Ethics City Honors School TOK Ethics deals with

Ethics { City Honors School- TOK

Ethics deals with “moral choices-choices that we make that reflect our values” (Dombrowski, 224).

Human nature? Emotional Empathy? Observing/Reasoning? Religion? Henry Jarzab Taste? We may wish to call them value judgments Where do our morals come from?

Most of the time, we appeal to a commonly agreed moral principle From there, we try to show that a particular action falls under it Cheating on a test is wrong Tom Cheated Tom is wrong When we argue, we should look at two things: Are we being consistent in our judgments? Are the alleged facts we’ve used to judge true? Simple Model

Consistency Impartiality Facts Components involving ethical judgments

Religion is a different approach to ethics. If there was an authoritative rule book for people to follow, would they? Plato believed that we cannot derive ethics from religion (Is it good because God says it’s good, or does God say it because it’s just good? ) This argument states that we already have values by which we decide whether to accept or reject what religion tells us to do. Religious Ethics

Some people consider that ethics boils down to doing your duty and fulfilling your obligations. “Duty” has sometimes been equated with mindlessly fulfilling orders. ” Some people also call this a right. But it’s not the same. For example, you may have a right to life, and also a duty not to kill. Immanuel Kant had his own ideas on how to use reason to determine if something is a duty or not. Duty Ethics

Kant argued that in order to determine is something is our duty, we must consistently generalize it. For example, someone annoys you, so you kill them. If everyone did that, we’d all be dead. Therefore, it’s your duty NOT to kill. He also argues that we should do the promising argument. If we can’t break promises whenever we feel like it, it’s our duty NOT to break them. Kant’s Ethics

So this we’ve already covered, but remember, special pleading means that we try and justify our actions or excuse ourselves from a situation. Special Pleading

Golden: Treat people the way you want to be treated. Tricky though, since not all people wanted to be treated the same way. Veil of Ignorance: Imagine situations through an objective standpoint. Grading paper example… Golden Rule/Veil

Kant says that no individual should be given preferential treatment OR be discriminated against. He states that objects have value, people have dignity. Dignity is irreplaceable. Kant would be against suicide missions because our lives have dignity and shouldn’t sacrifice it for greater good. Values and Dignity

Kant states that the moral value of an action is determined by the motive of something and not the consequence. Kant says that we should be motivated by reason instead of feeling. Feelings are too unreliable to justify something because they’ll change. Reason will tell us that we have certain duties, regardless of what we feel. Motives

SYMPATHY GETTING SOMETHING IN RETURN DUTY Kant says that if #3 isn’t your motive, then your action doesn’t have value. Three motives for good

Rule worship: People say that his views lead to moral absolutism. Meaning that certain things should ALWAYS be followed, without the context coming into play. Conflicts of duty: See page 384 Moral coldness- Kant almost wants us to be inhuman in our decision making process. Kant- Critiqued

Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832), pre-hippie? , stated that the only thing good in itself is happiness. Therefore, our actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it. Thoughts on this…? Utilitarianism: Hmmmm. .

Simple. Easy way to solve dilemmas. Democratic in nature because each individual is a judge of what makes them happy. Encourages us to take into account long term pleasure (smoking) Could be an egalitarian system (Taxing more to rich) Examples on 12. 18 In favor

First, how do we measure happiness. Let’s say you have three pleasures. How do you measure them to one another? Does a constant stream of pleasure make for a happy life? Doesn’t it grow old? In determining consequences (long term), sometimes it’s difficult to determine which is the best decision. Practical Objections

Bad Pleasures: Judging Actions: There can be bad pleasures and empty ones (masochism, shopping-resp. ) What other things, than happiness, are good in themselves? Kant says we look at motive, but this says we look at consequence. Clumsy man who makes mistake? Obligations/Rights: It doesn’t leave room for respecting moral obligations or human rights. Theoretical Objections

Boy in Kindergarten Has two moms Feels as if he is a girl in a boy’s body Plays dress up at home, and will dress as a girl at school occasionally Other classmates begin to come home confused and ask mom and dad why little boy does this Tension ensues at school, Admin receives calls from angry parents to remove the boy Classwork for Debate

As a parent in the situation, what do you do? Please analyze and explain based off the ethics principles, i. e. -how would a member of utilitarianism approach it, how would someone subscribing to Kant approach it? What about duty ethics or religious ethics? Also, how would you approach it if you were the administrator of the school? What would you do? Please approach it from the same ethical principles above How to Approach