2. In this case scenario, a follower of moral pluralism would put into consideration various moral perspectives before deciding whether or not to help Hitler get out of the water; ultimately, the follower of moral pluralism would not help Hitler because not helping him is in conformity with many moral perspectives. On the other hand, a follower of Kantian deontology would help Hitler because failure to help him to get out of the water is tantamount to treating him not as end in itself, but rather as a mean to some end.
3. The main difference between ethics of care and other ethical theories is that, unlike other ethical theories that emphasize on application of universal principles in overcoming moral dilemmas, ethics of care advocates for consideration of the particular action committed and the circumstances under which the action was performed in determining the morality of an action. Ethics of care hold that application of universal ethical principles in solving ethical conflicts can lead to moral indifference in some circumstances. Ethics of care advocates for focus on the best way to respond in solving moral dilemmas.
4. Sartre claims that any explanation that deflects one’s complete responsibility is an example in bad faith. This is because an authentic moral agent for Sartre is a person who acts in freedom. Freedom and authenticity are key in Sartre’s ethical worldview. Freedom for Sartre means the ability for self-determination, while authenticity means the ability to be genuine in one’s actions. For Sartre, an authentic moral agent is free to genuinely make his moral decisions. Sartre’s authentic moral agent is different from Kantian ideal moral agent because, for Kant, ideal moral agent is a person who is restricted by the prevailing rules and regulations; Kant’s ideal agent is not free in his moral decisions.
5. An emotivist philosopher would lodge the following critique against the Rossian Pluralism: the Rossian