness. The utilitarianism theory states that fair choices must be implemented in ensuring that least amount of harm is achieved for different parties (Mill In Bailey, 2016). This theory states that the course of action taken does not matter and only the evaluation of the outcome is important. The decision is usually made in relation to the evaluated outcome and harm which will be caused in each of the decision taken. At the end, the decision with less harm will be considered ethical under this theory. Nevertheless, the cost of the action and decision does not matter when this theory is taken. This means that some unethical situation may be taken in the course of achieving the bigger benefit. The situation of women under violence of their male partners is bound to have different decisions which have different effects to all parties involved. The utilitarianism theory is able to help the women in analysing the situations and therefore able to influence the decision which they will take (Bykvist, 2010). For instance, divorce for the women is usually an option or even staying on the relationship for the sake of the children. In addition, the violence situations are at times worse and may permit the women to taking away the lives of the men to save themselves. All these option are viable decisions which the women can take. All these are solutions and according to utilitarianism theory, the final course of each decision is what will determine the decision to be taken. For instance, if the violence situation involves severe injuries which may lead to death, the utilitarianism theory may permit taking away the live of the man involved in the course of self defence. In addition, if the violence extends to the threatening of the lives of the children and woman involved, taking away the lives of the man to save the children and wo men will be permitted under this theory (Luppicini IGI Global, 2013)). The theory will consider that many lives were saved in the expense of one live, which will have a positive impact and benefit. Although an ethical deed may happen in the decision taken, the theory is more focused on the situation and impact under which the decision was made (Brandt, 2010). If the overall benefit of the action is more than the committed unethical deed, the theory holds that the unethical deed will have less impact. The action of killing the husband to protect the children and woman from violence which may lead to their death is permitted and acceptable. The status of the family without the man in the family will be considered as well. This means that the decision taken should lead to a happy end course for all the parties involved. In addition, the end result of the involved parties is a key consideration which is made when this theory is considered. The happiness for the whole family including the children will be highly considered when the decision is being made. Ethical decision will analyse the effect of the violence and contribution of each party to the happiness of the family (Milner Browitt, 2013). For instance, the violence may be triggered by some behaviour of the woman whereby even the children are being affected. In this sense, the violence will be permitted to correct the behaviour for the common good of the family management. The outcome of the action is important than the central positions and actions which may be taken. So if the woman has some key problems which leads violence the theory may permit continued violence as long as many of the family members are happy. What matters in this process is the benefits which will be achieved when certain course of actions are taken. In addition, due to violence, divorce is another key option which may be considered by the parties. Nevertheless, this theory will require key consideration of the outcome of the divorce decision (Riley, 2009). The theory will look at different aspects in this case which may include the happiness of the family and final financial situation. If for instance the divorce will lead to financial complication which may affect the wellbeing of the children and the family members, the theory will consider the decision as not fit to be taken. This is because the outcome of the decision is not leading to any happiness of wellbeing of the parties involved. The final outcome of the divorce situation therefore will require clear analysis (Huemer, 2008).). If the divorce affects the happiness and situation of the family members, then the theory will consider having the woman experiencing the violence than pursuing the divorce. Therefore this theory will play an important role on action which will be taken for the good of the family (Duncan, 2012). Ethical decision will be looking to make most of the family members happy and therefore the decision will depend on number of members who are happy when certain decisions are taken. The greater benefit of the situation is usually considered. Moreover, the utilitarianism theory is able to consider the outcome of the decision management. The ethical outcome and the one with greater benefit to many are usually considered in making the decision. The decision by the woman under violence will therefore be influenced by the major benefits which many of the family members will be able to enjoy. The outcome and benefits which the woman, man and children will be able to enjoy will form the basis of the ethical decision which has to be taken. In addition, another theory which can be considered in making ethical decisions is the deontology theory. This theory considers largely the consequences of key actions and believes of individuals (Darwall, 2003). Moreover, the ethical decision made should be able to conform to certain responsibilities and obligations. Moreover, under this theory, moral responsibility is able to surpass all other reasons. Therefore the decision made should be able to support the moral responsibility of the individuals regardless to what has to be done to achieve the moral responsibility. Nevertheless this theory is only limited to moral responsible situations where individuals have to adhere to certain responsibilities to attain their obligations placed upon them. The theory largely focuses on the end moral responsibility without focusing on the way which the intermediate decisions are taken (Griffiths, 2011). The intermediate decision may unethical but the final end is ethical. The end ethical produc t is what matters through this theory. Under the case of a woman who is violated by the man, the deontology will focus on the aim of the woman (Shafer-Landau, 2013). For instance, if the woman is holding on the man in order to feed the children, then it will be considered right for her to stick on the man who violates her in order to feed the children. Since it the moral right to have the children to acquire their basic needs, the theory will see no problem with the violence being experienced. It will focus largely on the end results which is moral responsibility to provide the basic needs to the children. The provision of the basic needs to the children if placed upon the woman will be considered ok if the man is the source of such needs (Melden, 2013). It will be therefore an ethical decision to ensure that the children have the required needs and not only considering at the means which the needs are being achieved. Therefore under this situation, the deontology theory will support the mans action of violence to the wom an. If it is the duty of the woman to provide to her children, then it will be considered that she can keep up with the male partner who violates her to ensure that she feed her children. The duty is therefore more important in this theory than the way it is being achieved. The deontology theory will focus on what need to be attained by the decision (Russell, Melberg Pluciennik, 2014). The woman therefore can be able to stick with the violence in order to attain some key responsibility. The decision on dealing with violence will depend on the moral responsibilities which may be attained by family due to the violence available. The theory will not largely focus on the violence but the different results and moral responsibilities being provided by the different parties. This theory can therefore be able to support the violence as long as the man is able to hold the moral responsibility to the family. The theory will therefore consider the womans leaving the marriage due to the violence as individual selfishness. The theory will focus on how large the man is able to honour the responsibility of feeding the family and what may happen if the man is not available. Societal rules are able to guide the position of the ethical decision which will be made. If the woman is sticking with the male partner to meet some key responsibilities, the violation being perpetuated will be lesser than the moral responsibility considered to be attained (Hooker, 2012). Therefore in this case, the woman can choose to stay with the male partner who violates her to meet the moral obligation impose to her. Although, it should be her moral responsibility to meet the needs, if it is imposed to her then she will have to forgo the violation and consider the moral responsibility at hand. Moreover, the theory considers that in order to act and make ethics decisions, people must be able to hold and observe different responsibilities and meet their obligations (Zaibert, 2016). In addition, the deontologists argue that the action process is not what makes something and decisions unethical but the motive of the person who carries out the decision. This means that in the case, if the motive of the man is to discipline the woman, then the violation is considered to be right as long as the end motive is ethical and right. It is the duty of the man to discipline the family and if the motive of the man is to discipline the woman, then the theory considers the action and decision for the violation as ethical. If the duty being attained is ethical and good, the course under which the duty is carried out does not matter. Therefore under this case, the theory will support the violence of the man if he needs to achieve proper discipline in the family due to some mistakes. Moreover, it has to be considered that the motive of the man is not to be violent but only disciplining the woman. In conclusion, it is clear that different ethical theories have different ways to attain ethical decisions. The utilitarianism theory holds that the course of action does not matter but the outcome which is achieved. If the violation of the woman is intended to create an ethical outcome, then the violation will be permitted under this theory. The benefits which are achieved at the end are considered more under the utilitarianism theory. In addition, the deontology theory is focused on moral responsibility which has to be attained. The theory states that the course of action does not matter as long as the moral obligation is held by the individual. Under this theory, the course of attaining the moral responsibility is not important as long as the obligation is met. The violation of the woman will be considered on what moral responsibility as to be attained in order to permit the action. References Brandt, R. B. (2010). Morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bykvist, K. (2010). Utilitarianism: A guide for the perplexed. London: Continuum. Cranmer, P., Nhemachena, J. (2013). Ethics for nurses: Theory and practice. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Darwall, S. L. (2003). Deontology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Duncan, A. (2012). The conceptual framework of quantum field theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffiths, M. (2011). Rethinking international relations theory. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Henning, T., (2015). From Choice to Chance? Saving People, Fairness, and Lotteries, Philosophical Review, 124: 169206. Hooker, B. (2012). Developing deontology new essays in ethical theory. Malden, MA, Wiley, Blackwell. Huemer, M. (2008). Ethical intuitionism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Luppicini, R., IGI Global. (2013). Moral, ethical, and social dilemmas in the age of technology: Theories and practice. Hershey, Pa: IGI Global (701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033, USA. Melden, A. (2013). Ethical Theories. Read Books Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.myilibrary.com?id=891687. Mill, J. S., In Bailey, A. (2016). Utilitarianism. Peterborough, Ontario : Broadview Press. Milner, A., Browitt, J. (2013). Contemporary Cultural Theory: An Introduction. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Riley, J. (2009). Liberal utilitarianism: Social choice theory and J.S. Mill's philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell, C., Melberg, A., Pluciennik, J. (2014). Critical Theory and Critical Genres: Contemporary Perspectives from Poland. Frankfurt, Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Retrieved from https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1710486. Shafer-Landau, R. (2013). Ethical theory: An anthology. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Waller, B. N. (2010). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman. Zaibert, L. (2016). The Theory and Practice of Ontology. London, Macmillan. Retrieved from https://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4753490.