* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download "Jimmy Wright" <jimmywright@hotmail
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup
Clare Palmer wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Medical ethics wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Accounting ethics wikipedia , lookup
Nel Noddings wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
Declaration of Helsinki wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of technology wikipedia , lookup
Marketing ethics wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Jewish ethics wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
From: "Jimmy Wright" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Thought Essay #1 According to Thomas Hobbes, were the attacks on September 11th, 2001 justified or not? What about the U.S. retaliation in Afghanistan In an analysis of the attacks on September 11th, Thomas Hobbes would most likely contend that the reasons for those attacks would fall under all three of the "principal causes of quarrel:" the competition would lie between American/Western ideals and Islamic ideals, the diffidence comes in that many non-Western states blame the United States for exploitation of people and values in other countries thus causing Al Qaeda to resort to violence in an attempt to protect their homeland, and finally the glory associated with crippling the United States and becoming a famous, or infamous, rebel against the hegemonic oppressor that is the United States. But where would Hobbes stand on the ethics of the attacks? Hobbes contends that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" in the world because there is no universal power to rule over all of humanity. Without this commonwealth of humanity, "[t]he notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice" (Hobbes 32). According to Hobbes, the attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent retaliation by the United States in Afghanistan were simply an expression of the nature of humanity; and, it is an excellent explanation of the right of nature which he defines as the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own judgment and reason he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto (Hobbes 33). But what about the martyrs on the planes who sought a cause greater than their own lives? How does Hobbes explain their behavior? Although the suicide attacks were a violation of the law of nature-a precept by which man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life-it is not necessarily a violation of the right of nature-in which his nature is not necessarily limited to preserving his own life, but can encompass his way of life (Hobbes 33). Thus, Hobbes would say that the events surrounding September 11th are perfect examples of how humanity is at war with itself, but human nature denies ethics due to its inherent liberty and lack of a common authority. From: [email protected] Subject: Weekly Thought Essay #1 The Josephus Institute reading asserts that ethical values have to be universal to be considered ethical. Universal, according to their argument, means that it is, a) right, good and proper [1], b) there is consensus on its universality (there has been little disagreement on whether it is ethical, historically [4]). Universal ethics are moral norms that we ought to abide by if we want to be right, good, and proper. The Institute argues that trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship are all universal ethical norms. Mencius asserts a different, but very similar set of values. He believes that goodness is intrinsic, and we have values of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. I believe Mencius’s ethical norms better meet the test than the Institutes. All of the Institutes ethical norms are “good” but are not necessarily right and proper. The reading does not convince me that trustworthiness, citizenship and caring meet the consensus part of the test. Caring seems to be more of a personal or societal moral, than a universal ethic. According to the Institue, if a person were to not care about someone, then they would be acting unethically. Caring implies worrying or thinking about someone else’s physical, emotional or mental being. Some people are so evil that all persons should not care about them. They might pity them or show commiseration towards them, as Mencius says, but caring is a much stronger word that is not necessarily a norm or universally accepted. The Institute’s norms seem to impose more specific moral norms on you that do not feel universal as a whole. Mencius uses broader terms that can be more universally accepted across cultures and value systems. By using broader terms, Mencius presents ethical norms that are right, good, and proper, but that do not come into question as easily in regards to universal consensus. From: "Adena Young" <[email protected]> The readings were quite interesting as the relevance of the authors’ ideas could be tested on Willie Stark. Some of the readings better fit Governor Stark than others, but I think the best description of his character and actions are a combination of concepts. Thomas Hobbes describes Stark’s logic regarding MacMurfee. He writes that "if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; an in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their declaration only, endeavor to destroy or subdue one another" (30). Stark was highly interested in self-promotion. The men were enemies as they both wanted political advancement, which is something they could not both achieve at once. Hobbes also states that each person is governed by his or her own reasoning. Individuals’ actions are influenced by what they see as right and wrong, which differs from person to person. Like Thrasymachus, I believe that Stark, as a political leader, would say that he was seeking what was in his best interest, but in doing so he was also seeking good for the people. Stark’s justification for acting politically was to help the people, especially the poor. Yet, one’s perspective determines what he or she believes to be in their best interest. Likewise, I think one’s perspective determines what he or she considers ethical and unethical. Despite the "ought" ethics, which are standard and established norms that apply to everyone, I think we hold different standards for different people on how one "ought" to behave. For example, the rich would be more likely to consider Stark’s actions unethical, while poor people would consider him to be ethical. X-Originating-IP: [67.209.30.249] From: "Sha Embree" <[email protected]> To: "Tim O'Neill" <[email protected]> Subject: Thought Essay Sha Embree Thought Essay #1 September 2, 2002 Gilligan's article raises the question, if there is a difference between men and women's concepts of eithics, how does that effect women leaders and women's role in politics? It is very apparent the shortage of women in politics. We have seen an increase in women's role in politics. However, would we not agree that the idea of a women President is a long ways off? The characters of Lucy Stark and Sadie both had loyality to Willie Stark. However, their values or ethics differ greatly. Lucy Stark had a sence of loyality and duty to support her family and husband. Sadie's loyality benefited herself. Both of the characters are very different, but yet seemed to have that passive or nonjudgemental, unconditional loyality to Willie Stark. These women are portrayed somewhat powerless in their situation. Is that by choice or circumstance? Have women moved away from these stereotypes? Do women's ethics change with love and obligation? Gilligan suggest that women are bound by different guidelines for their ethics and values. Could this difference be what holds women back in politics? I fear that if women moved away from thier nuturing and caring nature to adapt to a black and white set of ethics, women would have less to offer as a mother, wife and neighbor and I dare say a citizen. If Lucy Stark exposed Willie's affairs, would he have been elected. What about Hilary Clinton. What kind of ethics does she demostrate to women? If the tables were turned, how would we feel if Hilary had the affairs and Bill "stood by his woman"? There is a diffenence, but are we better or worse for it? Jack Zinda The test on whether or not a value is universal is whether it remains morally righteous under any given situation. This means that it’s a rule that applies under any given condition. It would be harder for the institute to pass this test, because it speaks about ethics in terms of many specific rules that will always apply. Many of the ethical guidelines seem that they could be contradictory in and of themselves, and they may not apply in every situation. Mencius’s list of ethical values seem to pass this test, because his definition uses the ideal that every person inherently knows what is ethical or not in any given situation. By being less specific with its ethical guidelines Mencius passes the test on universal values more easily than the Josephson Institute. Thomas Hobbes’ opinion would come closest support Thrasymachus’ opinion that who ever has the most power is able to determine what is ethical and justice. Hobbes does not state exactly this, but instead says that you should try to do the right thing as long as others desire it as well. They both agree that if you have the ability to act in a certain way than you have the right to do so. Hobbes ideal on this is more restrictive than that of Thrasymachus’. Ethics does not seem to be based on gender. Ethics seems gender neutral, but a person’s point of view on ethics can differ greatly depending on their environment. Therefore it may appear that the reason behind why two people have different ethical standards is from their gender, when instead it was from their environmental surroundings. Willie’s justification that everything is bad until man creates good out of it therefore it is justified to do good as long as the outcome is positive. This is contradicted by What is Ethics Anyway? . Willie Stark had no ethical standards and only followed his own personal values. Mencius also would disagree with Stark’s ethical standards. He says that everyone knows the ethical thing to do in any situation. According to this Willie had others, like Jack, violate what they felt were the ethically proper things to do.