Ethical Discussion

[Dragon324 16]

So me and isaacsol are both currently taking an ethics class and here we are going to post different scenarios and give you different terms just to first see how similar they are and secondly to give you something to think about. So first of all my book says ethics is " the study of morality" Morals are " good conduct". So now I'm going to give you an situation to think about but before I do that I want to show you how you should evaluate the situation ethically.

"1. Begin with an open mind (No preconceptions)

2. Isolate and evaluate the relevant factors of BOTH SIDES!!

3. Identify the precise moral question to be answered.

4. Apply ethical principles to the moral question based on an objective evaluation of the facts, only then drawing a conclusion."

"You are the parent of a teenager who is showing typical teenager signs. Your child is not very talkative to you, but talkative with friends. Doesn't want to be seen with you or family at public places. Does not want to be an A student. Lousy taste of music, cloths, and hairstyles and wants to get more piercing. You fear that drug use is next on the list of things. You contact to a agency that costs $250- $750 dollars to conduct a drug search to do a search in your child's room. You plan not to tell your child and to do it while the child is at school. If you find nothing who would be the wiser?"

Discuss if this is an ethical choice of action to this situation and your opinion. Use the stated steps above to reach a conclusion. We will update this thread regularly.

[isaacsol 10]

Part one for you Dragon ;)

 

An ethical issueis one where there is a question as to what oughtto be done. They have a moraldimension, dealing with issues of right and wrong.

 

Not all rules or laws are based on moral principles. Killingand stealing are generally immoral and illegal. Certain immoral behaviourscannot be made illegal, such as;

 

· Lying

 

· Cheating

 

· Being unkind to others

 

There are also instances of where laws are immoral, normallyin corrupt or evil regimes. Therefore a legal act is not necessarily moral andvice versa.

 

Moral behaviour is not necessarily doing what others do, asdifferent cultures have different moral standards, and what people do is notnecessarily what they ought to do.For example, in ancient Rome and in the West during the 16^th-19^thcenturies, slavery was socially acceptable.

 

Morality cannot be based only on feelings. Just becausesomething makes you feel guilty, it doesn’t make it immoral. Furthermore, justbecause you feel good, it doesn’t mean you have done nothing wrong.

 

Also, morality cannot be based entirely on religion. Manypeople do not follow a religion but they have an understanding of morality.Some religions have a detailed moral code that can encourage moral behaviour,but there may still be some issues where it would be difficult to see howreligious teachings could be applied.

 

 

Distinguishing between is andought

Ethics is concerned not with what is the case, but what oughtto be the case. It is about how the world oughtto be and how people ought to behave.

 

Generally, it is difficult to argue from ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ without making an error of reasoning. For example:

 

“Yes, I am jealous of her butthere’s nothing wrong with being jealous because jealousy is only natural”

 

The problem here is that though humans may be jealouscreatures, it does not necessarily follow that we ought to be so.

 

 

Principles

A principle is ageneral rule that can be applied in various situations. When resolvingdilemmas, most of us will, consciously or otherwise, rely on some principles tohelp in the decision-making process.

 

 

Boxing in schools

Boxing should not be taught in schools because it is a violent and dangerous sport and schools should not be encouraging violent or dangerous activities.

 

 

 

 

 

In the above example, in order to decide whether or notschools should teach boxing, theauthor has relied on a principle that schools should not be teaching violent or dangerous activities.

 

If the author is to be consistent with this principle, wewould expect him also to be opposed to other dangerous and violent sports, likerugby.

 

If the author was against boxing but in favour of rugby,then we can accuse the author of being inconsistent with their principle. Thisillustrates the importance of thinking carefully before establishingprinciples; remember, principles always have a wider application.

 

 

Moral relativism

When making an argument in favour of a particular position,do you find people respond with ‘well, that is just your opinion’? Why dopeople say this? It seems to be nothing more than a statement of the obviousand completely inadequate as a counter-argument.

 

What seems to underlie this is a modern trend towards relativism, which believes that oneperson’s opinion (especially on a moral issue), cannot be any better thansomeone else’s opinion. This is all very polite and non-confrontational andtolerant of differences, but the problem is that most people would want to takethis principle only so far. There comes a point at which most of us would concedethat the difference between right and wrong cannot be just a matter of personalopinion.

 

Different people have different opinions and feelings, sothey therefore disagree. Just because wethe right to have differing opinions, is doesn’t follow that we have to beright.

 

If personal preference, feelings or opinions are not thebasis of morality, it follows that there are some things that are objectively right or wrong. In otherwords, if torture is wrong, then it is wrong whether or not you agree that itis wrong. You may have the right to hold a dissenting opinion but your opinionwould be mistaken or misguided.

 

Many people have a problem with this because they understandthat some things can be proven more easily than others. People would tend toagree that the world is round because strong scientific evidence exists todemonstrate that this is a fact. Answers to moral questions cannot be provenscientifically; however, ethical theories have been devised, which are attemptsto provide a system for showing which things are right and which are wrong.

 

 

Cultural relativism

This is the view that concepts of right and wrong arise fromcultural beliefs and that we should be tolerant of differences betweencultures. For example, it is common in many cultures for men to be allowed totake more than one wife. In cultures that allow polygamy, the practice isrespectable and encouraged, whereas in other societies outlaw it.

 

If we think that polygamy is wrong but other cultures holdit as right, are we in a position to judge the moral standards of anotherculture?

 

If we accept cultural relativism, whose side should we beon? Can it be that something that was once right has now become wrong, or is itthe case that something had always been wrong and that it is only recently thatwe have come to realise that it was wrong?

 

 

Confusing is and ought

Just because a particular behaviour is commonly accepted, it does not automatically follow that it ought to be commonly accepted.

 

Something is not right just because it is what most peopledo or think.

 

Cultural relativism is appealing because it appears to betolerant of cultural differences. However, it is difficult to defend the ideathat what is moral is whatever a culture happens to think is moral at aparticular point in time.

 

 

Utilitarianism

It is not a relativist position; it asserts that right orwrong is not just a matter of personal preference, since it is possible to workout objectively the rightness or wrongness of possible courses of action.However, what relativists and utilitarians have in common is that they wouldagree that nothing is right or wrong in each and every situation. They wouldagree, in other words, that right and wrong are not absolutes.

 

What matters is the consequence of the action rather thanthe act itself . In order to work out what is right, people should consider thesituation carefully and calculate what course of action would result in thegreatest happiness for the greatest number.

 

“The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few”

For example, in a situation where the taking of one livewould save the lives of many others, the utilitarian principle would say thatyou ought to take that live toachieve the greater happiness of saving the lives of the others.

 

 

Criticisms of utilitarianism

Many moral philosophers have concluded that utilitarianismis a convincing answer to the question of how we can decide what is right andwhat it wrong. However, there are also some powerful criticisms.

 

One common objection is that it is impossible to predictwith certainty the consequences of actions. Utilitarianism relies on peoplebeing able to predict the future, yet often things happen that we do notexpect. Furthermore, we cannot be certain about what will make other peoplehappy, so can we really be expected to make accurate happiness calculations?

 

Utilitarianism seems to assert that everyone’s happiness isequally important. However, can the happiness of a sadist really be as valuableas that of an altruist? Can we give extra priority to the happiness ofourselves or our own family? Is it immoral, for example, for parents to lookafter their own children without making an equal effort for other children?

 

If 6 people needed organ transplants, would it bejustifiable to murder a person to harvest their organs in order to save thelives of 6 others?