ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 1 Discussion
STUDY OF ETHICS
The study of Ethics
brings many different kinds of "thinkers" together. One person's
philosophy on ethics may be another person's philosophy on evil. We will be
working this term on constructing personal ethical bases and understanding how
Ethical Codes (both personal and professional) are created and followed.
To start us thinking
about the different areas of philosophy and ethics, and how we fit into the
different molds or world views, let's discuss the differences and similarities
between these views. To do this, let's look at the role of right and wrong,
laws which regulate behavior, principles vs. morality, and the role of ethics
in our society.
To start out we'll
answer some of these questions and create more of them as we go. Pick one of
the following and respond to yourclassmates thoughts and views:
Do we need ethics if
we have laws? Why or why not?
Is it ethical to
change our own views of ethics based on the situation we are in?
Can we
"legislate" ethics?
How does Aristotle's
"virtue ethics" mirror your ethical view, or how is it different?
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 2 Discussion
MAJORITY THINK
American writer Mark
Twain warned that "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,
it is time to pause and reflect." This is a common sentiment that we
experience at different points throughout our lives. It is likely that your
parents warned you "not to follow the crowd," or your school
counselors warned you about "peer pressure."
The United States
utilizes a democratic republic form of government, which espouses the
"majority rule" in many instances. For example, when passing laws,
Congress and state Legislators use majority voting. When electing our
officials, the majority rules. But, is our government unethical?
This week's discussion
will examine majority findings or rules:
The great majority of
people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use of commercials in
children's television programming. Yet a distinguished panel commissioned by
the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After reviewing 21
relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:
It is clear from the
available evidence that television advertising does influence children.
Research has demonstrated that children attend to and learn from commercials,
and that advertising is at least moderately successful in creating positive
attitudes toward and the desire for products advertised. The variable that
emerged most clearly across numerous studies as a strong determinant of
children's perception of television advertising is the child's age. Research
clearly establishes that children become more skilled in evaluating television
advertising as they grow older, and that to treat all children from 2 to 12 as
a homogenous group masks important, perhaps crucial differences.
Do you think the
majority view is correct in this case? What difference would it make that a
majority thinks this way?
Do you think the use
of commercials in children's television programming raises any ethical
questions? Explain your reasoning.
Do you wish to place
evidence for what you say before your classmates?
Be sure to utilize the
readings and ethical theories for this week to highlight key aspects of your
responses.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 3 Discussion
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Social Contract
theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people
should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their
mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as
well.
Hobbes runs the logic
like this in the form of a logical syllogism:
We are all
self-interested,
Each of us needs to
have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
We need moral rules in
order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,
Therefore,
self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
Thomas Hobbes looked
to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such
thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty,
brutish, and short" -- a kind of perpetual state of warfare
John Locke disagreed,
and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of
its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and
sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Listen to
Locke's audio in this week's lesson and read his lecturette to be able to
answer this thread.
Locke addressed
Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he
attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by
pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of
nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common
judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to
themselves punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.
Which philosophy do
you espouse?
In coming to grips
with the two and considering your experience of society as it is today, think
out loud about what you experiences as the State of Nature, and tell us what
you would be willing to give up in exchange for civil order and personal
security?
You might consider
what you have already given up in exchange for security as well as what might
be required in coming days.
CASE STUDY: THE DEATH
PENALTY
First, here is a word
of caution. With this discussion comes a tasking to discuss the death penalty
in two ways: first, as an expression of the social contract, where one person
has killed another in a violation of that other person's right to peace and
safety, and second, as a rules-based function of the justice system being applied
to a difficult situation.
What do you see going
on that is a violation of the Hobbes/Locke social contract idea?
And you might also
connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle, that you have read in
past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics model.
Here's the situation:
In Manatee County, Florida, a judge sentenced a man to death—the first time
this had happened in the county for over 19 years. Sentenced to death was a
25-year-old man for the January 7, 2004, murder of both of his parents by
bludgeoning them to death in their bed with a baseball bat.
Now, with your social
contract ethicist hats on, tell us what you make of this quote by the judge at
the sentencing, quoted from the front page of the November 17, 2007 Bradenton
Herald: "You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but
under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited the right to live at
all."
Remember to keep your
responses in the context of our social contract discussion for this week and
also connected with ethics of justice.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 4 Discussion
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
Increasing food
supplies are necessary to sustain growing populations around the world and
their appetites for great food, quality products, and continuous availability.
A great deal of
expensive research is invested in developing technologies to deliver productive
agriculture. Horticultural efforts to breed hybrid crops are seen as far back
as history can observe, and there have been efforts to domesticate improved
animals, as well. Gene splitting was a 1990s technology to improve the health
and productivity of farm crops. With the 21st century have come genetically
modified foods (GMF) through the use of nanotechnology to cause changes at the
genetic and even molecular levels. These are very expensive technologies, and
many new products have been patented and otherwise protected as proprietary products
of intellectual property.
Drive out to the
country during growing season, and you will see signs identifying that the crop
has been grown with a protected seed that cannot be used to produce retained
seed for planting in the next growing season.
What ethical issues
are raised by this legal process of patent protection, and how do we see the
primary schools of ethics used in these proprietary measures? What, in this
deontological week and in our learning to date, informs our understanding of
this situation, and what should be done about it? Use specific examples from
the reading and Lesson for this week to help support your claims and reasoning.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 5 Discussion
UTILITARIANISM AND CARE
BASED ETHICS
There are three basic
propositions in standard Utilitarianism (Please be sure to listen to Mill's
audio lecture before joining this threaded discussion):
Actions are judged
right and wrong solely on their consequences; that is, nothing else matters
except the consequence, and right actions are simply those with the best
consequences.
To assess
consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness and
unhappiness caused; that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is
irrelevant.
In calculating
happiness and unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts any more than
anybody else’s; that is, everybody’s welfare is equally important and the
majority rules.
In specific cases
where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the
greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration for
justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for rushed decisions and
actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of expediency.
Here is a dilemma for
our class:
You are the elected
district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home administrator
who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list of 3,000
people who will die if they don't get into her nursing home facility within the
next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their
families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian's
(fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping them die.
The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing home
administrator) wants to know if you would agree to "look the other
way" if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients
who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting
list in.
How would we use
Utilitarianism to "solve" this dilemma?
How would we use
cars-based ethics to "solve" this dilemma?
What ethics did your
friend, the nursing home administrator, use in deciding to call you?
What ethics are you
using if you just "look the other way" and let it happen?
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 6 Discussion
WORKING CONFLICT
RESOLUTION METHODS
Different ways to
analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will help direct
you to the correct or "best" solution to a problem.
As we have discussed
since Week 1, sometimes right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be
made.
In the lesson this
week, you are given three ethical dilemma resolution models to try out on a
dilemma provided there. Please review that interactive before posting to the
discussion this week.
The dilemma in the
Week 6 Lecture interactive (in the middle of the page) is where we will focus
our attention. You MUST read the lecture and run the interactive in order to
participate in the discussion this week!
Review the sample
solution to the Laura Nash method. Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what
parts do you think really helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which
parts do you not agree with?
Review the sample
solution to the Front Page of the Newspaper method. Do you think this is one of
those types of dilemmas for which this model works? If not, why not? If so,
why? How did using this method help you work through the dilemma?
Review the sample
solution to the Blanchard and Peale method. Do you agree with the analysis? If
not, why not? If so, in what way did this help you analyze this dilemma?
How can Ayn Rand's
four epistemological principles of objectivism be applied to this case? How might Rand's solution differ from other
methods?
Pick ONE of the above
4 questions and let's get started. Feel free to kindly debate with each other.
Do not take things personally if someone disagrees. Be sure to show that you
have viewed the lecture and interactive and that you attempted an analysis for
"high quality" posts this week.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 7 Discussion
PERSONAL AND BUSINESS
ETHICS
Personal ethics often
help us form relationships in all facets of our lives - including the workplace.
As a result, it is important to think about the connection between personal
ethics and business ethics. This week, we looked at two more ethical codes— one
for the Project Management Institute, and one for Engineers.
You can see that both
of them are much simpler than the Legal code we looked at last week, and even
simpler than the Medical code of ethics. Appropriate professional behavior,
practice, and discipline varies among professions and reflects the needs and
values of the professional society in question.
Let's then assume
professional roles as we work on this fictional scenario:
It's 2020, and General
Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced
hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to
200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year.
It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been
changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced
that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.
However, the downside
is that during the transition time, GFC's Hover-Vee (only available in red or
black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major
dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling
traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still
being used, Hover-vee's will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely
class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about
four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC's
marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their
first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which
will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.
The Chief Engineer of
GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The
preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an
increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions
and crashes at high speeds -- projected annual death rates of 100,000 to
200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.
The U. S. Government
gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and
operate Hover-vees. GFC's stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the
results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel, and together they agree to
bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project
Manager, who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out
the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.
Our class is a team of
young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all
part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact,
according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:
A-G: Attorney on the
GFC team
H-N: Project Manager
on the GFC team
0-S: Engineer on the
GFC team
T-Z: Congressional
Aide
Somebody sent a secret
copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at
all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and
deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CLO, CE, CPM, and your
Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front
there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save
the world!
Each of you feel a
very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all have mortgages,
and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on this report, you
will lose your job and your livelihood. You're not even sure who wrote the
study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 8 Discussion
REFLECTION
This is a also good
time to be looking back over this course and thinking ahead to what comes next
for you.
Courses like this one
intend to expand your horizons by bringing new ideas and more refined ways of
thinking about the kinds of decisions and commitments that you will make both
in career and in life as a whole.
This course is
Foundations of Ethics. Whatever you do and wherever you do it, you have gained
tools of thinking and analysis that will serve you well. Keep these tools handy
and at the forefront of your attention -- whatever it is that will come into
your hands in the future. You are far more equipped for leadership than you
were a few short weeks ago.
So, here are a few
questions for this final week in class to help you reflect for the last formal
assignment:
What of all that you
have learned and practiced in this class will make the most significant
impact(s) in your study of your declared major here at DeVry and in your career
as you envision it?
How might this course
experience connect with and inform what you are looking forward to learning
more about throughout your education and career as a lifelong learner?
Consider how one
learns: how much learning is individual? How much learning is socially achieved
by discussing with one or more people in a variety of roles?
To what extent is
knowledge something one finds? To what extent is knowledge something one
creates through interpretation, application, and analysis?
What are the
differences between information and knowledge?
