1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what Moral Relativism is—what do people who hold this view believe?
Moral Relativism is difficult to define but to me it is the belief that "moral" is defined by the person, that whatever the person believes is ethical or true defines their morals. My personal experience with this issue has shown me that the people who buy into this belief see everything as a "gray area", that there really is no black or white, right or wrong.
2. Paragraph & Link: Find one online resources related to this topic—not Wikipedia. Explain in a brief paragraph what you learned about this topic through the resource you found; include the link at the end of your paragraph.
I read a few articles on the internet about moral relativism, most of which gave fair and objective remarks. I think the one I felt most in tune with was written by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.. His assertion was that the moral relativists in the real world are not "relative" at all, but were more aptly defined as "absolutists". One of the examples that he used was that of the feminist movement. He pointed out that true relativists would not be bothered by the way the Taliban treat their women, or by child-adult sexual activity, or rape. But in reality the feminist movement would certainly take a stand (absolutism -not relativism) and demand that Taliban women be treated humanely, that child-adult sexual activity is wrong and should be punished and that rape is a crime whether the perpetrator considers it "making love" or not. His conclusive argument is that moral relativism is a myth and that there has to be at least one rational, objective standard by which we can judge human actions as right or wrong. To read more on the topic, please go to: www.radicalacademy.com/ethicsmyth.htm
3. Argument: Compose a short argument, in “argument elements” form. I’ll provide the arguable issue; you provide the rest. Make sure each of your premises is a complete sentence, and that your argument doesn't break any of the rules listed in the first chapter of the Rulebook for Arguments:
Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not Moral Relativism is a good view to hold.
Conclusion: Moral relativism is not a good view to hold.
Premises:
(1) There has to be a defining line between right and wrong.
(2) The most vile act that you can think of would be acceptable to a moral relativist.
(3) If you honestly believe in moral relativism, you would have no conscience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what a Majority View is. Cite your sources.
When Hillary Clinton is raising the children in her "village" and all the adults in the village decide that it would be okay for married people to have sex with the servants, then they have established a "majority view". If that same group of villagers was unsure what exactly "sex" was and they decided that fellatio was actually sex, then it is so, because the majority of the villagers agree. Some people may not agree with that definition, but they would not be in the majority, so their opinion would be considered wrong. According to Dr. Gregory Berns, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, GA, the two most common ideas to support this theory is that people look to the group because they’re unsure of what to do, and that people go along with the norm because they are afraid of being different.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: The Majority View is not a reliable for ethical decision-making.
Premises:
(1) History has proven that the majority view is not always right.
(2) Not all people in the group really know what is going on or have all the information they need to make an informed decision.
(3) Majority view is sometimes driven by emotion, and not objective data.
The Role of Feelings
1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what feelings are. Cite your sources.
The role of feelings begins with the premise that we all begin basically as "good" people and that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do as long as it feels "good" and right to the individual. The psychologist Carl Rogers said that we should accept and affirm the feelings of others without reservation or evaluation. If we carry this out in reality we would all do whatever we want to do, whether it be evil or noble and we would eventually end up in total chaos.
2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Conclusion: Our feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.
Premises:
(1) Personal feelings may give no regard for the feelings of others
(2) Decision-making should be based on objective standards, not emotions.
(3) Personal feelings do not necessarily agree with accepted morals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to express yourself in your own words is essential in this class. Did you put everything in your own words this time?
I always try not to plagiarize, though sometimes the thought is so well written by the author that it is very difficult to express the same meaning when paraphrased. This assignment is written in my own words.
What was easiest / hardest about this assignment?
A lot of this seems related to me, and I sometimes have trouble keeping the ideas straight in my head. Like moral relativism and the role of feelings both seem like a total disregard for what I consider to be acceptable values. I think some of these ideas conflict with my opinions and remaining objective when I put things in my own words is often a challenge.
How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?
I didn't think the lesson on arguments would be as meaningful to me as it has been. I have been put in (or put myself in) positions where I had to defend my position in the past and it has not always turned out the way I wished it would have. I feel like am better prepared to argue now.
How well do you think you did on this assignment? Explain
I think my assignments get better each time. I will admit tht I have taken classes before and not completed the assigned reading. I have read the material this time and feel like I have learned from it.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Week #3 Ethics Blog Assignment
1. Explain what “to give an argument” means in this book.
The author points out that an argument does not have to be a verbal fist fight like many people think. A good argument is not pointless and does not have to be unpleasant. He described an argument as taking a position in a matter and supporting that position with relevant ideas and facts. He establishes the fact that a good argument must be supported by sound reasoning which makes it easier to defend.
2. What are the reasons Weston gives in support of his claim, “arguments are essential”?
Arguments support your conclusion with evidence. They also give reasons for your conclusions. Arguments should not be viewed as a fight, they serve a valid purpose by making people understand your view.
3. Explain why many students tend to “write an essay, but not an argument”.
The author makes the point that his book is meant to be a rulebook for teachers and students. It is intended to be brief and concise, and easily referenced when critiquing another person’s work. He believes that many students have not written good arguments because they did not understand the assignment and they had not been given the proper tools and formatting techniques that he provides in his book.
4. Construct two short arguments (one "for" and one "against") as modeled in the Week 3 Assignment section in Blackboard. Put each one in "elements form".
ARGUMENT FOR PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should have the same right to privacy as all the rest of our citizens have.
Premises: Political figures should have the right to privacy because:
1) It was the person that we elected, not their entire family.
2) The political figure has no control over what his family members do any more that you or I have.
3) Not everything needs to be public knowledge – if it has no bearing on their job performance then it should remain private.
ARGUMENT AGAINST PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office.
Premises: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office because :
1) It is always fun to read and hear about the “dirty laundry” of political figures.
2) We really need to know “what goes on behind closed doors”.
3) How they run their personal lives is indicative of how they will do their jobs.
5. Review the seven rules in chapter one. Briefly discuss how your argument demonstrates that each rule was applied, in the construction of your arguments above.
1) Distinguish premise and conclusion. There is no doubt that my premise and conclusions were understandable to anyone who can read.
2) Present your ideas in a natural order. I followed the order given in the example and believe it follows a natural order.
3) Start from reliable premise. My premise makes for a good argument.
4) Be concrete and concise. I was careful to keep my sentences short and as much alike as possible to avoid straying from the point.
5) Avoid loaded language. I only used words that were simple and commonly used.
6) Use consistent terms. I went back and corrected my conclusion and premise to make them more consistent like the ones in the example.
7) Stick to one meaning for each term. I believe that I did that by being specific in my premise and conclusion.
6. Review the three rules in the appendix named, “Definitions”. In your own words, discuss how you took these rules into consideration as you constructed your arguments.
I used clear but common language that I thought everyone could understand and would have no doubt what I was talking about. I did not use words that could have more than one meaning to people.
7. Good posts demonstrate:
• Sincere reflection, effort, and analysis
• Answers that are substantial (at least one large paragraph each)
• Consistent mention, citation, and integration of the assigned readings (explained in YOUR own words, though)
• Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
• Correctly titled posts!
How many points do you honestly feel your post this week deserves? Justify your answer.
I think that the volume of work for this post is definitely worthy of the 25 points allowed. I feel that the assignment was thoroughly reviewed and completed as directed.
The author points out that an argument does not have to be a verbal fist fight like many people think. A good argument is not pointless and does not have to be unpleasant. He described an argument as taking a position in a matter and supporting that position with relevant ideas and facts. He establishes the fact that a good argument must be supported by sound reasoning which makes it easier to defend.
2. What are the reasons Weston gives in support of his claim, “arguments are essential”?
Arguments support your conclusion with evidence. They also give reasons for your conclusions. Arguments should not be viewed as a fight, they serve a valid purpose by making people understand your view.
3. Explain why many students tend to “write an essay, but not an argument”.
The author makes the point that his book is meant to be a rulebook for teachers and students. It is intended to be brief and concise, and easily referenced when critiquing another person’s work. He believes that many students have not written good arguments because they did not understand the assignment and they had not been given the proper tools and formatting techniques that he provides in his book.
4. Construct two short arguments (one "for" and one "against") as modeled in the Week 3 Assignment section in Blackboard. Put each one in "elements form".
ARGUMENT FOR PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should have the same right to privacy as all the rest of our citizens have.
Premises: Political figures should have the right to privacy because:
1) It was the person that we elected, not their entire family.
2) The political figure has no control over what his family members do any more that you or I have.
3) Not everything needs to be public knowledge – if it has no bearing on their job performance then it should remain private.
ARGUMENT AGAINST PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office.
Premises: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office because :
1) It is always fun to read and hear about the “dirty laundry” of political figures.
2) We really need to know “what goes on behind closed doors”.
3) How they run their personal lives is indicative of how they will do their jobs.
5. Review the seven rules in chapter one. Briefly discuss how your argument demonstrates that each rule was applied, in the construction of your arguments above.
1) Distinguish premise and conclusion. There is no doubt that my premise and conclusions were understandable to anyone who can read.
2) Present your ideas in a natural order. I followed the order given in the example and believe it follows a natural order.
3) Start from reliable premise. My premise makes for a good argument.
4) Be concrete and concise. I was careful to keep my sentences short and as much alike as possible to avoid straying from the point.
5) Avoid loaded language. I only used words that were simple and commonly used.
6) Use consistent terms. I went back and corrected my conclusion and premise to make them more consistent like the ones in the example.
7) Stick to one meaning for each term. I believe that I did that by being specific in my premise and conclusion.
6. Review the three rules in the appendix named, “Definitions”. In your own words, discuss how you took these rules into consideration as you constructed your arguments.
I used clear but common language that I thought everyone could understand and would have no doubt what I was talking about. I did not use words that could have more than one meaning to people.
7. Good posts demonstrate:
• Sincere reflection, effort, and analysis
• Answers that are substantial (at least one large paragraph each)
• Consistent mention, citation, and integration of the assigned readings (explained in YOUR own words, though)
• Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
• Correctly titled posts!
How many points do you honestly feel your post this week deserves? Justify your answer.
I think that the volume of work for this post is definitely worthy of the 25 points allowed. I feel that the assignment was thoroughly reviewed and completed as directed.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Blog Assignment #2
1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?
I had a hard time answering some of the questions because I felt like I needed more information to decide my feelings on the issue. I also had a difficult time with the choices for punishment - I am not sure if my definition of very severe punishment would be the same as theirs. Some of the questions, however, were very easy for me to form an opinion, like the one with the barn yard animals. I felt like a lot of my answers were consistent. I didn't have any technical difficulties with the test, in fact it was very easy to navigate.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
I suppose that technically we should follow the law. Laws were written to protect us, so we would have a safe place to live. I guess there is also the question of who's law we are abiding. I think for a lot of people the more severe the consequences, the more likely they will be to follow the law. I can think of an instance in which you may at least FEEL justified with breaking the law. When it became a law in California that you couldn't smoke in a bar, there were several local bars that would allow smoking if all the patrons in the bar were smokers. Then there were the ones that knew how much the fine for smoking was and the patrons would all chip in enough money to cover the fine so that they could smoke if they felt like it. That seems logical to me.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
Social convention is an unwritten code of behavior that people tend to stick to. For instance, one of the questions on the Moral Sense Test was about how a person ate his food in a restaurant. In our society it is considered rude behavior to eat without using your utensils, but I imagine it has not always been that way. Another example that comes to mind is passing gas in public. When I was in school it would have been the most embarrassing situation you could imagine, but now the kids in high school think it's funny and even compete to see who can be the most obnoxious.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
No. I think that social convention changes subtly with time. I remember when it was so cool to have a cell phone that using it practically anywhere was okay, almost a status symbol. But now that everyone and their toddler has a cell phone, our perception of rude cell phone behavior has changed. Another example would be how society changed in the 60's and 70's with the "hippie" culture and the idea of free love. I think that a lot of people were fine with that in the beginning but as they tried it as a lifestyle they saw that it fell apart over time.
How about all the videos of girls fighting on the internet? Is that socially acceptable in their world? I can't go along with that one either.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
I think that people should most definitely stick to their priniciples. Perhaps I should say that I expect people to follow their own principles. I just don't think we all share the same principles and that is what makes it a difficult question to answer. If you consider the radical suicide bomber sticking to his principles, then I have a problem with that. If you have a teenager that has been taught not to use drugs and he/she sticks to those principles in the face of peer pressure, then I applaud that stand.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
In my opinion socially acceptable means that your behavior or actions in a group setting are considered okay by most people. For instance, it may be socially acceptable to smoke a hookah in a bar on Friday night, but don't take it to the little league game the next day. Legally acceptable means that your actions won't require your friends to bail you out of jail the next day. Morally acceptable is a deeper subject. Acting in a moral way means that your actions will not leave you feeling guilty and shameful afterwards.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I'm leaning strongly towards the big two-five. I read the instructions and got the hint that short answers were frowned upon. I feel like my responses to this assignment were more free flowing than the last one and may be a little better thought out.
1. Were the questions on the Moral Sense Test difficult to answer (psychologically, emotionally, conceptually, technically, etc.)? Why or why not? Do you think your responses to the Moral Sense Test questions were consistent? Does this matter?
I had a hard time answering some of the questions because I felt like I needed more information to decide my feelings on the issue. I also had a difficult time with the choices for punishment - I am not sure if my definition of very severe punishment would be the same as theirs. Some of the questions, however, were very easy for me to form an opinion, like the one with the barn yard animals. I felt like a lot of my answers were consistent. I didn't have any technical difficulties with the test, in fact it was very easy to navigate.
2. Should people always follow the law? Why or why not? When might one be justified in NOT following the law? Give examples.
I suppose that technically we should follow the law. Laws were written to protect us, so we would have a safe place to live. I guess there is also the question of who's law we are abiding. I think for a lot of people the more severe the consequences, the more likely they will be to follow the law. I can think of an instance in which you may at least FEEL justified with breaking the law. When it became a law in California that you couldn't smoke in a bar, there were several local bars that would allow smoking if all the patrons in the bar were smokers. Then there were the ones that knew how much the fine for smoking was and the patrons would all chip in enough money to cover the fine so that they could smoke if they felt like it. That seems logical to me.
3. In your own words, explain what "social convention" means. Give examples.
Social convention is an unwritten code of behavior that people tend to stick to. For instance, one of the questions on the Moral Sense Test was about how a person ate his food in a restaurant. In our society it is considered rude behavior to eat without using your utensils, but I imagine it has not always been that way. Another example that comes to mind is passing gas in public. When I was in school it would have been the most embarrassing situation you could imagine, but now the kids in high school think it's funny and even compete to see who can be the most obnoxious.
4. Should people always follow the conventions of their society? Why or why not? Give examples.
No. I think that social convention changes subtly with time. I remember when it was so cool to have a cell phone that using it practically anywhere was okay, almost a status symbol. But now that everyone and their toddler has a cell phone, our perception of rude cell phone behavior has changed. Another example would be how society changed in the 60's and 70's with the "hippie" culture and the idea of free love. I think that a lot of people were fine with that in the beginning but as they tried it as a lifestyle they saw that it fell apart over time.
How about all the videos of girls fighting on the internet? Is that socially acceptable in their world? I can't go along with that one either.
5. Should people always follow their own principles? Why or why not? Give examples.
I think that people should most definitely stick to their priniciples. Perhaps I should say that I expect people to follow their own principles. I just don't think we all share the same principles and that is what makes it a difficult question to answer. If you consider the radical suicide bomber sticking to his principles, then I have a problem with that. If you have a teenager that has been taught not to use drugs and he/she sticks to those principles in the face of peer pressure, then I applaud that stand.
6. Explain in your own words the difference between socially acceptable, legally acceptable, and morally acceptable.
In my opinion socially acceptable means that your behavior or actions in a group setting are considered okay by most people. For instance, it may be socially acceptable to smoke a hookah in a bar on Friday night, but don't take it to the little league game the next day. Legally acceptable means that your actions won't require your friends to bail you out of jail the next day. Morally acceptable is a deeper subject. Acting in a moral way means that your actions will not leave you feeling guilty and shameful afterwards.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
I'm leaning strongly towards the big two-five. I read the instructions and got the hint that short answers were frowned upon. I feel like my responses to this assignment were more free flowing than the last one and may be a little better thought out.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
BLOG ASSIGNMENT #1
1. How would you have explained the meaning of the term "ethics", before taking this class?
When I think about ethics, I usually think of the phrase "ethical behavior", which to me means that you are acting in a way that would be acceptable to the majority of people in today's culture. For instance, I don't think it is ethical to lie or deceive people no matter what the situation is.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
Honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness, courage, devotion.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
Fairness, sincerity, kindness, compassion, enthusiasm, loving. I was raised in a Christian home and went to a Christian school through the 12th grade and I believe those principles are what guide me from day to day. I reflect on those principles in my daily activities with my family and the people that I work with.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
We live in such a diverse society that I don't expect to see the same moral qualities in all people, but I do expect to see people treat each other fairly, equally and with respect. One of the biggest things that I appreciate is for a person to assume that other people are basically good until proven otherwise.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
I think my values and principles were developed by my childhood and early adult experiences. I have always worked since I was old enough to have a job and I think that makes up a lot of where my values and principles come from. I believe in hard work and doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. I spent 23 years in the military and still believe that if you live your life with honor, courage and commitment that most of the other things will fall into place.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
I think there was sort of a balancing act going on throughout most of my life. I was raised in a Christian home, but it wasn't all prayers and hymn singing. In my later teens and early adult life it would be an understatement to say that I was wild. As my career progressed and I had a family I realized that I needed to be more of a role model for the young people who looked up to me and for my two children that mean the world to me. I am certainly not anywhere close to perfect, but I do try live in a way that won't bring discredit to my family.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
Twenty-five. That is one-half point for each time I tried to get to the point that I could actually put words on this screen. Answering the questions was thought provoking and time consuming but I enjoyed that part.
1. How would you have explained the meaning of the term "ethics", before taking this class?
When I think about ethics, I usually think of the phrase "ethical behavior", which to me means that you are acting in a way that would be acceptable to the majority of people in today's culture. For instance, I don't think it is ethical to lie or deceive people no matter what the situation is.
2. What are some of your deepest held values?
Honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness, courage, devotion.
3. What are some main principles you try to live your life by?
Fairness, sincerity, kindness, compassion, enthusiasm, loving. I was raised in a Christian home and went to a Christian school through the 12th grade and I believe those principles are what guide me from day to day. I reflect on those principles in my daily activities with my family and the people that I work with.
4. What moral qualities do you look for in others?
We live in such a diverse society that I don't expect to see the same moral qualities in all people, but I do expect to see people treat each other fairly, equally and with respect. One of the biggest things that I appreciate is for a person to assume that other people are basically good until proven otherwise.
5. How were your values and principles developed?
I think my values and principles were developed by my childhood and early adult experiences. I have always worked since I was old enough to have a job and I think that makes up a lot of where my values and principles come from. I believe in hard work and doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. I spent 23 years in the military and still believe that if you live your life with honor, courage and commitment that most of the other things will fall into place.
6. How have your values and principles changed throughout your life so far?
I think there was sort of a balancing act going on throughout most of my life. I was raised in a Christian home, but it wasn't all prayers and hymn singing. In my later teens and early adult life it would be an understatement to say that I was wild. As my career progressed and I had a family I realized that I needed to be more of a role model for the young people who looked up to me and for my two children that mean the world to me. I am certainly not anywhere close to perfect, but I do try live in a way that won't bring discredit to my family.
7. Out of 25 points, how many points do you feel your work on this assignment deserves? Justify your answer.
Twenty-five. That is one-half point for each time I tried to get to the point that I could actually put words on this screen. Answering the questions was thought provoking and time consuming but I enjoyed that part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
