D
deleted1064759
I was wondering how two different approaches to ethical questions are perceived:
Keeping a one-sided stance and justifying it without exceptions.
vs.
Having a one-sided stance and then considering individual situations that warrant leniency.
Without any formal ethics class or training, I would lean toward the latter but I don't want to be perceived as not having a strong ethical framework that I operate off of.
For example: Do you think pirating music is immoral or merely illegal? What if someone was deathly ill and the music was the one thing that brought happiness in their tragic life? What if it was just one song etc etc.
Is there a correct answer?
Keeping a one-sided stance and justifying it without exceptions.
vs.
Having a one-sided stance and then considering individual situations that warrant leniency.
Without any formal ethics class or training, I would lean toward the latter but I don't want to be perceived as not having a strong ethical framework that I operate off of.
For example: Do you think pirating music is immoral or merely illegal? What if someone was deathly ill and the music was the one thing that brought happiness in their tragic life? What if it was just one song etc etc.
Is there a correct answer?