INTRO TO ETHICS 2016 WHAT IS ETHICS Ethics

INTRO TO ETHICS 2016

WHAT IS ETHICS? Ethics is one of the branches of modern philosophy. Philosophy Ethics Logic

WHY STUDY ETHICS? • Ethics is a way of thinking about moral principles that govern human behavior. Studying Ethics allows us to be prepared for complex situations that arise in life, such as: Questions to frame ethics? There has been an Earthquake and you encounter a hurt diabetic woman who needs medicine. You have no money but see an empty Walgreens. What do you do? Your best friend has been going through a lot at home. You know they were unable to study for a quiz, and when the day comes your friend asks if they can sit by you to copy answers. What do you

WHY STUDY ETHICS? • Another reason it is important to study Ethics is because we live in a diverse country and city. Studying ethics allows us to rise above or transcend ways of thinking. We live in a multicultural democracy and we risk disrespecting our fellow peers & citizens if we make decisions based on reasons they cannot appreciate.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORALS AND ETHICS? Ethics are the science of morals. And morals are the practice of ethics. Morals define personal character while ethics focus on a social system that applies those morals. You will use morals when dealing with coworkers and family, but will have to think ethically when acting as a politician. “Morals are how you treat someone you know, ethics are how you treat someone you don’t know”.

A MORALis a lesson learned about a single principle of right & wrong. An ETHIC is a guiding principle that affects your criteria for determining what is right & wrong. Now Turn & Talk with the person next to you: QUESTION 1: Knowing this definition of morals, why do we tend to learn morals from family and/or immediate support systems? QUESTION 2: Knowing the definition of ethics, why is it important to study ethics? Especially in diverse places like the USA, San Diego, or HTHI? QUESTION 3: Can you think of a time you were in a situation that required the use of morals? And ethics?

PREDICTIVE VS. PRESCRIPTIVE When discussing ethics we often use words like should and ought. We will be using these words prescriptively and not predictively. These words can be used predictively, for example: “Peter should do well on the quiz” (because he studied), or Mary ought to qualify for state (because she is a stellar athlete). We will use the words prescriptively, for example: “Peter should not cheat on the quiz”. Or “Mary ought to help her sick brother rather than go to the State tournament”.

MORALITY VS. LEGALITY • Remember that one’s morals may at times clash with laws, so there is a distinction between the two. • For example: The death penalty is legal in the USA, however there are many individuals who are morally opposed to it. Turn & talk: Can you think of other social movements in the USA that people morally oppose even though they are legal? Now let us look at some ethical frameworks that one could use to support or oppose an action like the death penalty.

AN ETHIC IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE THAT AFFECTS YOUR CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING RIGHT & WRONG. These principles will vary depending on which ethical framework one uses to determine right & wrong. There are two main ethical frameworks we will discuss here, although if you go on to study ethics in more detail you will encounter many more. KANTIANISM UTILITARIANISM

KANTIANISM • Kantianism is named after the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant gives two general rules to think about when encountering a situation that requires ethical analysis. 1. Only do things you could rationally endorse everyone else doing in similar circumstances. (similar to the “golden rule”) 2. Always treat others with respect, and never as mere tools. (Do not treat others as “means” to an “end”. QUESTION: Can you find a fault in this theory?

KANTIAN RULE #1 • The first rule, sometimes called the first formulation of the “Categorical Imperative” (means a rule you should always follow, regardless of your immediate aims), rules out lying, stealing, murdering and the like, for those are actions you couldn’t endorse everyone else doing in similar circumstances. This is because if everyone lied, stole or murdered, we wouldn’t gain anything by doing those things ourselves. • Turn & Talk • Question 1: What would happen to Hollywood and our movie industry if everyone always snuck into movie theaters and pirated DVD’s? • Question 2: Is there a situation where stealing is ok? If so when?

KANTIAN RULE #2 • Kant’s rule that we show people basic respect and never treat them as mere tools is based on human rationality. – It’s fine to treat a hammer as something to use however we want without concern for its welfare because it can’t think, decide, or carry out a life plan. As an inanimate object, a hammer has no interests, and is only instrumentally valuable—valuable only insofar as it can do something for us. Can anyone see the potential issue with this theory? What is the greater meaning to ruining someone’s hammer? – The carpenter who swings that hammer, however, can think, decide, and carry out a life plan. She is a rational individual, and has many interests, with many goals and aspirations. As creatures with complex interests and plans, we want and expect others not interfere with them without good reason. It is mandatory for people to treat others not as simple objects, but instead as if every person has worth? • Some Kantians argue that treating others with respect mainly entails refraining from doing them harm. However, other Kantians argue that treating person with respect requires actively helping them when in need and looking out for their best interests. QUESTION: • What do you think of this rule? • Have you ever treated an individual as a means to your personal end? If so how? • https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Wf. V-0 Yv 5 v. NY

UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism is part of a branch of philosophy and ethics that only looks at consequences. • While Kantianism says we should never lie, cheat, steal or murder, utilitarianism actually requires us to do so in certain instances. • Utilitarianism was popularized by 17 th & 18 th Century philosophers Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mills. • https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=b. Opf 6 Kc. W Yyw

UTILITARIANISM’S ONLY RULE Utilitarian's argue that we have a moral mandate to maximize net pleasure, and should choose actions based on their likelihood of doing so. or “THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER”

APPLIED UTILITARIANISM • Utilitarianism will sometimes make an individual sacrifice some of their own net pleasure for the benefit of the whole group. Question: What do you think a utilitarian teacher would say to a student who brought a 10 foot party sub to class as a personal lunch? • Utilitarianism will also sometimes demand actions that Kantianism will always condemn – what do you think those are? Question: What do you think a utilitarian soldier would say when asked how he justifies launching drone strikes on suspected terrorist hideouts and killing individuals?

KANTIANISM VS. UTILITARIANISM In Kantianism the motive is what is important and not the end result. Vs. In Utilitarianism the ends justify the means and actions are judged based on results, not motives. • Turn & talk: Think of a superhero situation similar to Spiderman. How could that superhero handle the situation using both of these ethical frameworks? https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=K 4 GAQt. Gtd _0

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: FIRE AT THE LOUVRE! • Paul is a scholar of Renaissance art history and a curator at the Louvre in Paris. One morning, a fire sweeps through the museum. As people are evacuating the museum, Paul has an important decision to make. Should he risk his own life by attempting to rescue anything? He sees that he has at least two options. First, he could rescue Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, his favorite painting in the world and the museum’s most prized work. Second, he could rescue a museum visitor who seems to have lost consciousness, and who therefore seems to be incapable of rescuing themselves. • Paul realizes that no one would blame him if he did not attempt a rescue at all, given the personal risk involved. He also realizes that, if he does attempt a rescue, he faces a separate question: What /whom should he rescue? Paul thinks of himself as a kind and humane person. Watching a human being die as he saves a painting would be devastating. But he has dedicated his entire life to studying and preserving Renaissance art, and he loves the Mona Lisa more than anything else in the world. Moreover, approximately six million people visit the painting every year, and its destruction would be an immeasurable cultural loss.

IN SMALL GROUPS… Knowing what you now know about the two ethical frameworks, answer the following questions in small groups. 1. How would a Kantian respond in this situation? Why would they be required to act this way using Kant’s Ethical Framework? 2. How would a Utilitarian respond? Why? 3. Does Paul have an obligation to try to rescue anything at all? If so, can he permissibly choose what / whom to rescue, or does he have an obligation to favor the painting or the person? Explain. 4. How, if at all, would things change if Paul was a firefighter? 5. How, if at all, would things change if the museum visitor were still conscious (yet still immobile), or if the painting were less famous (yet still cherished by Paul)? 6. What kind of value does art have? What kind of value do people have? How, in general, should we compare the value of art and the value of people?