* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ethics Lesson 1 - The Engquist Teachers
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Value (ethics) wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
The Lexington Principles on the Rights of Detainees wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Ethics Lesson 1 Pages 363-369 Table of Contents [Lesson 1 – Ethics] • Quotes p. 363 • Introduction p. 364 • Moral reasoning p. 365-367 – A simple model p. 365 – Consistency p. 366 – Facts p. 366 – Disagreements about moral principles p.367 • Moral relativism p. 367-371 – Arguments for moral relativism p.367-370 • The diversity argument p. 367-368 • The lack of foundations argument p. 368-369 Quotes • Notebook exercise – Read the quotes on p. 363 – Select two quotes you love – Select two quotes you hate – Share your choices with a partner Introduction • We are different from other organisms (animals etc.) because we think about ethics. • Ethics – the moral study of right and wrong • Examples of ethical questions: – Is abortion ever justified? – Should drugs be legalized? – Are their limits to free speech? – Do we have a right to privacy? – Is there such a thing as a just war? – Is child labor ever an acceptable practice? Introduction (Continued) – We will look at the nature of moral reasoning. • How is it similar to other Areas of Knowledge? • How is it different from other Areas of Knowledge? • (Remember other AoK in the book are at least math, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts, and religion) – Moral questions DO NOT HAVE ANY EASY ANSWERS – We will look at 2 things that are threats (enemies) to the study of ethics: • Moral relativism – there is no such thing as moral knowledge because we cannot judge who is right and who is wrong. • Self-interest theory – if moral knowledge exists, we have no way of doing anything about it because people are always selfish. Moral reasoning – People who think moral knowledge doesn’t exist usually feel that morals are simple. – Such people believe that matters of “right” and “wrong” are the same as tastes in food. – Yet this reasoning is not sound. – Why? Moral reasoning (continued) • Look at these two statements – I like pizza – She hates pizza • Can these really be the same as these two statements? – I think criminals should be executed (killed) – She thinks criminals should never be executed. • • • • These just CAN’T be equal comparisons! The pizza example is a matter of judgment The death penalty example is a matter of value judgment The difference? We expect a person to have supporting reasons or evidence to justify their opinion when it is a value judgment. • Normal judgments don’t require any deep explaining usually. A simple model • Moral principle – the basis or foundation for a value judgment • If I agree with the death penalty, what is the fundamental value (underlying principle) I am using? • If I disagree with killing criminals, what is my underlying moral principle? A simple model (continued) • A person who believes in the death penalty might have a couple of different underlying moral principles. – Possibly this person believes that criminals should deserve harsh punishments. The punishment should be at least as bad (and maybe worse) than the crime. – This person may also believe that justice should be strong enough to discourage other criminals from breaking the law. – Perhaps this person is religious and is following a religious code that says criminals should be executed. (example “An eye for an eye” from The Bible which means that a person should do the same punishment to somebody who did something to them.) A simple model (continued 2) • A person who believes that criminals should never be executed might hold some of these fundamental principles: – Murder is always wrong. Even when killing a criminal it would turn an innocent executioner into a murderer. – A person can be punished more by spending their life in prison. Living is more of a punishment than death. – It is good for the living to be merciful because they will not live a life filled with hatred. – Perhaps a religious principle which does not allow revenge or killing even when justified. (example 2 from The Bible “Turn the other cheek when an enemy hits you and allow your enemy to hit you again.) A simple model (continued 3) • We look at two things when we argue ethical questions: 1. Consistency in the judgments of the person we disagree with. 2. Are the facts that the person we are arguing with true? Consistency • Consistency – the idea that a person judges something in the exact same way each time. – Example: If Michael thinks the death penalty should always be given to murderers, then he must also feel this is true if somebody he loves commits murder (like his mother or wife). • For consistency to exist, their cannot be exceptions or special cases. • Consistency is connected to the idea of impartiality. • Impartial – showing no special favoritism to anyone when applying judgment in a situation. – Example: An impartial judge will look only at the facts when determining a case. She will not judge the alleged murderer based upon his clothing, attitude, friends, social status (rich/poor), or anything else. She will only judge him using the facts. • Another word for impartial is objective. Facts • When we make a value judgment we rely on facts. • What facts do we need to know to make our own value judgment on the following statement? • Example: Rich people should pay more in taxes to help poor people. Facts (continued) • Rich people should pay more in taxes to help the impoverished. (poor) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. How will the tax money get to the poor people? Is the government corrupt? If the money gets to the people, how can we know that it will be helping them? How can we be sure that the impoverished are using the money for appropriate things rather than drugs and alcohol? What do we consider to be “appropriate things?” How can we show that this money will eventually free people from the chains of poverty? Will the impoverished have to meet certain conditions or criteria to determine if they can have money? How will it be decided who is poor? How will it be decided about who is rich? How much is fair to take from the wealthy? Is it morally correct to take money from some in order to help others? How do we know that the impoverished deserve the money? What proof exists that the poor are trying to get employment? Disagreements about moral principles • Simple model Moral principle Fact Value-judgment • We can settle most arguments about “right” and “wrong” by simply looking at: – Underlying principles (fundamental moral principles) – Consistency – Facts • This seems easy enough however….. • What happens when we don’t share the same moral principles? Moral relativism • Definition (2 parts) 1. Our values are determined by the society we grow up in. (nation, culture, religion, family, friends) 2. There are no universal values • Examples: – Some cultures allow marriage to more than one person. Some strictly forbid it. – Some societies allow people to wear less clothing. Others societies expect people to fully cover their bodies. – Some groups allow the consumption (drinking) of alcohol. Some think alcohol is evil. Moral relativism (continued) • Universal values are values that everybody, everywhere agrees upon. • Can you think of any values shared by every single one of the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet? Arguments for moral relativism • There are 2 arguments that support the idea of moral relativism. The diversity argument The lack of foundations argument Moral relativism The diversity argument • Because there are so many (thousands!)…… – Cultures – Religions – Ethnic groups – Languages – Communities – Tribes – Nations – Traditions It suggest there are no factual (objective) values that can exist. The diversity argument (continued) • Do you really think our cultural practices are all the same? • Here is just a little evidence of this enormous variety! 1. Some cultures have eaten people. 2. Some mutilate (destroy or injure) their sexual organs 3. Some kill the servants and concubines of dead important people so that these people may accompany them to the afterlife 4. Some cultures have sacrificed people to their gods. 5. Some groups have killed the mentally/physically disabled. 6. Some have believed that all other groups are inferior and should be killed. 7. Some cultures are allowed to kill those who cheat on their spouse The lack of foundations argument • There is no fundamental basis for saying what is “right” or “wrong.” • If there were some truth existing separately from the world, perhaps we could judge right and wrong from that independent source of truth. • Moral reasoning is extremely difficult because logic doesn’t help us. The lack of foundations argument (continued) • Consider these situations. 1. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The humans should kill those who use too many resources. 2. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The humans should do nothing. 3. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The humans should eat the fattest humans. 4. There are too many humans on the planet earth. The humans should sing a happy song. • In terms of LOGIC AND REASON they are all identical! That’s the problem! • No statement above is more “logically correct” than another.