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

An ethical issue can be both a 3rd and 1st person issue by having a larger general ethical topic being present in ones life. For example, is it ethical to cheat in general could be scaled down to a personal level such as is it ethical to cheat on my math test? --Meredith

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

Descriptive Relativism shows that values vary from culture to culture based on context (the nature of your relationships, the outcome, rationality, and how many people are involved or affected). Cultural Universals show that different cultures can agree on certian morals. It does not follow that there can be no agreement because of the existence of cultural universals. Moral principles can often be rationally defended and similar, but the actual practices and rules may differ. --Lindsay

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

There are still grounds for discussion and persuasion because morals provide a framework for how people live their lives. Without this framework, and the discussion that naturally ensues, their would be no great goals to strive for and no virtue to uphold. Also, some similarities can and do exist among cultures, and humans will always want to debate their opinions. --Lindsay

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-

This continues to be a practice because of long standing traditions and to maintain family honor. --Lindsay

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

Moral conversation can proceed only when both parties are willing to participate and have open minds. If you have that, conversation can proceed by using common terms and things already agreed upon to ensure accurate discussion and to facilitate understanding. --Lindsay

May 23

What does it mean to adopt the moral standpoint?

Adopting the moral standpoint means realizing two important points: (1)There must be a social maxim or universial and (2) everyone's interests are as important to them as yours are to you. --Lindsay

Why would an ethical egoist become an elightened ethical egoist?

An ethical egoist believes that everyone ought to do what promotes their self interest. They move to being an enlightened ethical egoist when they realize that it is in their self interest to be genuinely concerned with other peoples interests and well beings too. --Meredith

How would an egoist be led to adopt an interest in others' well being?

An egoist would adopt such an interest by moving through a certain line of thinking. They start out thinking they should do what promotes their self-interest. They then generalize this to a universal that everyone should do what promotes their self-interest. However, they realize that if everyone did that, help and aid would not be readily available to them and that a paradox of self-interest is created. Based on these realizations, an egoist starts to care about others only to the extent that they have to. For example, the poor might revolt and harm them, so the egoist donates only as much as he has to to avoid that happening. --Lindsay

May 24

How does Aristotle approach moral knowledge in contrast to Plato?

Aristotle's approach to moral knowledge is that it can be gained through empirical observation of people as they are. In contrast, Plato approached knowledge and reality in a more abstract manner, dealing with forms and ideas. Aristotle's theories were less idealistic (a strength); however, they also only dealt with how things actually were, rather than how they ought to be (a weakness). -Sarah Ellsworth

Explain the idea of a hierarchy of arts, the role of purpose, and the role of happiness in Aristotle's view of human nature?

Our telos or end is to live a happy life. So therefore happiness plays a huge part since it is our goal in life. Aristotle believes only a person of good character can be truly happy, and to have good character you need to live virtuosly, and to live a virtuos life we need to make a habit of practicing virtue. -dan-

Hierarchy of arts- The idea that Politics is the master art because it allows us to realize human excellence. Relationships are key, so the more social interaction that is involved in an art, the higher up it is in the eyes of Aristotle. Role of Purpose- “Telos” The end toward which a thing aims, for humans the end goal should be happiness. This is the idea that all things are meant to pursue their end. Purposes can be instrumental or final. Role of Happiness- What we are all ultimately seeking, is an intrinsic good, not to gain any other sort of good. The only way we can be genuinely happy is to fulfill our human nature by properly exercising our reason. -Sarah Ellsworth

What is the "golden mean" and how does pursuing it leads us to good character, according to Aristotle?

The Golden Mean is the idea that true virtue lies between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, for fear, the mean is courage while the deficiency is being foolhardy and the excess is being a coward. The mean is relative to the individual. By finding this mean and training yourself to be virtuous, one can develop good moral character. --Lindsay

The golden mean is the idea that, for any virtue there is a rational ideal that is an average of the extremes (deficit or excess). By pursuing the golden mean, Aristotle believes that virtues will be cultivated and good moral conduct will result. The best test for how close an individual is to the mean is to look at how much pleasure and/or pain is involved. -Sarah Ellsworth

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Aristotle's theory, paying particular attention to the adequacy of his reliance on the concept of the "natural".

Strengths- The idea that the most important thing is to be a good person, rather than just doing the right thing (though the two end up being linked). This is because Aristotle believes that the nature of humans is to pursue excellence, which is defined as the best version of oneself.

Weaknesses- Humans may not be unique in the ability to reason (evidence shows that other animals, such as chimpanzees, are also capable of simple problem solving). Also, the theory of the golden mean is not very critical or hard on people. This idea puts too much weight on how people are, rather than how they ought to be. -Sarah Ellsworth

May 28

To what extent is each definition of the natural objective vs. interpretive?

The List: 1) Conforms w/ laws of nature 2) living in harmony w/ the patterns of nature 3) serves a purpose of end of beings in nature (telos, Aristotle) 4) conforms to an overall plan of nature (Aquainas.) The first definition can be argued as 100% objective. The example used in class was nutrition. It is hard to argue that nutrition is not apart of the overall plan of nature, therefore is objective. One ought to eat nutritiously. As we move down the list, it gets more and more interpretive. It becomes more subjective based upon one's beliefs. The list moves to more abstract ideas of nature, therefore becoming more interpretive. Gfischba

What, if any, inferences are authorized by the naturalness or non-naturalness of homosexuality?

Homosexuality is "natural" in that it is natural for a person to love someone else on an emotional and intimate level. Homosexuality is "unnatural" because it is not meant for the purpose of reproduction. It is also not the "norm" for a person to love another who is of the same sex. Any inferences made are subjective upon whether you think it is natural or unnatural. A person taking a Christian stance would say that it is not natural, others might say that it is OK and natural if they take a different view. Gfischba

Homosexuality is unnatural is the objective sense if sex is considered only for reproduction. No one knows why some people are attracted to their same sex so you can't say being homosexual is natural or unnatural. The Catholic Church and other christian denomianations believe that sex is for reproduction so therefore homosexuality is considered unatural. -dan-