Why to save a bleeding, dying man near you - ethically.
In class on Thursday, Eli cited Utilitarianism - doing the most good for the most people - and Kantian ethics - the belief in the value of each human life - as the reasons why he would save the man. He stated that he would rely mostly on Kantian ethics.
I, too, would save the man. Of course. But I would do so from quite a different ethical perspective. I would save him, not out of Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics - but out of Objectivism and Ethical Egoism. Let me explain.
Objectivism - absolute moral truths exist. Or, more simply, it means doing the right thing. The universally right thing - call me crazy - is to save the life of a human being. Sure, I believe in the value of the man's life. But ethically, I place more importance on the fact that saving his life is doing the right thing. Even if I didn't place a value on this man's life (in particular), I would still save him; preserving life - or, more simply, living - is the morally absolute right thing. Death is not.
Ethical Egoism - doing what's best for yourself. Knowing that saving this man's life is the right thing to do, I could not imagine having to go on, living my life, with the constant reminder that a man died because I didn't do a thing to save him, with the constant guilt stemming from the fact that I could have saved a human life - but didn't. That would be hard to overcome; that would not benefit me; that would not be doing what's best for myself. I would save him because saving him would be better for me (and, well, him, of course). Not only would I not feel the guilt I would feel if I did not save this man's life; I would also feel the great satisfaction of saving his life, of not cowering in the face of difficulty - of doing the right thing. Simply, my life would be better off by helping him rather than by not helping him. In truth, helping others is often doing what's best for yourself. Being an ethical egoist doesn't mean only caring about yourself; it means doing what's best for yourself - in this case, saving the man. That's why I would save him.
Different moral philosophies... same conclusion. Interesting.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Hygiene, among other thoughts.
(Click on it for a bigger, readable one.)
Is this important? Is the loss of sweet tastes worth the inclusion of deception in your daily rituals? Does this deception adversely affect you? Is it a good thing- that toothpaste keeps one from eating sweets as a preventative measure? Are comics capable of communicating legitimate philosophical thought? Am I just being silly? Is this post too short for the ToK blog? Discuss.
(Cat and Girl, by Dorothy Gambrell, is subject to an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic copyright. www.catandgirl.com)
How do you describe color?
We all know of the vision impairment "color blindness" in which a person sees either only in certain colors or has a metaphorically "dyslexic" mental color wheel. I don't know exactly how color blindness works, but I want to know how we would go about proving that we are not all in fact color blind.
Lets say that I can see every color, but they are mixed up. However, from when I was a toddler, my mother told me that the color of the apple in the refrigerator is red. Now, because of my impairment, I see what most other people call blue. But, because I was taught for years that that is what red looks like, your blue is my red.
So how can we prove that we do not all have such impairment? What if, as we all look at a "yellow" box, I actually see orange, you actually see green, and another actually sees blue. We cannot determine that we see differently because we were taught for all of our lives to interpret the color we connect with that box to be "yellow".
I hope that makes sense, it is sort of hard to describe. But color is the same way- we cannot check to see if we are all seeing the same thing except to confirm that this object is a dark color and that object is a light color. You can't really describe yellow.
What do you think?
Lets say that I can see every color, but they are mixed up. However, from when I was a toddler, my mother told me that the color of the apple in the refrigerator is red. Now, because of my impairment, I see what most other people call blue. But, because I was taught for years that that is what red looks like, your blue is my red.
So how can we prove that we do not all have such impairment? What if, as we all look at a "yellow" box, I actually see orange, you actually see green, and another actually sees blue. We cannot determine that we see differently because we were taught for all of our lives to interpret the color we connect with that box to be "yellow".
I hope that makes sense, it is sort of hard to describe. But color is the same way- we cannot check to see if we are all seeing the same thing except to confirm that this object is a dark color and that object is a light color. You can't really describe yellow.
What do you think?
Monday, January 11, 2010
2 Questions (11 January 2010)
Mr Perkins threw out a couple of questions near the end of the period that I find myself hoping to answer somewhat as a means to counter my presence onstage today.
The questions (paraphrased greatly)
1: How do you deal with a situation in which two parties involved in a contractual relationship are bound by different ethics?
--> In such a situation, where two different sets of ethics have produced tension upon two parties who had previously agreed upon a contractual relationship, I would consider the involvement of a third party to be the most desirable solution. This third party would have to be objective to both sides equally and would serve as arbitrator. Preferably, the new party would be familiar with the ethics of both parties in disagreement while the arbitrator itself would follow neither of these (for that might pose problems for the third party to objectively consider each issue separately and equally; reviewing one side with the supporting ethics while comparing it to the other side with the same ethics might create unnecessary dilemmas.
2: To what degree of experience does personal testimony make any account more worthy than any other?
--> Personal experience adds an emotional level to any account. I would consider a personal testimony more "worthy" in the sense that it addresses most acutely the issue of adding emotion with the testimony; the effects of emotion can be seen. This is rather important a distinction, for then the testimonies emotionally charged (through personal experience) can be compared to those to which no emotional connection was made.
For example, by addressing the stem cell issue raised in class, the controversy over cloning arises. The fine line of ethical morals and justifications is already paper-thin, considering that the cells are used to make food, animals, and (not yet, but possibly later in time) other humans.
Gregory Pence, professor at University of Alabama (Birmingham) supports the use of stem cells to make genetically altered foods. His research argues that eating genetically altered foods poses much less risk than consuming a hamburger.
A year or so ago (I can't remember when, exactly), a woman had her deceased dog cloned. Having previously acquired the necessary cells from her dog, she cloned the animal which resulted, basically to her, in a second life for her dog. Her emotionally charged testimony, affirming that cloning is well worth the expense and procedure, is an interesting argument when laid beside those individuals that consider cloning unethical.
The questions (paraphrased greatly)
1: How do you deal with a situation in which two parties involved in a contractual relationship are bound by different ethics?
--> In such a situation, where two different sets of ethics have produced tension upon two parties who had previously agreed upon a contractual relationship, I would consider the involvement of a third party to be the most desirable solution. This third party would have to be objective to both sides equally and would serve as arbitrator. Preferably, the new party would be familiar with the ethics of both parties in disagreement while the arbitrator itself would follow neither of these (for that might pose problems for the third party to objectively consider each issue separately and equally; reviewing one side with the supporting ethics while comparing it to the other side with the same ethics might create unnecessary dilemmas.
2: To what degree of experience does personal testimony make any account more worthy than any other?
--> Personal experience adds an emotional level to any account. I would consider a personal testimony more "worthy" in the sense that it addresses most acutely the issue of adding emotion with the testimony; the effects of emotion can be seen. This is rather important a distinction, for then the testimonies emotionally charged (through personal experience) can be compared to those to which no emotional connection was made.
For example, by addressing the stem cell issue raised in class, the controversy over cloning arises. The fine line of ethical morals and justifications is already paper-thin, considering that the cells are used to make food, animals, and (not yet, but possibly later in time) other humans.
Gregory Pence, professor at University of Alabama (Birmingham) supports the use of stem cells to make genetically altered foods. His research argues that eating genetically altered foods poses much less risk than consuming a hamburger.
A year or so ago (I can't remember when, exactly), a woman had her deceased dog cloned. Having previously acquired the necessary cells from her dog, she cloned the animal which resulted, basically to her, in a second life for her dog. Her emotionally charged testimony, affirming that cloning is well worth the expense and procedure, is an interesting argument when laid beside those individuals that consider cloning unethical.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Moral Responsibilty
"One not only has a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
-Martin Luther King Jr.
I think that we can agree that the majority would say it is right to obey just laws. (Although from our discussion of cheating today, I'm not so sure...) We know that in the quote above, King was referring to the segregation laws in the U.S. and that as a leader, he encouraged some non-violent rebellion. King's time is an extreme case of his quote because it dealt with what now clearly view as an unethical set of laws. However, do we really have the responsibility to disobey "unjust" laws? If so, how do we determine which laws are unjust, and to what level can we exercise disloyalty to these laws? Where do we draw the line?
-Martin Luther King Jr.
I think that we can agree that the majority would say it is right to obey just laws. (Although from our discussion of cheating today, I'm not so sure...) We know that in the quote above, King was referring to the segregation laws in the U.S. and that as a leader, he encouraged some non-violent rebellion. King's time is an extreme case of his quote because it dealt with what now clearly view as an unethical set of laws. However, do we really have the responsibility to disobey "unjust" laws? If so, how do we determine which laws are unjust, and to what level can we exercise disloyalty to these laws? Where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
