HW 7 Ethics - homework PDF

Preview

Summary

homework...

Description

Name:

Annemarie Elguera

HW7 (Chapter 7) - Ethics Philosophy (Love of Wisdom) Does the Center Hold? – Chapter 7: Philosophy of Ethics

Choose one of the following questions (A or B) and respond to it briefly. A) Ask someone a philosophical question. a. What did you ask? b. How did they respond? c. What happened next?

B) Look at something in a new way (maybe through the lens of a philosopher or a topic in our class). a. What did you look at? The moral duty we have to others b. What was new about the way you looked at it? I looked at it through the lens of Kant’s categorical imperatives.

1) (Identify/Analyze) Where do your morals come from? Provide examples. Morals come from partly our instincts or innate ideas like the rationalist believe but also it is shapes by our upbringing, culture and experiences as suggested by Kant’s synthesis.

2) (Identify/Analyze) If you had a magic ring that could make you invisible (like the one ring of Lord of the Rings without the nasty side-effects), what would you do while wearing it – or – what would other people do while wearing it? If I was invisible id be able to eavesdrop on other peoples conversations and have a live view like reality TV, I think other people would do equally unethical or even poorer moral decisions.

3) (Evaluate) What does this tell you about your own morality or the morality of others? We are mostly concerned about what others think of our decisions so if no one could see you people would mostly act worse than they do normally.

4) Is it ever ok to kill? a) State: Provide your brief initial response. In my opinion, it depends on the situation that led to that decision being made.

b) Elaborate: “In other words…” In other words, there are various causes for murder but not all are justifiable.

c)

Exemplify: “For example…” For example, if you are protecting your own live or someone else’s and you kill someone its more of an instinct to survive than a moral decision. Premeditated murder of innocent lives is not okay and I think most people would agree.

©Kimber 2016

d) THEN – evaluate your reasoning/justification. Explain WHY you think what you think. What are your reasons for holding that position? Are they good reasons? Do you offer a strong justification or a weak justification? I think this is not a black or white question it is more of a case by case and no one truly has all the right moral justifications that applies to all situations like you would for a math equation that always has the same universal outcome.

5) Is it ever ok to lie? a) State: Provide your brief initial response. Yes, some lies are necessary in my opinion. b) Elaborate: “In other words…” In other words, I could answer this same question in the way I answered it about murder but its not as consequential as murder.

c)

Exemplify: “For example…” For example, lies can sometimes be for someone’s benefit for example the example in the book if your hiding your friend from a murderer and you lie and say you haven’t seen them you could potentially save their life.

d) THEN – evaluate your reasoning/justification. Explain WHY you think what you think. What are your reasons for holding that position? Are they good reasons? Do you offer a strong justification or a weak justification? The other side of the coin is the continuation of that example; what if in the time that you’re lying to the murderer your friend sneaks out the back and then gets caught as the murderer is leaving. In that case you might feel guilty for lying but it wasn’t you that murdered so at least you have something smaller on your conscious and you were a trustworthy friend that didn’t rat out your buddy.

6) What is something that you know you shouldn’t do, BUT you choose to do it anyway? Use a specific example. (Egoism) I sometime choose to sleep in and avoid doing homework even though I know itll lead to more stress in the future.

7) Describe a time when you considered the consequences of an action before acting. WHY did you choose one path over the other? (Utilitarianism) A big choice was the first time I got intoxicated while out and had to call my mom to pick me up instead of driving and in that case there were many consequences that influenced my decision such as possibly getting a ticket or worse hurting others in a car crash.

©Kimber 2016

8) Describe a time when you were disrespected (or when you disrespected someone else). Use a particular example. (Deontology) I work as a retail sales representative at At&t and at times people come in very upset about their bills or other stresses in their lives and will be disrespectful to me but I try not to take it personally since I know it usually has nothing to do with me and everything to do with them.

9) Describe a time when you were shown respect (or when you respected someone else). Use a particular example. (Deontology) I am shown respect in my relationship for example, whenever I need space to process things my boundaries are cherished and upheld.

10) What, do you think, is the fundamental difference between respect and disrespect? (Deontology) How you make someone feel, compassion towards others.

11) List the characteristics of a “good” person – contrast those with a list of characteristics of a “bad” person. (Virtue Ethics) Good people care about how their actions affect others and themselves, they respect themselves, and their reputation and a bad person does not care about any of that.

12) What is the difference between saying “getting punched hurts” and “you should not punch people”? (Descriptive vs. Prescriptive) One is a judgement of how others should or ought to act and the other is just a statement and not an ethical issue.

©Kimber 2016

Name: Annemarie Elguera

HW 7 (Chapter 8) – Ethics Challenges Philosophy (Love of Wisdom) Does the Center Hold? – Chapter 8: Critiques of Traditional Ethical Theories 1) Do animals deserve ethical treatment – or only humans? What does it mean to treat animals ethically? Can you think of any examples? How is this similar to or different from the ethical treatment of humans? Yes because they are living creature and anything having to do with life is and ethical issue and we should be concerned with it. It’s similar to the treatment of humans because we value human life and should value the life of animals and respect them.

2) Does it make sense to talk about treating the earth ethically? What would it be like to treat the earth ethically? Are humans treating the earth ethically right now? Have they ever done so? Are you? Explain – and use examples. I don’t believe humans have ever treated the earth ethically as a whole and since I am a member of the “human” category id fit into this box. We have historically destroyed the planet for our own gain and in that case, it is not being treated ethically.

3) Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all suggest that only a good / virtuous person can experience true happiness / fulfillment (eudaimonia). Do you agree? Explain. Yes, Ill agree because how can you be happy or fulfilled by violating the liberties of others or yourself.

(Synthesis Questions on Ethics – IMPORTANT) 4) Should you strive to be a truly good and virtuous person? Why or why not? Yes you should because it feels good to be good or make virtuous choices in other words hedonism.

5) Understand cultural relativism and its limitations. Imagine that you grew up in Miami and, therefore, became a Heat fan because you were raised in a Heat culture. You say “It is right to cheer for the Heat and wrong to cheer for other teams.” Now, imagine that instead of growing up in Miami, you grew up in Boston and, therefore, became a Celtics fan because you were raised in a Celtics culture. You say “It is right to cheer for the Celtics and wrong to cheer for other teams.” a) In your own words, explain how this example demonstrates relativism. (Ex. “Because the standard for right and wrong comes from … rather than …”) It’s based on upbringing and how you were taught and that shapes your belief.

b) Provide your own example (different from the Heat/Celtics example) that demonstrates why cultural relativism is potentially dangerous. People from Israel think its okay to bomb and murder people from Palestine because they were instilled with that viewpoint ©Kimber 2016

from birth.

6) Understand and apply utilitarianism, which objectively analyzes the pleasures and pains associated with different choices and then selects the path that leads to the greatest overall pleasure. Imagine that you contracted a deadly virus while visiting another county and you know that it will likely take your life within two weeks. However, you would find great pleasure in seeing your family and friends one last time, so you are trying to decide, “Should I get on a plane and head home to visit family and friends or should I lock myself in a room for my remaining two weeks.” Suddenly, you remember studying about utilitarianism! You decide to apply it to your situation. a) Identify the question/problem/issue that is at hand. Ex. “Should I…or…”? Should I fly to visit my loved one even though I’ll likely infect and kill others

b) Analyze the relevant information. Here, in utilitarianism, you must identify the options, and weigh out the consequences in terms of pleasures and pains associated with each choice. (TIP: create two columns, one for choice A and one for choice B. Then identify all of the people that will be impacted by each choice. Then assign each of them a number that represents the amount of pleasure they will experience in the remainder of their life IF that choice is made. Use negative numbers to indicate pain (for example, eating pizza is +10 out of 100 and getting stung by a bee is -15 out of 100).

visiting loved ones before death is +60 out of 100 and killing 100 people you come in contact with in between is -100 out of 100 so you should stay home and facetime them

c)

Evaluate the situation by applying the standard or principle of the theory. For utilitarianism, that standard is “greatest net pleasure.” So, identify which choice will yield the set of consequences that will lead to greatest net pleasure/happiness. Explain your reasoning.

The one that would lead to the least amount of “net pleasure” Is to stay home instead of seeing your loved ones because just because you’d get pleasure from it doesn’t mean it’s the best choice

d) Conclude – state your conclusion/response to the initial question and make sure it fits with your analysis and evaluation. My conclusion is that you should in this case sacrifice your own pleasure for the lives of the potential people youd infect with your illness. Essentially sacrificing for the greatest good.

©Kimber 2016

7) Understand and apply deontology, which analyzes the sincerity of your intentions (not intended consequences, but the intended-impact-upon-the-humanity-of-yourself-and-others).Imagine your friend comes and asks you “Is my boyfriend/girlfriend cheating on me?” and you know that they are. You also know that your friend will feel emotionally hurt if you tell the truth. You need to decide “Should I tell the truth or should I lie to my friend?” Suddenly, you remember studying about deontology! You decide to apply it to your situation. a) Identify the question/problem/issue that is at hand. Ex. “Should I…or…”? should I tell my friend their bf/gf is cheating

b) Analyze the relevant information. Here, in deontology, you must identify the intended-impact-upon-the-humanity-ofyourself-and-others in your choice (this is the hard part). Deontology says, it doesn’t ultimately matter what the law says is right, what your religion says is right, or what your family says is right. You alone are responsible for analyzing your true underlying intention-toward-Humanity in the willing that drives your choice – regardless of consequences. The consequences (such as your friend crying or breaking up) do not matter in deontology. The intention alone is what matters. SO – sort out the intention-toward-Humanity that drives the act of lying and the one that drives the act of telling the truth. (Hint: Kant says lying dehumanizes and disrespects the other because it is a choice that assumes you know better than them and that they are not autonomous or rational enough to make their own decision if presented with the truth.) Remove all concern for consequences from your analysis when you apply deontology. The information you have can help your friend make the best decision for them selves and according to the 3 rd formulation you should view people as their own means and let them make their own choices with all the correct information.

c)

Evaluate the situation by applying the standard or principle of the theory. For deontology, that standard is the categorical imperative. So, identify the intention (from your analysis above) and consider what the world would be like if everyone always acted on that intention in everything they did, every day, forever. Is that a world that you could personally will into being? Explain your reasoning. If it is not a world you could will into being, then do not act on that intention.

The intention is important however I don’t think id like to live in that would because their to many variables that could lead to worse consequences then if people could lie to protect themselves/others. I think the consequences do matter in these decisions unlike deontology suggests.

d) Conclude – state your conclusion/response to the initial question and make sure it fits with your analysis and evaluation. You should tell your friend the truth because you want to respect their autonomy to make an informed decision.

©Kimber 2016...