RUNNING HEAD: Christian Worldview 6
Christian Worldview and Operations Management
Name
Course
Date
Christian Worldview and Operations Management
Biblical or Christian world view is the way of life that is based on the teachings and preaching of Bible. If a person considers teachings of Bible as the standard to be followed in life and he tends to decide what to do or say according to them, then he is apparently following Biblical worldview. God selected to let those rules oversee God's creation, moderately than God requiring altering the course of those heavenly laws.
Accordingly, wonders do not occur and God is "Wholly Other", comprehensive superior from mortality, with unconditionally no nearness among persons. One conceivable logical importance of deism is that since God doesn't have to be complicated in humanoid businesses, then we actually don't essential God at all. Disbelief can quickly be acceptable from a technical, logical and even intelligently religious viewpoint.
Another offshoot of modernization is fundamentalism, which first increased importance in the early 20th century. On the outward, while deism and fundamentalism seem to be conflicting excesses, they portion many conventions. Most apparent is the ethical and psychic potentials originate within humanity that reflects the personality of God.
The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds. These professions of faith state that Jesus grieved, expired, were suppressed, and were resuscitated from the dead in order to grant everlasting life to those who have faith in in him and faith in him for the reduction of their immoralities.
The faiths further uphold that Jesus physically rose into paradise, where he reigns with God the Father. Most Christian coinages teach that Jesus will return to judge everybody, living and dead, and to grant eternal life to his supporters. He is reflected the model of a righteous life. His ministry, execution, and renaissance are often mentioned to as the "gospel", meaning "good newsâ.
Biblical View influences me when I try resolving ethical dilemmas which I confront in my personal or professional life. I try to define my moral values according to the basics elucidated in Bible.
This leads me support and feeling that I am doing the right thing. I do not follow practical ethical values in resolving ethical dilemmas because they are mostly derived from convenience and ease of application rather than following the right path. Bible influences me to a great extent for knowing between the right and wrong and also between the two rights and thus I always arrive at a best possible solution.
The Macdonaldâs case
Strict liability allows the injured party to seek reimbursement from whoever was accountable for the product being faulty. Contrasting negligence, the injured individual does not need to determine who precisely failed to do ...
RUNNING HEAD: Christian Worldview 6
Christian Worldview and Operations Management
Name
Course
Date
Christian Worldview and Operations Management
Biblical or Christian world view is the way of life that is based on the teachings and preaching of Bible. If a person considers teachings of Bible as the standard to be followed in life and he tends to decide what to do or say according to them, then he is apparently following Biblical worldview. God selected to let those rules oversee God's creation, moderately than God requiring altering the course of those heavenly laws.
Accordingly, wonders do not occur and God is "Wholly Other", comprehensive superior from mortality, with unconditionally no nearness among persons. One conceivable logical importance of deism is that since God doesn't have to be complicated in humanoid businesses, then we actually don't essential God at all. Disbelief can quickly be acceptable from a technical, logical and even intelligently religious viewpoint.
Another offshoot of modernization is fundamentalism, which first increased importance in the early 20th century. On the outward, while deism and fundamentalism seem to be conflicting excesses, they portion many conventions. Most apparent is the ethical and psychic potentials originate within humanity that reflects the personality of God.
The foundations of Christian theology are expressed in ecumenical creeds. These professions of faith state that Jesus grieved, expired, were suppressed, and were resuscitated from the dead in order to grant everlasting life to those who have faith in in him and faith in him for the reduction of their immoralities.
The faiths further uphold that Jesus physically rose into paradise, where he reigns with God the Father. Most Christian coinages teach that Jesus will return to judge everybody, living and dead, and to grant eternal life to his supporters. He is reflected the model of a righteous life. His ministry, execution, and renaissance are often mentioned to as the "gospel", meaning "good newsâ.
Biblical View influences me when I try resolving ethical dilemmas which I confront in my personal or professional life. I try to define my moral values according to the basics elucidated in Bible.
This leads me support and feeling that I am doing the right thing. I do not follow practical ethical values in resolving ethical dilemmas because they are mostly derived from convenience and ease of application rather than following the right path. Bible influences me to a great extent for knowing between the right and wrong and also between the two rights and thus I always arrive at a best possible solution.
The Macdonaldâs case
Strict liability allows the injured party to seek reimbursement from whoever was accountable for the product being faulty. Contrasting negligence, the injured individual does not need to determine who precisely failed to do ...
According to Worldometers' estimates for 2022, New Zealand has a population of roughly 4.9 million people. Christianism is the predominant religion in the nation, and English and Maori are the two most widely spoken languages.
New Zealanders typically think of themselves as being accepting of new concepts, diversity, and change. Most New Zealanders are proud of the historically predominately liberal social attitudes in their nation (for instance, New Zealand was the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote). Most New Zealanders make an effort to be understanding and tolerant of most differences.
I. Basic Concepts
Ethics define
- Human Act vs Act of Man
- Essential Elements of Human Act
- Determinants of Morality
- Modifiers of Human Act
- Norms of Morality
II. Rules
Introduction
In a world increasingly driven by information and data, the assumption that presenting facts should be enough to persuade and change minds seems almost intuitive. However, the reality is far more complex. Despite the availability of facts and evidence, people often remain steadfast in their beliefs. The question is: Why don't facts change our minds as effectively as we might expect?
1. The Backfire Effect:
One of the key reasons why facts don't always change our minds is a psychological phenomenon known as the "backfire effect." Instead of embracing new information that challenges our existing beliefs, our brains often respond defensively, reinforcing our original convictions. This counterintuitive reaction occurs because our beliefs are not purely rational; they are deeply tied to our identity and sense of self.
When we encounter contradictory facts, our brains perceive them as threats to our self-concept. This triggers a defensive mechanism that leads us to reject or dismiss the new information, rather than incorporating it into our existing worldview. This phenomenon is a testament to the powerful role that emotions and cognitive biases play in shaping our beliefs.
2. Confirmation Bias:
Confirmation bias is another cognitive bias that contributes to our resistance to facts. It involves our tendency to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. When presented with facts that challenge our views, we often selectively focus on information that aligns with our convictions while downplaying or ignoring contrary evidence.
This bias further entrenches our beliefs and makes it difficult for new facts to penetrate our cognitive defenses. In essence, we tend to see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear, reinforcing our existing mental frameworks.
3. The Cognitive Economy:
Human brains are wired for cognitive efficiency. It requires less mental effort to stick with our existing beliefs than to critically evaluate and integrate new information. Changing our minds often requires us to update our mental models, which demands cognitive resources and can be emotionally taxing. As a result, we often default to the path of least resistance by sticking with what we already know.
4. Social Influence and Echo Chambers:
Beliefs are not formed in isolation; they are shaped by our social environment. Many of us seek validation and belonging within social groups that share our beliefs. These ideological echo chambers create a reinforcing cycle, where we are exposed to and adopt similar viewpoints, while dissenting opinions are discouraged or marginalized. In such an environment, facts from outside the echo chamber are not just ignored but actively rejected as part of the "other side's" agenda.
5. Emotional Investment:
Emotional investment in our beliefs can make us even more resistant to change. We often have a deep attachment to our convictions, which have been built over time and may be closely tied
Weeks 5 & 6 â YOU as a stakeholderI Morals & Ethical Pri.docxphilipnelson29183
Â
Weeks 5 & 6 â YOU as a stakeholder
I Morals & Ethical Principles
II Ethical Decision Making in Business
(Why good people do bad things)
Greg Smith
Choice of
Ethical
Perspective
Morality:
The social rules that govern & limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong.
The basic guidelines for cooperative social existence.
Serves to restrain the purely self-interested desires in each of us in order to make it possible for all of us to live together.
When we make a decision or take an action we can be:
Moral - in compliance with moral standards
key operating questions of management is "is this action or decision fair to us and all stakeholders involved?"
Immoral - in opposition to moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision regardless of what it takes?"
Amoral - without consideration of moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision?"
Nonmoral - outside the sphere of moral concern
Moral standards get confused with:
Law Etiquette
Conscience
Corporate/Professional Codes
Religion
Moral Relativism:
The belief that morality is just a function of what a particular society happens to believe, that what is right is determined by what a society says is right.
abortion is condemned as immoral in Catholic Spain, but is practiced as a morally neutral form of birth control in Japan
Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute moral standard independent of culture, no universal definition of right or wrong.
polygamy, stealing, slavery have all been tolerated by the moral system of one society or another
Moral Universalism is the belief that variations in moral standards reflect different factual circumstances rather than fundamental differences in values.
Which is right?
It is good to emphasize that in viewing other cultures we should keep
an open mind and not simply dismiss their social practices.
Compromise position is Moral Perspectivalism,
the consideration of multiple perspectives while at the same time asserting universal truths.
Kohlbergâs Levels of Moral Development
*
1. Preconventional Level:
- how we behave as infants & children
- emphasis in decisions is on ourselves
Stage 1 - Reaction to punishment - pain avoidance
Stage 2 - Seeking of rewards - praise, candy, trip to a movie
2. Conventional Level:
- child learns the importance of conforming to norms of society
Stage 3 - Good boy/nice girl morality - rewards such as feelings of warmth, loyalty acceptance from family & peers
Stage 4 - Law and order morality - certain norms are expected in society - individual sees himself as part of a larger social system
3. Postconventional Level:
- a more advanced notion of right or wrong than that which is conventionally articulated
- moral principles are internalized, seen as "right"
- focus is on humanity as a whole
- f.
Overlapping Universe Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis.docxalfred4lewis58146
Â
Overlapping Universe: Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis
Zachary D. Torry ⢠Stephen B. Billick
Published online: 6 April 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act. This defense has perplexed legal and mental health professionals for centuries. Though it has been a part of the legal system since the early Greeks, it has been and continues to be amended, modiďŹed, and in some jurisdictions, abolished. Moreover, despite its infrequent use, many in our society hold onto the belief that defendants can evade criminal responsibility by means of this defense. Furthermore, insanity is often equated with psychosis; however, the two are not the same and have different connotations. It is essential for any clinical psychiatrist to understand the concept of the insanity defense and how it differs from psychosis. This paper will clarify the meaning and purpose of the insanity defense and will differentiate insanity and psychosis.
Keywords Insanity defense NGRI Criminal action Mens rea
Introduction
The insanity defense has been a controversial and elusive component of the legal and psychiatric professions for centuries. It has long tantalized defendants and mystiďŹed jurors. Furthermore, the concept that certain people may not be held responsible for their actions by reason of their mental state generates feelings of anger and disparity among some individuals. The insanity defense is viewed by some as a ââloopholeââ for defendants and a
Z. D. Torry Saint Vincentâs Hospital, Manhattan, NY 10024, USA
Z. D. Torry (&) 140 West 79th Street, #4B, New York, NY 10024, USA e-mail: [email protected]
S. B. Billick New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA
123
Psychiatr Q (2010) 81:253â262 DOI 10.1007/s11126-010-9134-2
scheme that clever attorneys and mental health professionals exploit to acquit their criminal clients and permit dangerous people to roam freely in society. Therefore, at times this defense directs accusatory attention to the ďŹeld of clinical and forensic psychiatry. The psychiatrist might be viewed as creating excuses for the defendantsâ otherwise criminal behavior. Finally, it has been sometimes argued that the insanity defense is inconsistent with the deterrent and punishment purposes of criminal law. The reality is that the insanity defense is used in only 1% of criminal cases, and it is used successfully in only 10â25% of those [1]. Moreover, defendants who are found insane generally spend as much or more time in state custody than their criminally convicted counterparts [2]. Forensic psychiatrists are not the only psychiatrists who need to understand the insanity defense. Patients seen in ongoing clinical psychiatric treatment may commit crimes, and the psychiatrist should have some appreciation for understanding .
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
1. Capture and analyze your feelings in personal moral experiences;
2. compare reasonable and emotional responses;
3. check real-life cases against the 7-step model;
The topic is all about how to use human conscience through the light of reason and emotion, and by looking at the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
According to Worldometers' estimates for 2022, New Zealand has a population of roughly 4.9 million people. Christianism is the predominant religion in the nation, and English and Maori are the two most widely spoken languages.
New Zealanders typically think of themselves as being accepting of new concepts, diversity, and change. Most New Zealanders are proud of the historically predominately liberal social attitudes in their nation (for instance, New Zealand was the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote). Most New Zealanders make an effort to be understanding and tolerant of most differences.
I. Basic Concepts
Ethics define
- Human Act vs Act of Man
- Essential Elements of Human Act
- Determinants of Morality
- Modifiers of Human Act
- Norms of Morality
II. Rules
Introduction
In a world increasingly driven by information and data, the assumption that presenting facts should be enough to persuade and change minds seems almost intuitive. However, the reality is far more complex. Despite the availability of facts and evidence, people often remain steadfast in their beliefs. The question is: Why don't facts change our minds as effectively as we might expect?
1. The Backfire Effect:
One of the key reasons why facts don't always change our minds is a psychological phenomenon known as the "backfire effect." Instead of embracing new information that challenges our existing beliefs, our brains often respond defensively, reinforcing our original convictions. This counterintuitive reaction occurs because our beliefs are not purely rational; they are deeply tied to our identity and sense of self.
When we encounter contradictory facts, our brains perceive them as threats to our self-concept. This triggers a defensive mechanism that leads us to reject or dismiss the new information, rather than incorporating it into our existing worldview. This phenomenon is a testament to the powerful role that emotions and cognitive biases play in shaping our beliefs.
2. Confirmation Bias:
Confirmation bias is another cognitive bias that contributes to our resistance to facts. It involves our tendency to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. When presented with facts that challenge our views, we often selectively focus on information that aligns with our convictions while downplaying or ignoring contrary evidence.
This bias further entrenches our beliefs and makes it difficult for new facts to penetrate our cognitive defenses. In essence, we tend to see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear, reinforcing our existing mental frameworks.
3. The Cognitive Economy:
Human brains are wired for cognitive efficiency. It requires less mental effort to stick with our existing beliefs than to critically evaluate and integrate new information. Changing our minds often requires us to update our mental models, which demands cognitive resources and can be emotionally taxing. As a result, we often default to the path of least resistance by sticking with what we already know.
4. Social Influence and Echo Chambers:
Beliefs are not formed in isolation; they are shaped by our social environment. Many of us seek validation and belonging within social groups that share our beliefs. These ideological echo chambers create a reinforcing cycle, where we are exposed to and adopt similar viewpoints, while dissenting opinions are discouraged or marginalized. In such an environment, facts from outside the echo chamber are not just ignored but actively rejected as part of the "other side's" agenda.
5. Emotional Investment:
Emotional investment in our beliefs can make us even more resistant to change. We often have a deep attachment to our convictions, which have been built over time and may be closely tied
Weeks 5 & 6 â YOU as a stakeholderI Morals & Ethical Pri.docxphilipnelson29183
Â
Weeks 5 & 6 â YOU as a stakeholder
I Morals & Ethical Principles
II Ethical Decision Making in Business
(Why good people do bad things)
Greg Smith
Choice of
Ethical
Perspective
Morality:
The social rules that govern & limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong.
The basic guidelines for cooperative social existence.
Serves to restrain the purely self-interested desires in each of us in order to make it possible for all of us to live together.
When we make a decision or take an action we can be:
Moral - in compliance with moral standards
key operating questions of management is "is this action or decision fair to us and all stakeholders involved?"
Immoral - in opposition to moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision regardless of what it takes?"
Amoral - without consideration of moral standards
key operating question of management is "can we make money with this action or decision?"
Nonmoral - outside the sphere of moral concern
Moral standards get confused with:
Law Etiquette
Conscience
Corporate/Professional Codes
Religion
Moral Relativism:
The belief that morality is just a function of what a particular society happens to believe, that what is right is determined by what a society says is right.
abortion is condemned as immoral in Catholic Spain, but is practiced as a morally neutral form of birth control in Japan
Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute moral standard independent of culture, no universal definition of right or wrong.
polygamy, stealing, slavery have all been tolerated by the moral system of one society or another
Moral Universalism is the belief that variations in moral standards reflect different factual circumstances rather than fundamental differences in values.
Which is right?
It is good to emphasize that in viewing other cultures we should keep
an open mind and not simply dismiss their social practices.
Compromise position is Moral Perspectivalism,
the consideration of multiple perspectives while at the same time asserting universal truths.
Kohlbergâs Levels of Moral Development
*
1. Preconventional Level:
- how we behave as infants & children
- emphasis in decisions is on ourselves
Stage 1 - Reaction to punishment - pain avoidance
Stage 2 - Seeking of rewards - praise, candy, trip to a movie
2. Conventional Level:
- child learns the importance of conforming to norms of society
Stage 3 - Good boy/nice girl morality - rewards such as feelings of warmth, loyalty acceptance from family & peers
Stage 4 - Law and order morality - certain norms are expected in society - individual sees himself as part of a larger social system
3. Postconventional Level:
- a more advanced notion of right or wrong than that which is conventionally articulated
- moral principles are internalized, seen as "right"
- focus is on humanity as a whole
- f.
Overlapping Universe Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis.docxalfred4lewis58146
Â
Overlapping Universe: Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis
Zachary D. Torry ⢠Stephen B. Billick
Published online: 6 April 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act. This defense has perplexed legal and mental health professionals for centuries. Though it has been a part of the legal system since the early Greeks, it has been and continues to be amended, modiďŹed, and in some jurisdictions, abolished. Moreover, despite its infrequent use, many in our society hold onto the belief that defendants can evade criminal responsibility by means of this defense. Furthermore, insanity is often equated with psychosis; however, the two are not the same and have different connotations. It is essential for any clinical psychiatrist to understand the concept of the insanity defense and how it differs from psychosis. This paper will clarify the meaning and purpose of the insanity defense and will differentiate insanity and psychosis.
Keywords Insanity defense NGRI Criminal action Mens rea
Introduction
The insanity defense has been a controversial and elusive component of the legal and psychiatric professions for centuries. It has long tantalized defendants and mystiďŹed jurors. Furthermore, the concept that certain people may not be held responsible for their actions by reason of their mental state generates feelings of anger and disparity among some individuals. The insanity defense is viewed by some as a ââloopholeââ for defendants and a
Z. D. Torry Saint Vincentâs Hospital, Manhattan, NY 10024, USA
Z. D. Torry (&) 140 West 79th Street, #4B, New York, NY 10024, USA e-mail: [email protected]
S. B. Billick New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA
123
Psychiatr Q (2010) 81:253â262 DOI 10.1007/s11126-010-9134-2
scheme that clever attorneys and mental health professionals exploit to acquit their criminal clients and permit dangerous people to roam freely in society. Therefore, at times this defense directs accusatory attention to the ďŹeld of clinical and forensic psychiatry. The psychiatrist might be viewed as creating excuses for the defendantsâ otherwise criminal behavior. Finally, it has been sometimes argued that the insanity defense is inconsistent with the deterrent and punishment purposes of criminal law. The reality is that the insanity defense is used in only 1% of criminal cases, and it is used successfully in only 10â25% of those [1]. Moreover, defendants who are found insane generally spend as much or more time in state custody than their criminally convicted counterparts [2]. Forensic psychiatrists are not the only psychiatrists who need to understand the insanity defense. Patients seen in ongoing clinical psychiatric treatment may commit crimes, and the psychiatrist should have some appreciation for understanding .
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
1. Capture and analyze your feelings in personal moral experiences;
2. compare reasonable and emotional responses;
3. check real-life cases against the 7-step model;
The topic is all about how to use human conscience through the light of reason and emotion, and by looking at the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Â
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Â
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
Safalta Digital marketing institute in Noida, provide complete applications that encompass a huge range of virtual advertising and marketing additives, which includes search engine optimization, virtual communication advertising, pay-per-click on marketing, content material advertising, internet analytics, and greater. These university courses are designed for students who possess a comprehensive understanding of virtual marketing strategies and attributes.Safalta Digital Marketing Institute in Noida is a first choice for young individuals or students who are looking to start their careers in the field of digital advertising. The institute gives specialized courses designed and certification.
for beginners, providing thorough training in areas such as SEO, digital communication marketing, and PPC training in Noida. After finishing the program, students receive the certifications recognised by top different universitie, setting a strong foundation for a successful career in digital marketing.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Â
Letâs explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Â
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Â
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
⢠The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
⢠The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate âany matterâ at âany timeâ under House Rule X.
⢠The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
MATATAG CURRICULUM: ASSESSING THE READINESS OF ELEM. PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS I...NelTorrente
Â
In this research, it concludes that while the readiness of teachers in Caloocan City to implement the MATATAG Curriculum is generally positive, targeted efforts in professional development, resource distribution, support networks, and comprehensive preparation can address the existing gaps and ensure successful curriculum implementation.
MATATAG CURRICULUM: ASSESSING THE READINESS OF ELEM. PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS I...
Â
A Simple Argument For Respecting Conscience
1. Š 2022 The National Catholic Bioethics Center 1
A Simple Argument for
Respecting Conscience
Timothy Hsiao
Abstract. Conscience is widely misunderstood. For many, conscientious
objection,bothreligiousandnon-religious,isregardedasnothingmorethan
a convenient excuse to get around the rules. This essay provides an argument
for respecting conscience. It shows how the conscience is an integral part
of responsible decision-making and must be recognized and protected and
ends with an application of the right of conscience to recent debates over
mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. The goal of this essay is to show why
there is a strong case for taking conscience seriously in ethics and public
policy. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 22.3 (Autumn 2022): 000â000.
Conscience is widely misunderstood. For many, conscientious objection, both
religious and non-religious, is regarded as nothing more than a convenient excuse
to get around the rules. This essay provides a clear, accessible, and simple argument
for seriously respecting conscience. I show how the conscience is an integral part of
responsible decision-making and must be recognized and protected. I end with an
application of the right of conscience to recent debates over mandatory COVID-19
vaccination. The goal of this essay is not to settle debates over conscientious objec-
tion, nor is it to establish conscience as an ultima facie right, but rather to show why
there is a strong case for taking conscience seriously in ethics and public policy.
What is Conscience and Why Should it Be Protected?
Morality requires us to pursue what is good and avoid what is evil. In order to do
this, we must exercise careful judgment over our choices. As such, good decisions
TimothyHsiao,MA,isanassistantprofessorofphilosophyandhumanitiesattheUniversity
of Arkansas Grantham in Little Rock, AR.
TheviewsexpressedintheNCBQdonotnecessarilyrepresentthoseoftheeditor,theeditorial
board, the ethicists, or the staff of The National Catholic Bioethics Center.
2. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly â Autumn 2022
2
mustberesponsibledecisions.Foradecisiontoberesponsibleitmust(amongother
things) proceed from a position of reasoned confidence. We must be convinced that
what we are doing is right. It would be reckless to make decisionsâespecially about
important mattersâif you do not bother to check that what you are doing is right
or have sincere doubts about it. Reckless action shows a lack of regard for careful
judgment and therefore impairs our ability to pursue good and avoid evil. It is also
contrary to our nature as truth-seeking beings, as careful judgment is necessary to
discern truth from error.
Even if a reckless decision turned out in your favor, it would still be irrespon-
sible because you made the decision carelessly without proper consideration of its
merits. That is to say, you did not make the decision for the right reasons. What
makes a choice reckless is not a matter of its results but of how it is chosen.
It would be wrong to coerce responsible persons into making a decision that
they are not confident about, even if that decision turns out to be the right course
of action. What makes it wrong is not merely the fact that you are overriding their
autonomyâalthough that is certainly relevantâbut the fact that they are being
compelled to act recklessly. They are not acting from a position of confidence but
from a position of fear. Even if their decision turned out to be right, this result
would be a pure accident.
Thus, conscience is morally significant because of its essential role in making
decisions. There are many good ideas that are worth acting on. To avoid making
reckless decisions about these ideas, oneâs decisions to act on these ideas must
proceed from a position of confidence. This is what conscience provides us with.
Conscience is the ability to make rational judgments about matters of morality. It
yields confidence, trust, or assurance that what one is doing is the right course of
action. This confidence, trust, or assurance is what allows us to act in a responsible
manner. The importance of conscience pertains to how we make decisions, not
only what we end up deciding.
Note that on this framework, conscience is not a still small voice in our heads
that mysteriously guides the individual, but an attitude of reasoned conviction about
oneâs actions. Protecting conscience is a matter of protecting the ability to make
responsible decisions. Forcing people to act against their conscience (even if their
conscience is mistaken) is wrong because it means that they are being compelled
to make an irresponsible decision.1
None of this is to say that conscience is infallible. Conscience is a judgment
of reason about moral matters and can be mistaken like other judgments of reason
in other areas. One can be confident about something that turns out to be wrong.
However, even a conscience that is mistaken must still be respected, for as was
just said, compelling someone to act against his or her reasoned judgment (and to
therefore adopt a judgment that he or she are not confident about) is to force him
1. Note that there is a difference between coercing someone into reckless action and
preventing one from acting recklessly. What makes the former objectionable is that it
compels action that is not motivated by careful judgment. By contrast, the latter need
not involve any kind of action at all. Hence, the wrongness of the former does not
entail the wrongness of the latter.
3. Hsiao â Respecting Conscience
3
or her to act recklessly. Conscience is our only means of discerning moral obliga-
tions, and so abandoning conscience is abandoning morality itself.
All this shows the importance of informing, educating, and developing our
conscience. If an individual does not have a clear conscience on an issue, or if their
conscience is believed to be mistaken, then the proper thing to do is not to violate
their conscience but to engage them in reasoned argument so that they may adopt
the correct beliefs needed to act rightly with a clear conscience. In doing so, their
ability to make responsible decisions is left intact. However, one might worry that
this view of conscience is far too permissive and might imply that the right of
conscience can be used as a universal permission slip for anything we do not like.
However, this objection is based on a misunderstanding of what conscience
is. As John Henry Newman put it, âconscience has rights because it has duties.â2
Conscience matters because we have an obligation to make responsible decisions.
It serves to illuminate our obligations by giving confidence to our decisions. Put
anotherway,consciencegivesustheassurancetodowhatweshoulddo(ortorefrain
from doing what we should not do). Conscience is thus a judgment of reason, not
a reflection of sheer emotion or preference. It considers arguments and evidence
and identifies obligations, not permissions. In other words, conscience is narrow,
not broad. It tells us what we should do. It does not give blanket authorization to
do as we please.3
Indeed, we are under an obligation to inform our consciences by
diligently considering arguments and evidence. Thus, conscience is not another
name for autonomy, desire, or will; it cannot be used as an excuse to allow us to
indulge in our personal preferences.
From this we see that what ultimately gives conscience its moral significance
is its role in discovering what is true and good. The most basic obligation we have
is to pursue truth and reject error. To that end, the function of conscience is to
identify what is true and good in order that it may be pursued. Thus, conscience is
sometimes aptly referred to as oneâs moral compass. The value of a compass consists
not in the fact that it points somewhere but in the fact that its readings are aligned
with true north. Likewise, conscience, being a judgment of reason, is aligned with
what is true and good. Without it, we are blind to what we ought to do. Again, this
is not to say that conscience cannot err but only that it is an indispensable element
of pursuing what is true and good. Respect for conscience is a moral right in that it
is a precondition for the exercise of our responsibilities. Rights exist to protect that
which we need in order to flourish. Since human beings flourish by performing
actions in pursuit of what is good, conscience is an essential ingredient of liberty
and autonomy. Indeed, as we have seen, conscience is essential for any meaningful
pursuit of the good life, for it identifies what the good life is. Thus, if we have the
rights to liberty and autonomy, then we must also have the right of conscience.
Insofar as these moral rights are also enshrined into law as legal rights, so must
2. John Henry Newman, âLetterAddressed to the Duke of Norfolk,â in Certain Difficul-
ties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, vol. 2 (London: Longmans, Green, and
Co, 1900), 250.
3. Robert P. George, âJohn Stuart Mill and John Henry Newman on Liberty and Con-
science,â The Saint Anselm Journal 10.2 (Spring 2015): 40â46.
4. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly â Autumn 2022
4
the law also recognize conscience as a legal right. Moreover, given how central
conscience is to decision-making, the right of conscience must be a fundamental
right that carries serious moral weight. It is not contingent like the right to vote or
the right to drive, but a right that comes with being a human person.
For these reasons, conscience deserves serious legal protection. The right
of conscience is connected with the duty to make responsible decisions, which is
integral to our flourishing. The failure to respect conscience is a direct attack on
morality itself.
Conscience and COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
Based on what has been said, how would conscience apply to recent debates over
vaccination mandates, specifically over COVID-19? Let us suppose that COVID-
19 vaccination is generally effective. However, some individuals have doubts about
its safety, believe that it is an unnecessary risk given their natural immunity, or are
uncertain about the morality of using abortion-derived cell lines in vaccine testing
and production.4
If vaccinations are going to be mandated as a matter of policy
or law, then the doubtful conscience of these individuals must be respected. They
must have the right to refuse the vaccine on grounds that they are not confident
that what they are about to do is right. Removing conscience-based exemptions
compels these individuals to act in reckless ways.
The reasoning is straightforward. To make responsible decisions, we must
make them from a position of confidence. But one cannot act from a position of
confidence about a medical decision if he is coerced into that decision. Vaccine
mandates are an example of medical coercion, since they involve substantial penal-
ties of various kinds, such as job loss, cancellation of school enrollment, fines, and
restrictions on travel. So, vaccine mandates without conscience-based exemptions
conflict with the obligation of each person to make responsible decisions. In the
absence of these exemptions, these mandates are unjust and immoral.
If one is convinced that COVID-19 vaccination is a wise choice and that indi-
viduals should choose to be vaccinated, the right thing to do would be to work to
change the minds of those who are unconvinced. This is done through reasoning
and education, not threats. One can be pro-vaccination without having to resort
to coercive mandates that violate conscience.
One might object on the grounds that refusing vaccination can pose health
riskstothemselvesandthepublic.Unvaccinatedindividualsmayfacilitatethespread
of COVID-19 to those who are vulnerable. Even if correct, the utilitarian nature
of this objection obscures a key point. The value of conscience is not a function of
the benefits or risks that accompany a conscience-based decision, but rather has
to do with its being an essential part of oneâs personhood. If we deny someone the
right to make responsible decisions, we deny him the very thing that makes him a
unique human person: his rationality. The right of conscience is a basic right that
4. On the last doubt, see David Prentice, âCOVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-
DerivedCellLines,âCharlotteLozierInstitute,June2,2021,https://lozierinstitute.org/wp
-content/uploads/2020/12/CHART-Analysis-of-COVID-19-Vaccines-02June21.pdf.
5. Hsiao â Respecting Conscience
5
comes with being human. As such it cannot be overridden simply because it would
reduce risk.
Note also that there is also a difference between risk and harm. The right of
conscience cannot be used to justify activities that are intentionally harmful, that is,
damaging or injurious. This is because conscience functions to facilitate responsible
decision-making,anddecisionsthatintentionallycauseharmcannotberesponsible.
Thus, conscience does not protect activities such as human sacrifice. By contrast,
risk is simply the likelihood that an action might lead to harm. Everything we do
generates some non-zero probability of risk, whether it be commuting to work,
shaking someoneâs hand, or just opening a window. Although refusing vaccination
may increase risk, there is not a moral obligation to reduce risk as much as pos-
sible. Otherwise, we could not drive to coffee shops, build campfires, or give hugs.
This is not to say that there is no threshold at which risk becomes unaccept-
able: risk comes in degrees and is not an all-or-nothing concept. The point is that
conscience (along with the entire concept of moral rights) is generally resistant to
utilitarian or consequentialist arguments, such that a mere balancing-test approach
is not enough. Of course, just because rights generally trump utility does not mean
that they always do. We might think of rights as breakwaters that can yield if the
consequencesaresufficientlydire. Accordingly,themorepertinentquestionis,How
much risk is acceptable? One needs to show that the risks of refusing vaccination
are so great that we can override a key moral right. But given just how significant
conscienceistooneâspersonhoodandautonomy,thethresholdofriskforoverriding
conscience must be incredibly high. Moreover, there are other options (e.g., natural
immunity, regular testing, mask wearing, social distancing, remote working, and
other kinds of reasonable accommodations) that must all be exhausted first before
resorting to overriding conscience, given how deeply intrusive such an act would
be. Thus, it is unlikely that the risk of being unvaccinated by itself warrants this
kind of intervention.5
Intruding on conscience, if it is ever justified, can only be
justified as a last resort. We need not settle the difficult question of where exactly
to draw the line (if there even exists such a point) to know that certain violations
of conscience go too far.
Another objection is that vaccine mandates are not actually coercive. After
all, one can always choose another job or move to a place where there are no man-
dates. But this objection misses the point. While it is true (at least for now) that
one can find a new job or move elsewhere, these things are incredibly burdensome.
Given the importance of conscience, one should not have to endure these burdens
simply because he refuses to be coerced into making a decision that conflicts with
his convictions.
The points that are articulated here can be formulated as follows:
1. We have an obligation to make responsible decisions.
5. Note also that this risk is not monolithic. It varies depending on oneâs location, age,
fitness, other health conditions, and importantly on whether one has already recovered
from COVID-19, as it confers at least some temporary natural immunity.
6. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly â Autumn 2022
6
2. For decisions to be responsible, we must make them from a position
of confidence.
3. One cannot decide from a position of confidence about a medical
decision if one is coerced into it.
4. Therefore,coercivemedicalrequirements conflictwiththeobligation
to make responsible decisions.
5. Vaccinemandateswithoutconscience-basedexemptionsarecoercive
medical requirements.
6. Therefore, vaccine mandates without conscience-based exemptions
conflict with the obligation to make responsible decisions.
It is important to point out that I am not saying that all vaccinations are
unhealthy, bad, or otherwise morally dubious. On the contrary, I believe that vac-
cination in general is typically a wise course of action. The point is simply that
individuals should not be coerced into decisions they are unsure about. Good
decision-making is responsible decision-making, and responsible decision-making
proceeds from a position of confidence. Forcing someone who is not confident
about a choice to make that choice is forcing him to act irresponsibly, even if that
choice is good for him.
Religious Exemptions and Conscience
It is sometimes argued that no major religious group opposes vaccination and
that therefore religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine are without merit.
This is an entirely wrong way of looking at things. It is a naive mistake to think
that if something is not specifically named in a religious tradition, then there is no
ethical principle that applies to it. While it is true that no major religion opposes
vaccination specifically, all major religions affirm the importance of acting from
a clear conscience. This provides a general model for which followers of those
religious traditions can approach a host of various decisions, even if they are not
specifically named.
In fact, the justification for religious exemptions very closely parallels the jus-
tification for conscientious exemptions sketched previously. Consider Christianity
as an example. In 1 Corinthians 8, Christians are obligated to honor God with their
bodies. Romans 14:23 provides additional insight: in order to honor God with their
bodies(andindeed,tohonorGodingeneral),Christiansmustactfromfaithwithout
any doubts.6
The verses immediately prior warn against placing a âstumbling block
or obstacleâ (ESV) in the way of oneâs conscience. Whatever does not proceed from
faith is described as being sinful. When it comes to faith, biblical faith is equated
in Hebrews 11 with confidence (NIV), assurance (ESV), and certainty (NASB) in
oneâs beliefs and actions. Coercive measures that pressure one to act against his
conscience amount to stumbling blocks in his faith.
6. The immediate context pertains to eating meat sacrificed to idols, but Paul generalizes
from this.
7. Hsiao â Respecting Conscience
7
Putting this all together, the obligation to honor God requires that a Christian
act from a position of confidence that what he is doing is right.7
Indeed, as both
Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 straightforwardly indicate, even some choices that
are otherwise morally acceptable can be sinful if they do not proceed from faith.
Hence, Christians should not be compelled to make decisions that do not proceed
fromapositionoffaith.TodosowouldnotjustbeanattackonaChristianâsintegrity
but would also be a stumbling block in his relationship with God.8
The Christian model for conscientious decision-making directly parallels the
model sketched earlier (which was framed in non-religious terms). On the Chris-
tian model, Christians are called to honor God by being stewards of their bodies.
A steward is a caretaker, and caretakers must act carefully as opposed to carelessly.
Careful decision-making means acting from a position of confidence (faith), and
not doubt. Any decision that does not proceed from this position of confidence is
sin, according to Paul in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.
Thus,whileChristianitydoesnotspecificallyaddresstheethicsofvaccination,
Christian scriptures articulate general ethical principles that are very relevant to the
debate over vaccination mandates. Christians who have a doubtful conscience over
the ethics of COVID-19 vaccinationâsay, because of the use of abortion-derived
cell lines in vaccine testing or productionâshould not be compelled under threat
of sanction or loss of livelihood to act in violation of their conscience.
My goal here is not to wade too deep into complex theological matters, nor
am I attempting to assess the truth of Christian teaching. Rather, it is that the case
for religious exemptions (at least in the Christian tradition) is just as strong as the
case for non-religious conscientious exemptions. Both proceed from the same kind
of moral reasoning.
Conscience Comes with Responsibility
Conscientious objection, both religious and non-religious, is treated by many as
nothing more than a convenient excuse to get around the rules. What I have said
here shows that to be clearly wrong. Individuals who cannot in good conscience
submit to certain vaccination requirements should be granted relief from them. At
the same time, conscience has rights because it has duties; we ought to continue
examining the evidence and forming our conscience. Whatever we end up decid-
ing, appealing to conscience does not provide an excuse to remain in ignorance,
nor does it function as a permission slip that lets us get out of anything. We ought
to align our consciences to what is true.
7. Rom. 14:5 (ESV): âOne person esteems one day as better than another, while another
esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.â
8. Rom. 14:21 (ESV): âIt is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes
your brother to stumble.â