Physical Privacy
Trident University
Physical Privacy
Module 3
Michael L. Johnson
Dr. Thomas L. Klein
To do it or not to do it. If I do it no one will know. Scared people get nowhere. The risk
Is worth the reward. We have heard all of the cliché’s and have often second guessed our decisions as to if we should or should not do a certain action. Is the risks always worth the rewards? Can we go against or better knowledge and try something? Most honest people have that moral compass inside and lets them know if a certain action should be done or even tried. We will examine our emotions using the utilitarian approach and the correct or policy guidelines in the deontological approach. Which one is correct? How do we judge ?
We explore the utilitarian ethics approach we can see how the ethnical use of steroids is debated. Let’s look at it from the risk versus reward aspect. Was the risk of using steroids worth the consequences of being punished to receive the reward? It is easy to see that both parties, Melky Cabrera and the San Francisco Giants were rewarded handsomely with revenue beyond what would have been gained if he had not used them. Cabrera and the Giants were going through contract negotiations as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (2011).
Cabrera needed to distance himself to make himself more profitable and better that the other
Players that he were competing against. This reason probably drove him to use steroids to get the “advantage” that players speak about. The happiness or gratification that both sides were seeking was additional revenue and recognition. One can state the argument also that steroids should not be banned due to being in the same category as supplements and nutritional aids. Medscape Reference points to the fact that they are derived from the same molecules only being that steroids have stronger characteristics. McCaulay Samuels Sellers has done extensive research involving
Physical Privacy
Module 3
Michael L. Johnson
Dr. Thomas L. Klein
To do it or not to do it. If I do it no one will know. Scared people get nowhere. The risk
Is worth the reward. We have heard all of the cliché’s and have often second guessed our decisions as to if we should or should not do a certain action. Is the risks always worth the rewards? Can we go against or better knowledge and try something? Most honest people have that moral compass inside and lets them know if a certain action should be done or even tried. We will examine our emotions using the utilitarian approach and the correct or policy guidelines in the deontological approach. Which one is correct? How do we judge ?
We explore the utilitarian ethics approach we can see how the ethnical use of steroids is debated. Let’s look at it from the risk versus reward aspect. Was the risk of using steroids worth the consequences of being punished to receive the reward? It is easy to see that both parties, Melky Cabrera and the San Francisco Giants were rewarded handsomely with revenue beyond what would have been gained if he had not used them. Cabrera and the Giants were going through contract negotiations as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (2011).
Cabrera needed to distance himself to make himself more profitable and better that the other
Players that he were competing against. This reason probably drove him to use steroids to get the “advantage” that players speak about. The happiness or gratification that both sides were seeking was additional revenue and recognition. One can state the argument also that steroids should not be banned due to being in the same category as supplements and nutritional aids. Medscape Reference points to the fact that they are derived from the same molecules only being that steroids have stronger characteristics. McCaulay Samuels Sellers has done extensive research involving
References: San Francisco Chronicle- 2011 Medscape Reference McCaulay Samuels Sellers New York Times – May 2011 USA Today – 8/23/2007