Tiffany's Blogs

1. Wiss, Johanna et al. “The Influence of Identifiability and Singularity in Moral Decision Making.” Judgment and Decision Making 10.5 (2015): 492–502. Web. 

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate how the concepts of identifiability and singularity influence moral decision-making processes. The research aims to understand the psychological mechanisms that lead individuals to make different moral choices when dealing with identifiable victims versus anonymous ones, and singular victims versus groups.  

The article presents a series of experiments designed to test the effects of identifiability and singularity on moral decision-making. The authors find that people are more likely to make decisions favoring identifiable and singular victims. This phenomenon is explored through various scenarios and conditions, highlighting that emotional responses are stronger when victims are identifiable and singular, leading to more morally driven decisions in those contexts. The results suggest that moral choices are not solely based on rational calculations but are significantly influenced by emotional factors. The work is written for an academic audience, particularly scholars and students in psychology, behavioral economics, and philosophy. It is also relevant for professionals in fields related to ethical decision-making, like public policy, law, and healthcare. This study is relevant to the topic of how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes because it provides evidence on the impact of identifiability for the understanding of how different personalities might respond to moral dilemmas. The findings suggest that personal connections and the focus on single individuals can affect moral decisions. Additionally, the article includes comprehensive statistical analyses to support its findings. 

2. Carlson, John R., et al. “On The Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics And Ethical Decision Making.” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 11, no. 2, 1999, pp. 180–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604264. Accessed 18 May 2024. 

The purpose of this study is to examine how the design characteristics of Decision Support Systems (DSS) influence ethical decision-making in managerial contexts. The authors aim to identify specific DSS features that can either promote or hinder ethical decisions made by managers. 

The article explores the interplay between DSS design and ethical decision-making. It discusses various design characteristics of DSS, such as data presentation formats, user interface design, and decision-making algorithms, and how these elements can impact the ethical choices of users. Through theoretical analysis and empirical investigation, the authors provide insights into how DSS can be designed to support ethical decision-making. The work is mainly written for an academic audience, including researchers and scholars in management, information systems, and business ethics. It is also relevant for practitioners involved in the design and implementation of DSS in organizational settings. This study is relevant to the topic of individual personalities influencing morally ethical decision-making processes because it gets into how technological tools, specifically DSS, can shape ethical behavior. The article stands out for its focus on the intersection of technology and ethics in decision-making. It offers a detailed analysis of DSS features and their ethical implications, combining theoretical frameworks with practical recommendations. 

3. Williams, Rowan. “Making Moral Decisions.” The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Ed. Robin Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 1–15. Print. Cambridge Companions to Religion. 

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the process of making moral decisions from a Christian ethical perspective. Rowan Williams aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how Christian principles and theological insights inform and guide ethical decision-making.  

In this chapter, Rowan Williams discusses the foundations of moral decision-making within the Christian tradition. He emphasizes the importance of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience in shaping ethical judgments. Williams argues that moral decisions are not merely about following rules but involve discerning the will of God through a reflective and prayerful process. He highlights the role of community and the church in supporting individuals as they navigate moral complexities. The work is intended for students, scholars, and practitioners of Christian ethics and theology. It is also suitable for a broader audience interested in the intersection of religion and morality. This chapter is highly relevant to the topic of how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes because Williams’ discussion provides a theological framework that considers personal reflection, community involvement, and divine guidance, all of which intersect with individual personality traits and their influence on moral decisions. It shows a perspective that integrates personal and communal dimensions of ethical decision-making, highlighting how personal beliefs and values shape moral choices. A unique feature of this chapter is its emphasis on the integrative approach to ethics, combining theological reflection with practical guidance.  

4. Gaudine, A., Thorne, L. Emotion and Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 31, 175–187 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010711413444 

The purpose of this article is to explore the role of emotions in ethical decision-making within organizational contexts. Gaudine and Thorne aim to understand how different emotional states influence the ethical choices and behaviors of individuals in professional settings. 

The article examines the intersection of emotion and ethics, proposing that emotions significantly impact ethical decision-making processes in organizations. Gaudine and Thorne present a theoretical framework that incorporates emotions into the traditional models of ethical decision-making. They discuss how positive and negative emotions can affect individuals’ perceptions, judgments, and actions when faced with ethical dilemmas. The authors also review empirical studies that support their framework and suggest practical implications for managing emotions in organizational ethics programs. The article is intended for scholars, researchers, and practitioners in business ethics, organizational behavior, and management. This article is highly relevant to the topic of how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes across various contexts. By focusing on emotions, Gaudine and Thorne highlight an essential aspect of personality that affects ethical behavior. Their work provides insights into how emotional states can shape moral judgments and decisions, which is crucial for understanding the broader influences of personality on ethics. A unique feature of this article is its integration of emotions into ethical decision-making models, which traditionally emphasize cognitive processes.  

5. Bartels, Daniel M. “Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making.” Cognition 108.2 (2008): 381-417. 

The purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship between moral principles and moral sentiments, and how this relationship influences the flexibility of moral judgment and decision-making. Bartels aims to understand the extent to which moral decisions are guided by stable principles versus being influenced by emotional responses and contextual factors.  

Bartels explores the interplay between principled moral reasoning and moral sentiments, such as empathy and emotional reactions. He examines whether individuals rely more on consistent moral principles or on flexible emotional responses when making moral judgments. The study involves a series of experiments that manipulate emotional contexts to observe their impact on moral decision-making. Bartels concludes that while people often espouse stable moral principles, their actual judgments can be significantly swayed by emotional and situational factors, demonstrating the flexibility of moral decision-making. The article is intended for cognitive scientists, psychologists, philosophers, and scholars in moral and ethical studies. This article is relevant to the topic of how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes by examining the roles of principled reasoning and emotional responses. Bartels’ research provides insight into the cognitive and affective dimensions of moral judgment, which highlights the variability in how individuals apply moral principles in different situations. A unique feature of this article is its experimental approach to disentangling the influences of principled reasoning and moral sentiments. Bartels’ use of varied emotional contexts to test moral decision-making offers a nuanced understanding of the flexibility and complexity of moral judgments.  

6. Bommer, Michael, et al. “A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, no. 4, 1987, pp. 265–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071660. Accessed 18 May 2024. 

The purpose of this article is to develop and present a behavioral model that explains the processes involved in making ethical and unethical decisions in business contexts. The authors aim to identify the factors that influence ethical decision-making and to propose a comprehensive framework that integrates these factors into a coherent model.  

Bommer and his colleagues propose a model that outlines the various cognitive and behavioral steps individuals go through when confronted with ethical dilemmas in business settings. The model includes stages such as the recognition of an ethical issue, the judgment of the ethicality of potential actions, the intention to act ethically or unethically, and the actual behavior. The authors discuss factors that influence each stage, including individual characteristics (e.g., personal values, moral development), organizational factors (e.g., codes of conduct, organizational culture), and situational factors (e.g., the immediacy of consequences, the presence of peers). The article is written for scholars, researchers, and students in the fields of business ethics, organizational behavior, and management. This article is relevant to the topic of how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes because the behavioral model proposed by Bommer et al. highlights the interplay between individual traits and external factors in ethical decision-making. This provides a comprehensive framework that can be used to analyze and understand ethical behavior in diverse contexts. A unique feature of this article is its integration of multiple perspectives and factors into a single, cohesive model of ethical decision-making.  

Tiffany Lin

Professor Wilson Ding 

Writing II ENG 2150 

17 May 2024 

To What Extent Do Individual Personalities Influence Morally Ethic Decision-making Processes Across Various Contexts? 

Something I realized on my way of being more independent is that our parents are like our teachers. We would normally learn a lot from them as we grow. Their habits would turn into our habits. Their morals and personalities might also turn into our morals and personalities. As I think about it, I come to realize that I am a lot like my mom. We have a lot of the same habits, and some of my personality is somewhat like hers. How close we are in the relationship of being mother and daughter does not affect how much we can be a like. My sister is closer to my mom, but she is more like my dad; I am evenly close to both, but I am more like my mom. This brought me to realize that a lot of the decisions I’ve made were affected by my morals and ethics, and I want to get to know more about it. By connecting my experiences of decision making with the research I did, I got a deeper understanding of the influence of individual personalities on moral and ethical decision-making processes. 

Decisions to be made consist of two different types of decisions. There are very important decisions, which come up when there is a major event that will impact our future severely. Those decisions would include having a first job during high school, continuing education (going to college after high school), life after college, etc. There are also regular daily decisions, which aren’t as important but can affect us as much as important decisions when put together. Throughout important decisions, there would be a series of regular daily decisions. But overall, every decision made can lead us to a different outcome. Knowing the above, this brings us to the first important decision I’ve made that I can remember. That important decision was should I find a job during my junior year of high school? To make this decision, I had to consider a lot of things. Can I manage my time well between schoolwork and my job? Yes, I can (at least I thought I could at that time) because I can go to school in the morning and then go to work after school. How would I find this job, since it would be my first job and I have no experience? I can go ask my sister or any friends with jobs. I can also find available jobs online or go around areas I normally would pass to see if they are hiring. There are many ways to find a job so I am not worried about that, but I am worried if they would accept me. Would my parents agree to me to get a job? At that time, I was not sure but since they let my sister when she was that age, I thought they would let me too. Why do I want to find a job? There are a few reasons why I want a job. I want to find a job because my parents work hard for the family, so I want to contribute as well. My family isn’t wealthy but there are six of us and our spending is high so I thought it would be best if I could help. I don’t want them to work too hard. Also, because getting a job could help my future. I can have experience to write about in my future resume and it would make it slightly easier to find jobs afterwards. In “Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making” written by Daniel M. Bartels, Bartels explains that choice and judgements are shaped by morals, emotional reactions, and benefits of it:  

The current studies aim for synthesis and find that moral cognition is predicated on moral rules, emotional reactions, and assessments of costs and benefits. Specifically, they suggest (1) that contexts that direct attention to violations of moral rules generate deontology-consistent emotional reactions, (2) that deontological response is diminished in contexts that direct attention to utilitarian considerations, and (3) that contextual factors interact with situation-specific values and individual differences to shape moral judgment and choice. (Daniel 382) 

Daniel M. Bartels investigates the underpinnings of moral cognition, integrating elements of moral rules, emotional reactions, and cost-benefit assessments. The quote provided encapsulates the main findings and implications of his research, highlighting three key insights into how context influences moral judgments and decision-making processes.  

The flexibility implies that personality traits (such as empathy, which might incline one towards deontological reactions) and contextual cues (such as emphasizing outcomes or rules) interact dynamically to influence ethical decisions. Just like what Daniel M. Bartels wrote, my judgement on the decision was based off my morals, emotions, and the benefit of the situation. After considering all the questions, I decided to go find my first job during my junior year. As a result of this choice, I did manage my time between school and work well at first but near the end of the school year, I was stressed out from the load of work in school and that affected me when I went to work. That brought me to another decision and that would be to quit the job. I did. But, this job did benefit me a lot. 

Moral wise, the decision to take up a job during my junior year was rooted in a sense of responsibility and a desire to gain independence. This aligns with the deontological perspective, which emphasizes the importance of fulfilling duties and adhering to ethical principles. By choosing to work, I am a commitment to self-reliance and personal growth. Emotion wise, I was excited for the job and satisfied that I was balancing school and work.  This made me feel a sense of accomplishment and self-worth. However, as the academic year progressed, the increased workload from both school and job led to stress and burnout. The stress and emotional fatigue indicated that continuing to work was not sustainable for me. These emotional reactions played a significant role in my decision to eventually quit the job. Benefit wise, the job provided several significant benefits. Financially, it allowed me to earn money, which is a practical benefit that supports independence and financial literacy. Additionally, I gained valuable experiences and skills from my coworkers, which enriched my personal and professional development. These experiences not only benefited me in the short term but also laid the foundation for future job opportunities, as the skills and lessons learned helped me secure my next job. 

Another important decision I’ve made was going to college and choosing which college to go to. Deciding to go to college is something important. During my senior year of high school, I had to make the choice of whether I should go to college or just work full time. In “The influence of identifiability and singularity in moral decision making” by Johanna Wiss, David Andersson, Paul Slovic, Daniel Västfjäl, and Gustav Tinghög, two critical aspects of the study: the nature of moral judgments and the process of moral decision making were explained. We see that moral decision making involves choosing between alternatives that represent competing values and making trade-offs between them: 

As indicated this study has two points of departure. The first is research on moral judgments and more specifically moral decision making. Moral judgements are typically viewed as evaluations of the behaviour of an individual with respect to a set of virtues held as a norm in a certain social context (Haidt, 2001). Moral decision making, thus, is the actual choice between two or more alternatives, where individuals are forced to make trade-offs between competing moral values. (Johanna, David, Paul, Daniel, Gustav 492-493) 

This study is relevant to understanding how individual personalities influence morally ethical decision-making processes because it underscores the role of social norms and emotional engagement in moral judgments. The trade-offs between competing values in moral decision making reflect the complex interplay between personal virtues and societal expectations. In my case, the decision to go to college versus entering the workforce involved weighing the long-term benefits of education against the immediate financial gains of working full time. I also had to consider my parents and other people around me like my teachers and friends. The people around me all prefer that I continue my education and go to college. I also want to continue my education so everything came into place, and this was not a hard decision to make. 

As I do more research on the relationship between individual personalities and moral and ethical decision-making processes, I came across the study “A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making” by Michael Bommer, Clarence Gratto, Jerry Gravander, and Mark Tuttle. This study provides valuable insights into how various factors influence ethical decisions in organizational contexts. The model proposed by the authors emphasizes that ethical and unethical decision making is influenced by a combination of individual characteristics, situational factors, and the organizational environment. According to the authors, personality traits such as honesty, empathy, and integrity play a significant role in how individuals approach moral dilemmas. These traits interact with external factors, including organizational culture, peer influence, and the perceived consequences of actions.  

Personality traits are foundational in shaping how individuals perceive and react to ethical challenges. For instance, someone with high levels of empathy, like I consider myself to be, might be more inclined towards making decisions that prioritize the feeling of others. This aligns with my decision to pursue higher education, where I weighed the long-term benefits for myself and my future contributions to society against the immediate financial advantages of full-time work. The situational context also profoundly impacts ethical decision making. During my senior year of high school, the situation involved balancing academic pressures, family expectations, and financial considerations. Bommer et al. argue that such situational factors can either reinforce or undermine ethical behavior. In my case, the supportive environment from my family and mentors encouraged me to pursue college. In organizational settings, culture and norms play a crucial role. Reflecting on my decision through the lens of Bommer et al.’s model, I see that my choice to attend college was influenced by a complex interplay of personal values, situational pressures, and societal norms. The model helps explain how different factors converged to guide me towards a decision that I believed to be ethically sound and beneficial in the long run. 

In addition, our moral choices are a direct reflection of our personality traits and moral upbringing. This means that our decisions are inherently biased by our personal values, beliefs, and the way we have been conditioned to think. In “Making Moral Decisions” by Rowan Williams, Williams write: 

Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern. (Another person might not be worried in the same way by the same question.) (Rowan 4)  

This quote encapsulates the essence of Williams’ argument that our moral decisions are reflective of who we are as individuals. Williams also discusses the role of moral imagination in decision-making. He suggests that individuals who can imagine the consequences of their actions on others are more likely to make ethical choices. 

In conclusion, through my exploration of how individual personalities influence morally and ethically driven decision-making processes, I have come to understand the profound impact of personal traits, upbringing, and situational contexts on our choices. Reflecting on my own significant life decisions, such as taking up a job during high school and choosing to pursue higher education, I came to realize that these choices were deeply intertwined with my moral values, emotional responses, and perceived benefits. Individual personalities significantly influence morally and ethically driven decision-making processes across various contexts. Our decisions reflect our moral upbringing, personal values, emotional responses, and the situational contexts we find ourselves in.  

Work Cited: 

Wiss, Johanna et al. “The Influence of Identifiability and Singularity in Moral Decision Making.” Judgment and Decision Making 10.5 (2015): 492–502. Web. 

Williams, Rowan. “Making Moral Decisions.” The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Ed. Robin Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 1–15. Print. Cambridge Companions to Religion. 

Bartels, Daniel M. “Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making.” Cognition 108.2 (2008): 381-417. 

Bommer, Michael, et al. “A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, no. 4, 1987, pp. 265–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071660. Accessed 18 May 2024. 

What is your research question/rhetorical situation? 

To what extent do individual personalities influence morally ethic decision-making processes across various contexts? 

What is your connection to rhetorical situation and why are you uniquely placed to write about it? 

My connection to rhetorical situation is that I realized on my way of being more independent is that our parents are like our teachers. We would normally learn a lot from them as we grow. Their habits would turn into our habits. Their morals might also turn into our morals. As I think about it, I come to realize that I am a lot like my mom. We have a lot of the same habits, and my personality is somewhat like hers. How close we are does not affect how much we can be like. My sister is closer to my mom, but she is more like my dad; and I am evenly close to any of them, but I am more like my mom. I am writing about it because this brought me to realize that a lot of the decisions I’ve made were affected by my morals and ethics. And, I want to get to know more about it. 

Where do you imagine your writing “existing”? (newspaper, magazine, youtube, personal blog) 

I imagine my writing “existing” on a personal blog. It can be a blog on daily behavior to show personality and a blog on times of making important decisions to see the relationship between them. 

Who is your target audience? 

My target audience would be anyone interested in the relationship between individual personalities and the morally ethic decision-making processes. 

What form will your writing take? (Research paper, narrative, letter, script.) 

My writing will most likely take the form of a narrative or research paper. 

Why is this form the most effective way to communicate to your target audience? 

A narrative would be an effective way to communicate to my target audience because I can use my own experience to show them the influence. A research paper would be an effective way to communicate to my target audience because I can use facts and experiments from researchers to show the influence. 

What is the value you’re trying to impart on your audience? 

The value I am trying to impart on my audience is a deeper understanding of the influence of individual personalities on moral and ethical decision-making processes. 

Rhetorical Analysis of Visual Form-Elements of visual language

This is an analysis of two pieces of artwork displayed in MoMA. The name of the first artwork is called “Tapestry no.6”. The name influences my experience of the artwork because I already know what type of art it is. Just like the name says, it is a woolen piece of art. The artist is Yente (Eugenia Crenovich) and the artwork was created in 1958. During the time of 1958, there were a lot of wars like the Cold War and the Vietnam War. The name of the second artwork is called “Colors for a Large Wall”. The name influences my experience of the artwork because it literally says what it is. It is a painting of many colors on a large canvas. The artist is Ellsworth Kelly and the artwork was created in 1951. This piece of artwork was also created during the Cold War and Vietnam War. There is no text in either of the artworks. 

There is a lot of color used in both pieces of art which gives off mixed feelings. Although the artworks both use many different colors, they give off a feeling of confusion and at loss. But, I think both authors want to give off positive feelings encouraging people and bringing energy to people during those times of war by using bright colors. The composition of “Tapestry no.6” features intricate patterns and designs, with elements arranged in a dynamic and visually engaging way. It draws our eyes across the artwork, exploring the interplay of colors and shapes. In contrast, “Colors for a Large Wall” features large, solid-colored panels arranged in a grid-like formation. The composition is characterized by its simplicity and symmetry which allows the colors to take center stage without any distractions. “Colors for a Large Wall” is more organized than “Tapestry no.6”.  

Both artworks are likely intended to evoke emotional responses from us, the viewers. Yente’s “Tapestry no.6” may appeal to a wide range of audiences with its vibrant colors and dynamic composition. Seeing the tapestry in person in a museum setting allows us to fully appreciate its scale, texture, and craftsmanship. On the other hand, Ellsworth Kelly’s “Colors for a Large Wall” may target audiences interested in minimalist art and abstract expressionism. The artwork’s purpose may be to explore the relationships between color, form, and space. Seeing the artwork in person in the museum allows us to experience its scale, presence, and impact firsthand. 

Individual’s Personalities Influence on Morally Ethic Decision-making 

Personalities develop as individuals grow up and can be influenced by the environment we grow up in. Making morally ethic decisions is something everyone does over time and that will affect the way their future will be. The research question seeks to explore the multifaceted relationship between personal characteristics, moral values, and decision-making behavior in diverse situations. Through empirical research and analysis, this question aims to uncover the extent to which factors such as personality trait and moral values influence the decision-making process, including factors such as risk-taking behavior, ethical judgment, and conflict resolution strategies. In this essay, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” will be used and compared. In investigating the impact of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth utilize rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to provide perspectives. Through an analysis of the texts, it explores the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision-making. 

Both Rowan Williams’s ‘Making Moral Decisions’ and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s ‘On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making’ reveals how rhetorical strategies show the complexities of moral reasoning and the influence of decision support systems on ethical outcomes. Rowan Williams used logos to show the significance between personality and decision making. Williams states “Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern (Rowan 4) The quote presents a logical argument about the nature of decision-making, asserting that choices are influenced by personal characteristics and perspectives. Williams suggests that decisions are not made in isolation but are shaped by one’s beliefs, values, and experiences. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth also used logos as a main rhetorical appeal. They write, “Individuals in the organization face many decisions that may contain one or more ethical issues. That is, the decisions made in these situations have the capability to favorably or unfavorably affect other individuals or groups”. (John, Dawn, Lori 180) This quote shows a rational argument about the nature of decision-making within individuals or groups. It highlights the logical consequence that decisions made in such contexts can have ethical implications, affecting various individuals or groups either positively or negatively.  

Additionally, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used examples of general questions to show the relationship between personality and ethical decision making. For example, “Whom shall I marry? Shall I marry at all? … Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern.” (Rowan 3-4) This quote shows the complexity of decision-making and the deeply personal nature of ethical choices. It relates the choices made to the trait of an individual. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth used a similar way of asking questions to show the connection between traits and decisions. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth writes, “‘What harm could occur as a result of this action (decision)?,’ ‘What is the likelihood that this harm would occur?,’ and ‘How many people could be affected by this decision, and to what degree?’ … If decision makers considered ‘What harm would be done as the result of this action?,’ they may be more likely to realize that there is a moral issue that they may not have otherwise considered.” (John, Dawn, Lori 190) This quote shows the importance of considering harm in decision-making, it mentions the ethical dimension of choices. And, it suggests that decisions should not only be evaluated based on their immediate benefits or advantages but also on their potential negative consequences and the degree of harm they may inflict on others.  

Lastly, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used different types of research information to provide perspectives. The structure “Making Moral Decisions” is in a philosophical or theological framework, with an emphasis on exploring moral principles, ethical dilemmas, and the nature of moral decision-making. But, “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” follows a more research-oriented structure, focusing on investigating the relationship between decision support systems (DSS) design characteristics and ethical decision-making processes. In that case, Williams use data from other philosophers and literature artists, and John, Dawn, Lori used information from observational research. For example, “The point that both Rhees and McCabe are trying to make is emphatically not that ethics is a matter of the individual’s likes or dislikes but, on the contrary, that it is a difficult discovering of some- thing about yourself, a discovering of what has already shaped the per- son you are and is moulding you in this or that direction.” (Rowan 4) Rush Rhees is a Welsh philosopher and Herbert McCabe it a prominent British Catholic theologian and moralist. They argue that ethics involves a challenging process of self-discovery, where individuals uncover deeper aspects of themselves that have already influenced their identity and are shaping their moral development. In that case it is their personalities. On the other hand, John, Dawn, and Lori writes “Clearly, a decision maker does not make better ethical decisions by leaving unconsidered the potential ethical aspects of a situation (Primeaux and Stieber, 1994)…This article proposes that the use of a DSS by an individual which forces this consideration of the ethical issues involved in a decision-making situation can lead to improved ethical decisions by the individual user.” (John, Dawn, Lori 185) As a more researched based text, they inform us about the importance of considering ethical aspects in decision-making and suggests that the use of a DSS can enhance ethical decision-making by prompting individuals to consider these ethical issues. 

In conclusion, by examining this relationship across various contexts and populations, researchers can gain valuable insights into the interplay between individual characteristics and decision-making outcomes, informing theories of human behavior. In exploring the influence of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making processes across two texts, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” that employ rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to illuminate the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision making. 

Work Cited: 

Carlson, John R., et al. “On The Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics And Ethical Decision Making.” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 11, no. 2, 1999, pp. 180–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604264. Accessed 6 Apr. 2024. 

Williams, Rowan. “Making Moral Decisions.” The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Ed. Robin Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 1–15. Print. Cambridge Companions to Religion. 

Individual’s Personalities Influence on Morally Ethic Decision-making

Personalities develop as individuals grow up and can be influenced by the environment we grow up in. Making morally ethic decisions is something everyone does over time and that will affect the way their future will be. The research question seeks to explore the multifaceted relationship between personal characteristics, moral values, and decision-making behavior in diverse situations. Through empirical research and analysis, this question aims to uncover the extent to which factors such as personality trait and moral values influence the decision-making process, including factors such as risk-taking behavior, ethical judgment, and conflict resolution strategies. In this essay, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” will be used and compared. In investigating the impact of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth utilize rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to provide perspectives. Through an analysis of the texts, it explores the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision-making. 

Both Rowan Williams’s ‘Making Moral Decisions’ and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s ‘On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making’ reveals how rhetorical strategies show the complexities of moral reasoning and the influence of decision support systems on ethical outcomes. Rowan Williams used logos to show the significance between personality and decision making. Williams states “Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern (Rowan 4) The quote presents a logical argument about the nature of decision-making, asserting that choices are influenced by personal characteristics and perspectives. Williams suggests that decisions are not made in isolation but are shaped by one’s beliefs, values, and experiences. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth also used logos as a main rhetorical appeal. They write, “Individuals in the organization face many decisions that may contain one or more ethical issues. That is, the decisions made in these situations have the capability to favorably or unfavorably affect other individuals or groups”. (John, Dawn, Lori 180) This quote shows a rational argument about the nature of decision-making within individuals or groups. It highlights the logical consequence that decisions made in such contexts can have ethical implications, affecting various individuals or groups either positively or negatively.  

Additionally, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used examples of general questions to show the relationship between personality and ethical decision making. For example, “Whom shall I marry? Shall I marry at all? … Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern.” (Rowan 3-4) This quote shows the complexity of decision-making and the deeply personal nature of ethical choices. It relates the choices made to the trait of an individual. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth used a similar way of asking questions to show the connection between traits and decisions. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth writes, “‘What harm could occur as a result of this action (decision)?,’ ‘What is the likelihood that this harm would occur?,’ and ‘How many people could be affected by this decision, and to what degree?’ … If decision makers considered ‘What harm would be done as the result of this action?,’ they may be more likely to realize that there is a moral issue that they may not have otherwise considered.” (John, Dawn, Lori 190) This quote shows the importance of considering harm in decision-making, it mentions the ethical dimension of choices. And, suggests that decisions should not only be evaluated based on their immediate benefits or advantages but also on their potential negative consequences and the degree of harm they may inflict on others.  

Lastly, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used different types of research information to provide perspectives. The structure “Making Moral Decisions” is in a philosophical or theological framework, with an emphasis on exploring moral principles, ethical dilemmas, and the nature of moral decision-making. But, “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” follows a more research-oriented structure, focusing on investigating the relationship between decision support systems (DSS) design characteristics and ethical decision-making processes. In that case, Williams use data from other philosophers and literature artists, and John, Dawn, Lori used information from observational research. For example, “The point that both Rhees and McCabe are trying to make is emphatically not that ethics is a matter of the individual’s likes or dislikes but, on the contrary, that it is a difficult discovering of some- thing about yourself, a discovering of what has already shaped the per- son you are and is moulding you in this or that direction.” (Rowan 4) Rush Rhees is a Welsh philosopher and Herbert McCabe it a prominent British Catholic theologian and moralist. They argue that ethics involves a challenging process of self-discovery, where individuals uncover deeper aspects of themselves that have already influenced their identity and are shaping their moral development. In that case it is their personalities. On the other hand, John, Dawn, and Lori writes “Clearly, a decision maker does not make better ethical decisions by leaving unconsidered the potential ethical aspects of a situation (Primeaux and Stieber, 1994)…This article proposes that the use of a DSS by an individual which forces this consideration of the ethical issues involved in a decision-making situation can lead to improved ethical decisions by the individual user.” (John, Dawn, Lori 185) As a more researched based text, they inform us about the importance of considering ethical aspects in decision-making and suggests that the use of a DSS can enhance ethical decision-making by prompting individuals to consider these ethical issues. 

In conclusion, by examining this relationship across various contexts and populations, researchers can gain valuable insights into the interplay between individual characteristics and decision-making outcomes, informing theories of human behavior. In exploring the influence of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making processes across two texts, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” that employ rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to illuminate the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision making. 

1. The film Rashomon is about the murder of a samurai and rape of his wife. The film begins with three of the men gathered discussing about the murdered trial in the ruins of Rashomon Gate, while seeking shelter from the rain. Throughout the film, it showed the trial of the murder crime and the testimonies of each character. Everyone had their own version of the story, and each story was told in a way that benefits themselves. In the end, the old man leaves Rashomon Gate with an abandoned baby. 

2. The dagger used in the murder is a symbol of violence and betrayal. It represents the destructive consequences of human greed, lust, and aggression. It shifts ownership and the significance in each testimony highlights the manipulation of facts to suit individual agendas. Also, the abandoned baby at the end of the film symbolizes hope and innocence. The presence of the baby suggests that there is still potential for goodness and renewal, especially when the priest gave the baby to the old man. 

3. The film’s structure is important to this story because it presents the same event of the murder crime in the perspectives of each character. This allows us to witness how different characters interpret and remember the same incident. The structure also gives insight into the motivations, desires, and inner conflicts of each character. 

4. In social media, this phenomenon manifests when various sources provide contradictory accounts. One example is the coverage of contentious political events. During protests, conflicting narratives emerge regarding the sequence of events, motivations of participants, and police actions. Social media amplifies this effect, as eyewitnesses share their viewpoints instantaneously, often without verification. For instance, in the aftermath of a protest, one eyewitness might claim excessive police force, while another asserts self-defense. These conflicting narratives sow confusion among audiences and complicate the journalist’s task of presenting an accurate portrayal of the event. 

The Rashomon effect manifests in politics, especially regarding the interpretation of political speeches, actions, and policies by different factions and media outlets. This phenomenon occurs due to varying ideological perspectives, partisan biases, and strategic interests, leading to contradictory interpretations of the same events. It highlights the importance of critical thinking, media literacy, and engagement with diverse viewpoints to navigate the complexities of political discourse and foster a more informed and inclusive democratic process. 

I do think that the Rashomon effect can be mitigated in my news event. Some strategies are fact checking, background research, and source investigation. These strategies are similar in a way because they all involve looking over the perspective to see if it is accurate. Fact checking verifies the accuracy of information and cross-reference multiple sources to corroborate accounts. This involves examining official statements made by witnesses and ensuring there is no misinformation. Providing background information surrounding the event can help us better understand the complexities of the event. Source investigation can provide reliability to the perspective of the event. 

The Tempest reading at Baruch was interesting and enjoyable. The live reading was different than what I expected but it is also better than expected. I thought it would be the actors reading the play while walking around, but there was actually a lot of acting and humor. It was more like a comedy and different than the original play. The most enjoyable part of the live reading was the singing of the actress of Ariel. She has a very nice voice and sings very well. I really liked how the background music was played and sang by the character on stage because it made the listening experience very nice. Also, the actors used prompts to make up for the fact that the stage set was very simple and empty. Their use of prompt and acting helped me get a slight vision of how the setting of the play could have been. The least enjoyable part of the live reading was that seeing them read the script in front of me kind of pulled me out of the scene at some points. Seeing the characters portrayed on stage enhances my perception of them compared to me reading their lines on pages because watching them act on stage gives me a better picture of how it should be. When reading the script, I can’t really think about what that scene could look like because I am reading all the characters’ lines, and it confuses me. Watching the actors act as the characters gave me a better understanding of what was going on. I can see the emotions of the characters and know how they are feeling or what they are thinking. Looking at them also helps me empathize with some of the characters but if I were to read it on my own, I wouldn’t think that much. 

Story: Assignment #1 essay (Step by Step)

Situation: learning to become independent and growing up:

-making general decisions

-finding a job/working

-college decisions

Question:

1. How can becoming independence affect the process of mental growth?
2. Would people making different decisions end up with similar futures?
3. How can personalities and moral ethics affect the decisions being made?

Describe your overall ability to pay attention when it comes to school work (<100 words) On a scale of 1 – 10, indicate how addicted you are to you phones

When it comes to school work, my ability to pay attention is basically almost none. I can’t focus on the work I do and I tend to always procrastinate. I would wait until the very last day and last few hours to start working on the school work. Normally, I would have my school work in front of me then after staring at the work for a few minutes, I would pull out my phone and play. After playing for a few minutes, I would tell myself I have homework to do and then go stare at it again. This process repeats until it gets closer to the due date of the work or when I start feeling tired. This is when I would start to actually focus because I want to sleep, or there is not much time left to work on it. On a scale of 1-10, I am a 7 to how addicted I am to my phone. I am very addicted but when there is other things I like doing in front of me other than my phone, I would do that instead.

While reading “My Distraction Sickness” please note how long it takes you to get through the piece (Google says it’s a 45 min read); also, count the number of times you get distracted (for whatever reason) and tally them at the end.

While reading “My Distraction Sickness”, It took me one hour and 23 minutes to get through the piece of writing. When reading, I was distracted 12 times.

Describe the tone of all three articles, how do they differ? (<100 words)

Andrew Sullivan’s piece, “My Distraction Sickness,” is written with a confessional and contemplative tone. It’s a mixture of personal revelation and cultural critique as he reflects on the consequences that non-stop engagement with technology has had on his psychological and social well-being. His approach is more emotional and urgent. “In Defense of Distraction” by Sam Anderson often carries a thoughtfully playful and open-minded tone. Anderson isn’t trying to instruct so much as to explore the ways in which distraction might be woven into a modern lifestyle in a positive, or at least neutral, manner. For Larry D. Rosen’s work,”The Distracted Mind: Enhancing Its Focus and Attention,” the tone is expected to be analytical and practical. Rosen comes from an academic background that focuses on the psychology of technology’s impact on individuals, specifically students in this case. His writing tends to distill research insights into actionable advice, and he addresses the problem of distraction with concrete strategies to overcome it.

What are Sam Anderson’s primary arguments in defense of distraction? (see part III of In Defense of Distraction) Do you find them convincing? Why or why not (<150 words)

Sam Anderson’s primary arguments in part III of “In Defense of Distraction” center on the idea that distraction, contrary to popular criticism, can be quite beneficial. He suggests that distraction can be essential to creativity, as it allows the mind to wander and make unique connections. Also that focus and distraction are not necessarily at odds, which they can coexist and balance each other. He implies that distraction aids in multitasking, helping people juggle various tasks and responsibilities. And, distraction can lead to serendipitous discoveries and amazing creations, as unintended insights or stimuli can lead to innovation. While I don’t have much personal opinions, but these arguments are persuasive. Anderson supports his claims with empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and relevant anecdotes. His view is nuanced since he doesn’t argue that all distraction is good, but rather that there are scenarios where distraction can play a positive role in human mental functioning. This perspective resonates with the complex nature of the human mind, which is not binary but capable of thriving under various conditions, including some level of distraction. His argument is from another perspective that I didn’t really think about but now thinking about it, it sound reasonable.

After reading all three articles, what are your thoughts on this “epidemic of distraction”? (<50 words)

After reading all three articles, my thoughts on the “epidemic of distraction” is that distractions is not completely a bad thing. At first, distraction seem like something that is bad. It would take my attention away from what I am doing and need to complete. But after reading the articles, I saw distraction in another different perspective, a perspective where distraction can have a positive side. Now my thoughts on “epidemic of distraction” is that distraction can play a positive role in our mental functioning and have other benefits.

Please annotate “My Distraction Sickness” – highlight at least three instances for each of the following rhetoric concepts:  Invention, Style  Memory, Pathos, Ethos

Invention: 1. His personal narrative of addiction to information and technology. 2. The introduction of the term “distraction sickness” to encapsulate the cultural phenomenon. 3. Reference to historical figures, like Thoreau, to contrast past and present attention spans Style: 1. Poetic language describing how technology has altered his mind and nature of his work. 2. Metaphors such as equating his phone to a demanding child, illustrating his dependence. 3. Use of short, fragmented sentences to mimic the nature of distracted thought. Memory: 1.  Recounting the digital transformation of his work as a blogger.  2. Remembering a time before smartphones to illustrate the change over time.  3. Citing the evolution of media consumption available through technology.  Pathos: 1. His description of anxiety and despair when trying to confront his own distraction. 2. The sense of nostalgia for a simpler, less connected life. 3. Expressions of guilt for time lost to mindless scrolling and the craving for digital connection. Ethos: 1. He writes from the position of a victim and observer of “distraction sickness”. 2. Sullivan frequently references his career as a writer and blogger, influenced by the digital world. 3. His honesty about personal struggles with technology provides him the ethical appeal to discuss the phenomena.