Reaction to three situations and identifies the consequences of the actions taken

The paper responds to three situations, explains the results of the actions, determines whether the actions serve the larger good, and identifies those who stand to gain from them. Notably, a choice is made regarding whether the outcomes morally support the choices and actions made in the three scenarios. Last but not least, Locke’s approach to the issues he encountered is discussed, along with any potential differences or similarities between his solution and mine.

In the first case, the mayor’s actions in accepting favors from local company owners and investors who might invest in the community could jeopardize his career in the future. Such business people can take advantage of the advances they make towards the mayor to blackmail him. The friendship they develop can be used as a channel to propagate corruption. In most cases where graft is witnessed especially in the political arena, friendship and favors contribute to the larger extent. There is no way potential investors in a city can befriend the mayor and expect nothing in return. Therefore, such connections are a potential threat to the city and to other investors who are not friends with the mayor (Kahneman, n.d. 10). The action of the mayor accepting favors from people who can be harmful to his career does not represent the greater good. The potential investors and the individuals who have received several city contracts are the ones who have the likely hood of benefiting from the good. The consequences of the mayor’s act do not justify the decisions and actions of taking favors from investors in the city. Such special treatments amount to bribery and can even result to the mayor losing his job. The mayor could have declined the offers since he is in a position to afford the services. He is a civil servant and had enough money to pay for his luxurious life (Locke & Higgins-Biddle, 1999). Therefore, if Locke was the mayor, he could have rejected the advancements and grant tenders to the deserving investors and not by friendship. According to Locke liberal thinking, I could have made the same decision he made.

In the second problem, to begin with, it is unlawful for the instructor to give the same lectures, assignments, and examinations without making the slightest effort to improve them. The reason is that there is a syllabus to be followed that should ensure progress in the academic arena. The consequences of the instructor’s actions include failure of the students in the final examinations. Also, the student’s will not grow academically due to the selfishness of the instructor. The instructor will benefit from the action since she will excel in her academics at the expense of her students. The consequences do not ethically justify the actions and decisions of the instructor since they are selfish. The irony of the trainers’ decision to feed her students the same content over several semesters since she is also a student and she wants to excel. She could have balanced her time between her academic obligation and her career. Locke could have resigned from the teaching job and concentrate on his academics and then get back to teaching afterward. Logic reasoning allows a person to think about the consequences if his actions. My reasoning could have been the same as that of Locke since it is the most logic thing to do.

In the last problem, the decision made by Todd and Edna is not wise since they could have dealt with their personal issues before deciding to give birth. The consequences of their decision will include the suffering of the child since the mother will be a drunkard who will not be able to take care of the child. On the other hand, the husband will not be able to financially support his family due to his inability to keep his job. Their action to have a baby does not represent the greater good of the child and to the parents and none of them will benefit from the good. The consequences of their action do not ethically justify their decision. Locke could have dealt with his personal problems first and then consider having a baby with his wife. His ethics and the answer he may have given are the same as mine since a liberal, and rational thinking cannot allow a person to make the decision the couple took.

References

Locke, J. & Higgins-Biddle, J. (1999). The reasonableness of Christianity (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.).