Applied Ethics A: First Period [27.07]
Harriet smiled at the students as they arrived. Once everyone was settled she stood up from behind her desk. "All right, last week you had a chance to decide what the right thing to do was in a very specific situation. Interestingly enough, for the most part, you decided to keep quiet, and most of you did it because you thought it would be wrong to sell out your partner. Which leads us quite nicely to today, and I'll try not to go on, but I'm afraid a little bit of talking's necessary at this stage.
Ethics is about doing what's right, I think everyone would agree with that, even if no one can really agree on what right is." She shook her head a little at the understatement. "Everyone's heard the expression: a means to an end? Most ideas of what's right start at one of two basic places: Adherence to principles, or means, and dedication to results, or ends.
An example of the first is living your life according to set rules of behaviour, whether set down by religion or law, no matter what happens. Thou shall not steal, even if it means you or your family starve. The consequences never come into consideration -- they don't matter, all that matters is that you stick with those rules. This is one of the most basic ideas of what is ethical, and it tends to revolve around the idea that there is a moral duty to be a good person. You are a good person if you follow these rules.
And then we have the other side of the coin. The greatest good for the greatest number: I'm sure everyone's heard that, it's probably the most common expression of the 'only results count' school of thought. It sounds lovely, doesn't it? Except that it doesn't mean the greatest good for the most individuals, it means the greatest amount of good over all - it reduces happiness to a mathematical equation, and it's unfortunate for you if you happen to be one of the unhappy people. It focuses only on consequences, and people as unique individuals don't really come into consideration.
Now - and I grant you this is a rather far-fetched example, but it illustrates the problem nicely - imagine that someone has maliciously sent a trolley hurtling towards five innocent and immobile people at the end of a track. The only way to stop the trolley and save the five people is to throw one innocent bystander in front of the trolley.
If you adhere strictly to principles that say you mustn't hurt other people, you can do nothing but watch them die -- unless you choose to throw yourself under the trolley, and that's not an option if your principles prohibit suicide. If all you care about is outcomes, you can grab one of those innocent bystanders and toss them under the trolley. Good for the five, not so great for the one, but you have achieved the greatest good for the greatest number.
In the exercise last week, everyone stuck to a principle and didn't worry much about outcomes. Luckily everyone did that, or a number of you might have found yourself in jail for quite some time.
In an ethic based on following set rules of behaviour, the end can never justify the means; in an ethic based on results, the means don't matter, only the ends." Harriet handed out some material, then returned behind her desk.
"What I'd like you to do now is to discuss these two ways of looking at what is right: which one fits you better? Why do you think that is? What are some of the problems with each of them, what are some of the benefits? Have you followed one or the other at some point? What happens if either is taken to extremes? Just some suggestions," she added. "None of them are mandatory.
If you get tired of talking, there are computers set up with a version of last week's exercise, only here you can decide what your co-accused's ethical stance is, and see what the outcome will be. Alternatively, and I grant you this has only the slightest relation to what we're talking about, if you go through that door," she pointed and smiled at the class, " there's a maze, which you can pair up and work your way through. The outcome - getting to the end - is all that's important, but how you get there matters. If you don't find your way to the end before class is over, the maze will disappear.
Oh, and there were some absences last week. See me after class, please, and we'll get it sorted it out."
| Roster | Syllabus | Previous Classes|
_________
[ooc: I go on and on and on this week, but this is an incredibly simplistic explanation of the difference between teleology/consequentalism and deontology. If you want to try the maze, the link is to a picture of it, and go nuts modding it - animals, plants, fountains, walls, make it as easy or as difficult as you want. Whatever you like, really, but nothing that will actually hurt anyone, and feel free to use any of your character's powers or abilities to get through it as easily as possible, up to and including flattening it or blowing holes through the walls.
Absences were: Teddy Altman x 2 classes; Peter Parker, Naomi Wildman, Jenny Sparks, Isabel Evans x 1 class.]
[
Wait for OCD, please. It's up.]
Ethics is about doing what's right, I think everyone would agree with that, even if no one can really agree on what right is." She shook her head a little at the understatement. "Everyone's heard the expression: a means to an end? Most ideas of what's right start at one of two basic places: Adherence to principles, or means, and dedication to results, or ends.
An example of the first is living your life according to set rules of behaviour, whether set down by religion or law, no matter what happens. Thou shall not steal, even if it means you or your family starve. The consequences never come into consideration -- they don't matter, all that matters is that you stick with those rules. This is one of the most basic ideas of what is ethical, and it tends to revolve around the idea that there is a moral duty to be a good person. You are a good person if you follow these rules.
And then we have the other side of the coin. The greatest good for the greatest number: I'm sure everyone's heard that, it's probably the most common expression of the 'only results count' school of thought. It sounds lovely, doesn't it? Except that it doesn't mean the greatest good for the most individuals, it means the greatest amount of good over all - it reduces happiness to a mathematical equation, and it's unfortunate for you if you happen to be one of the unhappy people. It focuses only on consequences, and people as unique individuals don't really come into consideration.
Now - and I grant you this is a rather far-fetched example, but it illustrates the problem nicely - imagine that someone has maliciously sent a trolley hurtling towards five innocent and immobile people at the end of a track. The only way to stop the trolley and save the five people is to throw one innocent bystander in front of the trolley.
If you adhere strictly to principles that say you mustn't hurt other people, you can do nothing but watch them die -- unless you choose to throw yourself under the trolley, and that's not an option if your principles prohibit suicide. If all you care about is outcomes, you can grab one of those innocent bystanders and toss them under the trolley. Good for the five, not so great for the one, but you have achieved the greatest good for the greatest number.
In the exercise last week, everyone stuck to a principle and didn't worry much about outcomes. Luckily everyone did that, or a number of you might have found yourself in jail for quite some time.
In an ethic based on following set rules of behaviour, the end can never justify the means; in an ethic based on results, the means don't matter, only the ends." Harriet handed out some material, then returned behind her desk.
"What I'd like you to do now is to discuss these two ways of looking at what is right: which one fits you better? Why do you think that is? What are some of the problems with each of them, what are some of the benefits? Have you followed one or the other at some point? What happens if either is taken to extremes? Just some suggestions," she added. "None of them are mandatory.
If you get tired of talking, there are computers set up with a version of last week's exercise, only here you can decide what your co-accused's ethical stance is, and see what the outcome will be. Alternatively, and I grant you this has only the slightest relation to what we're talking about, if you go through that door," she pointed and smiled at the class, " there's a maze, which you can pair up and work your way through. The outcome - getting to the end - is all that's important, but how you get there matters. If you don't find your way to the end before class is over, the maze will disappear.
Oh, and there were some absences last week. See me after class, please, and we'll get it sorted it out."
| Roster | Syllabus | Previous Classes|
_________
[ooc: I go on and on and on this week, but this is an incredibly simplistic explanation of the difference between teleology/consequentalism and deontology. If you want to try the maze, the link is to a picture of it, and go nuts modding it - animals, plants, fountains, walls, make it as easy or as difficult as you want. Whatever you like, really, but nothing that will actually hurt anyone, and feel free to use any of your character's powers or abilities to get through it as easily as possible, up to and including flattening it or blowing holes through the walls.
Absences were: Teddy Altman x 2 classes; Peter Parker, Naomi Wildman, Jenny Sparks, Isabel Evans x 1 class.]
[
Wait for OCD, please. It's up.]