Ethics ToK 12
In the Fall PEs many people who wrote about ethics as an Area of Knowledge indicated that ethical perspectives were always a matter of personal perspective. In you notes, answer the following questions: To what extent do you believe this is true? Explain. If you believe this is more true than not, where does this leave ethics as an AoK? Can it stand beside the other AoKs we have studied as an equally valid Area of Knowledge? If you don t believe this is true, what are the possible bases for ethical knowledge that are not based on personal perspective? Explain.
Rank the following statements ranging from (10) absolutely true (equivalent to 2+2=4) to (0) absolutely based on personal perspective (equivalent to my favorite color is green).* Include a brief explanation of your ranking, and, if a rank is 6+, the objective basis upon which this principle might be based 1.Murder is wrong 2.Individual Humans have the right of self determination (regardless of categories to which they may belong) 3.Torture is wrong 4.Lying is wrong 5.Gross economic inequality is wrong (use the US now as an example) 6.Causing animals to suffer unnecessarily is wrong 7.The production/consumption of pornography is wrong 8.Causing unnecessary environmental degradation (through high carbon footprint, waste, pollution etc.) is wrong *Fives will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law
Ethics Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies questions of right and wrong and questions of value
Critical KQ* for Ethics Can ethical knowledge be considered shared knowledge in the same way the knowledge in math and the sciences can be considered shared knowledge? Are there objective ethical truths (big T truths)? Can an ought (normative) ever be derived from an is (descriptive)
Two theories that say NO to the previous KQ: Ethics as personal or communally shared knowledge Subjectivism - An ethical position that maintains concepts of right and wrong exist only at the level of the individual. There are no ethical universals. Cultural Relativism - An ethical position that maintains that concepts of right and wrong exist only within specific cultural contexts. There are no ethical universals.
Theories that answer the above questions affirmatively come in two varieties Consequentialist theories Non-consequentialist theories
1. Ethical egoism Ayn Rand The self is the ultimate thing of value that each of us has, because without it we are nothing Thus whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on whether it benefits or harms the self This differs from subjectivism because it is based on a universally applicable principle
2. Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill The only thing that is valuable as an end and not as a means is happiness An action is good if it increases happiness, bad if it decreases happiness (the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number) The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. --JS Mill Utilitarianism (Accessed on 12.11.13 at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/milljohn-stuart/1863/utility/ch02.htm)
3. Virtue Ethics Aristotle Virtue ethics is an approach that deemphasizes rules, consequences and particular acts and places the focus on the kind of person who is acting. A action is good to the extent that it creates goodness and virtue in one s character, bad in that it leads to the creation of a character lacking in these traits. (Adapted from material accessed on 12.11.13 at http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/virtthry.htm)
4. Divine command ethics The Judeo-Christian tradition An act is good if it is commanded by God, bad if it is forbidden by God The Ten Commandments or Decalogue: 1. I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. 5. Honor thy father and thy mother. 6. Thou shalt not murder. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor. 10. Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.
5. Deontological ethics Immanuel Kant Consequences don t determine the goodness of an action, intentions do The only thing in the world that is good in an unqualified sense is a good will; a good will is a will to do one s duty for the sake of doing one s duty Actions are right if they correspond with duty, wrong if they contradict duty Duty is defined by the categorical imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. We should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself. (Accessed on 12.11.13 at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/)
6. Levinas and the centrality of the other
In assigned groups... Groups are to present a panel discussion on their assigned situation. The panel discussion should center on the question: Does ethics as a way of knowing allow us to clearly assess our assigned knowledge claim? Panel discussions should explain their KC in terms of the ethical theories they think are the most relevant to their particular claim. Discussion do not have to discuss all of the theories, simply those they think are either the most useful or perhaps the most flawed. Please use the Rauhut link for more information on the theories you think are most important Presentations should be conducted as discussions amongst your group. Class participation is not allowed. Presentations will be assessed on professionalism and content and will be worth an entire participation assignment. Presentations must be between 10-15 minutes in length
In each of the situations below, a) record your answer to the question posed by the situation, and, b) explain the basis for your decision.
Question 1 - The Runaway train The brakes of the train that Casey Jones is driving have just failed. There are five people on the track ahead of the train. There is no way that they can get off the track before the train hits them. The track has a siding leading off to the right, and Casey can hit a button to direct the train onto it. Unfortunately, there is one person stuck on the siding. Casey can turn the train, killing one person; or he can allow the train to continue onwards, killing five people. Should he turn the train (1 dead); or should he allow it to keep going (5 dead)?
Question 2 - The Fat Man on the Bridge Marty Bakerman is on a footbridge above the train tracks. He can see that the train approaching the bridge is out of control, and that it is going to hit five people who are stuck on the track just past the bridge. The only way to stop the train is to drop a heavy weight into its path. The only available heavy enough weight is a (very) fat man, who is also watching the train from the footbridge. Marty can push the fat man onto the track into the path of the train, which will kill him but save the five people already on the track; or he can allow the train to continue on its way, which will mean that the five will die. Should he push the fat man onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?
Question 3 - The Saboteur Okay, so this scenario is identical to the preceding scenario but with one crucial difference. This time Marty Bakerman knows with absolute certainty that the fat man on the bridge is responsible for the failure the train's brakes: upset by train fare increases, he sabotaged the brakes with the intention of causing an accident. As before, the only way to stop the train and save the lives of the five people already on the track is to push the fat saboteur off the bridge into the path of the train. Should Marty push the fat saboteur onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?
Question 4 - The Fat Man and the Ticking Bomb The fat man, having avoided being thrown in front of the runaway train, has been arrested, and is now in police custody. He states that he has hidden a nuclear device in a major urban centre, which has been primed to explode in 24 hours time. The following things are true: The bomb will explode in 24 hours time. It will kill a million people if it explodes. If bomb disposal experts get to the bomb before it explodes, there s a chance it could be defused. The fat man cannot be tricked into revealing the location of the bomb, nor is it possible to appeal to his better nature, nor is it possible to persuade him that he was wrong to plant the bomb in the first place. If the fat man is tortured, then it is estimated there is a 75% chance that he will give up the bomb s location. If the fat man does not reveal the location, the bomb will explode, and a million people will die: there is no other way of finding out where the bomb is located. Should the fat man be tortured in the hope that he will reveal the location of the nuclear device?
Question 5 - The harmless peeper Gertrude Dwindlemeyer likes to watch other people play boardgames. To satisfy her desire, she has rigged the apartment she owns with a camera that provides her with a 24/7 audio/video feed which allows her to watch the apartment s game room without her tenants knowing that she is watching. The tenants will never know they are being watched and the fact that they are being watched will never have any impact on their lives (regardless of what Gertrude sees). Are Gertrude s actions wrong?
Question 6 - Elves, wizards and deceit Gandalf and Galadriel were boyfriend and girlfriend. One day, Gandalf met another elf and decided to break up with Galadriel. Gandalf knows for certain that if Galadriel knows that Gandalf has met another elf, she will be depressed, but if Gandalf explains the break up as resulting from his need to spend more time studying, Galadriel will not be depressed. Assuming that Galadriel will never know anything but what Gandalf tells her, should Gandalf lie?
Question 7 - The hopeless loser John is a hopeless loser. He failed in school, can t hold a job, gets by by begging and has never done anything redeeming in his life. One day he is told that he is the only person in the world with the blood type that will allow him to save a doctor who is on the verge of curing cancer. If John donates his blood to the doctor, the doctor will live and John will die. If John doesn t donate his blood, the doctor will die and he will live. Given that John will never do anything redeeming in the future and that John knows this with certainty, does John have an obligation to sacrifice his life to save that of the doctor?
Ethical principles (in small groups) Using the situations provided in class and your responses to them, discuss and agree to at least three different criteria (ethical systems) for ethical conduct. Be prepared to discuss your criteria with the class as a whole
Perspective/Thinkers associated with this perspective Ethical theory in a nutshell 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 1 3 2 4 5 6 7