Study Questions for Ethics Summer 2007

May 21

What is the difference between 1st person and 3rd person ethical issues? Give an example. Can an issue be both?

<your answer here> -Alfino

3rd Person issue: A general ethics topic that involves others rather than your yourself. It can either be a group (they) or another person (he or she).

   Example: Where does the United States governemnt stand on the issue of genetic engineering?

1st Person issue: An ethics topic that specifically involves yourself.

   Example: Can I cheat on my math exam? 

~Tristan

1st Person issue: an ethical question that one has to personnally deal with -dan-

Example of where an issue can be both: A third person issue like "Is under-age drinking okay?" could turn into a first person issue by asking myself where do I stand on under-age drinking. I could ask myself, "Can I drink alcohol even though I am not 21?" ~Tristan

Identify Standard Ethical Theories

Virtue: The right conduct and virtual character. It's the moral or ethical conformity of one's own principles. You could be virtuous for the benefit of others, but I think that true virtue is something you can only prove to yourself (Meaning prove it to yourself that you can obtain goodness rather than just seeking good because someone told you to).

Deontology: The right conduct comes from a sense of duty.

Utilitarianism: The view that should maximize happiness rather than pain for a group of people who are affected by the action.

-Paul G

What is descriptive relativism? What are cultural universals? Does it follow from the fact that moral values difference among individuals and cultures that there can be no universals?

Descriptive relativism: Describing two different groups by evaluation rather than picking a favorite. It is trying to describe the differences between them without any bias and claiming that both sides are right. If we claim one is right and one is wrong then we can no longer call it relative.

Cultural universals: Common ideas/beliefs that are shared by different cultures throughout the history of mankind.

I think that there has to be some agreement on not accepting certain things within their cultures. Example: I am pretty certain that not many cultures value cowardice and traitors amongst them. Instead, many civilizations and cultures value heroism and bravery. (I do take note of the fact that nations often differ on how they discipline or treat traitors but no nations praise their own traitors. Some might imprison traitors, some might exile them, or some might execute them.) ~Tristan

Assuming that descriptive relativism is true, does it follow that there are no grounds for discussion and persuasion about moral values? If so, why? If not, why not?

So if there is no value that is more right than another then why even discuss ethics? It is saying that the views of the Nazi Party and Christianity are both right and one is not better or worse than the other. That is a scary thought...

Maybe this can be a way of just comparing things without considering one's bias and this can help one get a better understanding of the similiarities and differences between other moral values. I think about how in a public high school a teacher might try to approach discussions without favoring one side or the other but hear all the possible voices out. I think this can help dialogue but I do think eventually a decision needs to be made (what do you think? I might be off on this one...) ~Tristan

May 22

What is female genital mutilation and why is it practiced?

female genital mutilation is a rite in tradtional African and Arabs cultures that removes a part of a girl's clitoris and in effect the woman can not feel sexual pleasure. It is a highly debated subject becuase of the long lying tradtion in their culture but yet how severe the procedure is. -dan-

What are some of the ways (4) that we can be wrong about values?

1. Wrong about what the norm is. (Mistake) 2. Knowing the norm, and accepting that it is true, but not living up to it. (Moral failures) 3. Disagree with the norm, but acknowledge that it is exceptionall/applicable for others. (Exceptionalism) 4. Disagree with the norm itself. -Paul G.

If we disagree with someoneàs basic account of the human good or of their account of reality (upon which they base their ethics), how can moral conversation proceed?

I think we should start by listening and understanding where they are coming from. This might require more effort on your part because I doubt you can understand what is totally going on by just listening. Read up on a similiar standpoint (if they are muslim, you might need to read up on what they believe and where their beliefs come from). Then you should have a conversation in terms of their view and set yours aside for the time being. It is trying to put yourself in their shoes and see it their way first and work from there to get them to see the strengths and weaknesses of their argument. (Please, if someone remembered what he said in class, post it because I think he did clearly state how to proceed). ~Tristan