$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
Ever since December 1, 1955 there has been considerable discussion regarding precisely what prompted Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus and what the lasting impact upon society has been. Overall, the only context within which such a debate carries any weight is in ethics. The paper shows that if we are attempting to discern whether Parks was justified or not, then we are routinely forced to consider the roles of her motivations and the consequences. It is upon these competing criteria that the notions of consequentialism and nonconsequentialism teeter. The paper shows that it is possible to analyze Parks' actions based upon why she behaved as she did and it is possible to analyze her actions based upon the end results. The paper ranks her actions on an ethical scale based upon precisely who benefited, or upon her individual purpose for refusing to move. It considers the many differing points of view of Rosa Parks' act of defiance.
From the Paper:"Nevertheless, a universal egoist would also have to take into account the benefits that the Civil Rights Movement at large allowed for Rosa Parks. It is permissible that her life was happier because of the achievements of the movement. After all, she may have been harmed or even killed in other racial uprisings. So once again, the universal egoist is plagued by the same problem all consequentialists must address: how can one history be measured against an alternative that never happened? Since it is possible to imagine an infinite number of dreadful courses that Parks' life could have taken, other universal egoists could assert that her action was ethical."
Cite this Argumentative Essay:
Rosa's Ethics (2006, December 12) Retrieved August 18, 2019, from https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/rosa-ethics-75384/
"Rosa's Ethics" 12 December 2006. Web. 18 August. 2019. <https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/rosa-ethics-75384/>