Scandalous Obligation: Rethinking Christian Responsibility Analysis

According to Downing, author of On Course, when it comes to personal responsibility, there are two ends of the spectrum: creator and victim. A creator is someone who believes they have the sole responsibility for the outcome of their life, they understand that their actions have been ineffective, and strive to change them to “create the best results they can” (21-22). Though he uses different language to explain, Stephen Covey, author of The Seven Habits of

When people condemn others, the accuser affect themselves the most. Marc and Dianna MacYoung, the authors of No Nonsense Self-Defense, in their article “Blaming Justifies Your Own Bad Behavior” writes, “Unfortunately, blame is

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

This lack of blameless responsibility takes place within a character named Abigail in Arthur Miller’s book, The Crucible. Abigail is a person that her immediate reaction is to blame someone else for her actions. “Abigail, is there any other cause than you have told me, for your being discharged from Goody Proctor’s service?...” Parris asked (Miller 1132). “...It’s a bitter woman, a lying, cold, sniveling woman, and I will not work for such a woman!” Abigail replied (Miller 1132). Goody Proctor had suspicions of her husband having an affair with Abigail and that is the real reason Abigail is no longer working for the Proctors, but when Abigail was asked about the situation she of course made it seem as if it had nothing to do with her and that she was innocent of any wrong doings. The situation that occurs with Abigail is very similar to ones occurring today. An example from “Psychology Today” is that a student gets caught cheating on a test and when he/she is caught cheating by the teacher, it

I do take full responsibility for my actions when I am the only one who engages in that act. However, if someone else is involved and he or she does not get punished, I start to blame the condemner. The reason for this is because the condemnation is unfair since it does not include everyone involved. I remember when I was 16 years old, I managed to get a scratch on my dad’s car. Of course my parents were not happy about this and scolded me for it. I believed that it was unfair because there was a huge dent in the car that my brother caused. However, he was not punished because he is the oldest and I should have learned from his mistakes. I honestly thought that reasoning was injudicious and tried to “turn” the blame around on my parents. As mentioned in the article, this condemnation was unacceptable because someone else who did the same thing was not punished. This is why I believe that this technique of neutralization is relevant to

You’re in a classroom and notice your pencil is dull. You get up and quietly walk to the pencil sharpener next to Mr. Friesen’s desk. You insert your pencil into the sharpener until it is suitably sharpened. Turning around with the pencil in hand, you stab Suzy who has also come up to sharpen her pencil. Oh no! You feel awful! You didn’t mean to, but Suzy is mad and cares about the fact that you stabbed her. Does Suzy have the right to condemn you even though it wasn’t your intention? Ponder for a moment whether you should be judged by the result or your intention.

Although people that are confident enough to take responsibility for their actions and choices know that they are also responsible for the consequences, most people are incapable of seeing what they did wrong and blame the outcome on other reasons. This blame can lead to unjust and immoral consequences that are not deserving of certain people, this can be seen in today’s society.

Why do we blame the victim? Some psychologist argue that victims are to blame in certain cases, they don’t say things like a women’s clothes were too provocative or she was asking for it. They do however state that people claim the status of victim by assigning blame to others, which allows a person to disown any responsibility for one 's behavior and its outcome. Since it has become a trend in our society today to become a victim people may place themselves in certain situations to become a victim. In certain situations it becomes hard to argue that a victim isn’t the person to blame, for example if one contracts lung disease because of smoking. Do you blame the cigarette company or the person? This is the basis of their arguments, the silver lining between what defines a victim and what doesn’t.

The purpose of this paper is to show that Revelational Christian Ethics is a viable metaethical approach to Business. This ethical theory is a prescriptive and a concrete expression of objective reality. It exemplifies the core values and teachings of Jesus Christ as the foundation of morality and guiding principles for ethical conduct, treatment of others, as well corporate leadership decisions that affect the environment, community, and economics.

One is not wicked solely on the basis that they perform wicked acts, just as one who sins is not always a sinner. Sin covers a wide range of behaviors; but if these behaviors become habits are they still sins? Augustine seemed to believe that sins, whether small or large, are committed when man turns away from God. Similar to sin, Aristotle frequented the discussion on vice, a state of excess or deficiency, with virtue being the middle ground. As he said, “We assume, then, that virtue is the sort of state that does the best actions concerning pleasures and pains, and that vice is the contrary state” (Irwin, p. 21, lines 28-29). He taught moral vice as different from vice, and having a direct correlation with incontinence. A type of incontinence is the exorbitant desire for bodily pleasures, such as sex. This form of incontinence is explored by Dante in Inferno and Purgatorio, Chaucer in Canterbury Tales, and Augustine in his Confessions in the form of lust, a topic that will be later expanded on. Incontinence is a lack of self-control, something man either has a predisposing for or not; to be incontinent is not a choice. This is where the disparity and intersection between moral vice and the Christian sin present themselves. Through the works and teachings of Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Dante Alighieri, and Geoffrey Chaucer the definitions and acts of both Christian sin and moral vice are explored in an attempt to

on an individual level. As a coach that focuses on the positive, personal relationships with their

Throughout early Christianity and continuing into modern day religion, many disagreements have arisen regarding the correct set of beliefs to follow. While Jewish people traditionally follow the Law of Moses, or the Torah, Christians follow Jesus and his apostles. Because of the large Jewish population during the time in which the Bible is written, the Torah continues to be rigorously abided by to earn salvation. However, many of the converted Jewish believers have varying stances on the Torah. Although the well-respected book has been the most widely accepted guideline for years, the apostle Paul challenged society with his complex stance.

Just Business: Christian Ethics for the Marketplace. By Alexander Hill. IVP Academic; Revised edition (January 10, 2008), 276pp., $11.29 Paper. Chanel Mahone

People sometimes argue that a person who had a good intention and the result was wrong should not be judged. But others claim that no matter the intention should be judged. It is a problem to choose which one is better because there are different arguments against or in favor from people. There are good explanations to understand better this argument. For example when somebody take a taxi and suddenly, during the travel, it occur an accident that the only option of the driver is clash with that catastrophe finishing with the death of the passenger.

When we think about moral obligations and their directional structure, this involves the obligations that we have to other people. “Obligations are owed to the benefactor” (Timmons, 2015). This means that a person is obligated to someone who tries to help another person in some way, shape or form. So, let’s say for example I promise you to walk your dog. Since I have promised you this I am not fulfilling my promise because I told you I’d walk your dog, or because I want to keep my promises to you, but I fulfill my promise of walking your dog because you have the right to me walking your dog. As we learned in our reading, you now own my action. You have the right to be angry or upset at me if I fail to perform the act of walking your dog. You are able to demand me to perform that action. I think the directionality has more to do with the relationship that is developed as a result of your promising rather than how good the person you promised feels after you have performed the action.