Ethics in Odd Places...

If you think ethical reasoning only applies to obvious examples like waterboarding or trolleys, think again:

Tech blog Slashdot offers a post linking an apocalyptic sci-fi blockbuster, NASA, and questions of euthanasia and assisted suicide. NASA scientist David Morrison:

'I've had three from young people saying they were contemplating
committing suicide. I've had two from women contemplating killing their children
and themselves. I had one last week from a person who said, "I'm so scared, my
only friend is my little dog. When should I put it to sleep so it won't suffer?"
And I don't know how to answer those questions.'

Maybe we can help out poor, confused Dr. Morrison. In your comment below, imagine you are a deontologist like Kant, and offer advice to one of the frantic people mentioned in the blog. Explain not only what you recommend to do, but why, using appropriate deontological reasoning.

i have kno clue what i am doing

um Dr. p is today's homework not up yet.but a comment about today's class is if u have a attention to do something and not do it its OK because there is no way of anyone ever finding out what Ur real attentions are unless they are you or you itself say these were my intentions so there for intentions don't really mater in determining the innocents of someone. just because something isn't Ur fault like the example in class about the axe you still made that axe fling of and hit that person so i think u should be blamed for everything that you physically do. the only way i could see this not work if someone had a gun to Ur head and said drive over that person of course most people will do what the guy with the guy says.

Truth and Consequences

The trolley problem, the thought experiment I introduced today, was originally formulated by the philosopher Philippa Foot. It has undergone many variations over the years, including the simplified version I showed today, as well as more complex, morally challenging scenarios (and even a humorous one).

Your HW tonight: follow this link to the BBC News Magazine feature on philosophical thought experiments. Read the two variations of the trolley problem presented there (vote if you like!), AS WELL AS the comments left by other site visitors. Choose the comment you find most compelling, and in your own comment on my post here, copy-and-paste that comment, AND explain why you find it compelling, PLUS what you would do in the scenario. This latter part will be important, as you will see on tomorrow's quiz.

In today's discussion, we examined one logical expression of the idea that there is a theological foundation for morality, in the form of a deductive argument:

P1. Person#1 exists.
P2. Person#1 has said that X is morally right.
C. Therefore, X is morally right.

In other words, whether an action is moral or not depends simply on whether (a very specific) someone has said so.

HW: Your task has two (2!) parts. FIRST (as a comment below): Does the above argument work in general - that is, for ANY Person#1 and for ANY X? If not, then why should I suppose that it works for some very specific Person#1 and for certain specific Xes? SECOND: look up the term "biting the bullet." We will be using it in class tomorrow.

Ick - I'm sick: but giving HW nonetheless.

Alas, even philosophers get ill from time to time, and not just from consuming bad logic. Having read your comments on last night's blog posting, I'm getting the sense that a great many of you find ethical relativism appealing - and not just appealing, but right.

Ahhh....verrrry, verrry interesting.

I did note one or two minor hesitations: for example, Alyssa T.'s comment included the caveat "I do believe that there are some things, such as murder and rape, that are just plan [sic] wrong regardless of morals".

Now that you've all given serious thought to the issue, and come up with your very best reasons for believing as you do, here's tonight's prompt for your (HW) comments:

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that, if I accept ethical relativism, I should allow everyone to "do their own thing," and my having a different (moral) opinion than someone else doesn't give me any right to impose my own morals on him or her. I wonder, then, on what basis could we possibly call murder and rape "wrong," if morals are nothing but personal opinion? Put another way, if I think that (at least sometimes) I should interfere with someone else's actions, and prevent his or her doing something (say, committing rape or murder or genocide), how can I justify my interference, if moral principles are merely opinions?

And to really bake your noodle: if I decide to simply stand back and allow something I consider wrong to happen (without interfering), aren't I just doing exactly what ethical relativism says I should? On what basis, for example, would Paul Rusesabagina have a legitimate moral reason for doing as he did - interfering with the moral beliefs of the Hutu regime?

The Allure of Relativism...

Today's class discussion presented the position called ethical relativism - the claim that moral judgments don't have objective reality or truth, but are founded on human custom and opinion, and therefore can change from one culture to another, or possibly from one person to another. Your HW for tonight: comment on this post by articulating what you find to be the best, most convincing reason EITHER to support ethical relativism OR to reject it.

The Ring of Gyges

No, it's neither a plot device from a Tolkein trilogy nor a song by Johnny Cash. It's an imaginative myth told by Plato in his Republic, presenting the story of a certain poor man who discovers a curious object. This object gives him a certain ability, and forces him (and us!) to confront a fundamental question: what would you do if you could always get away with it...?

HW: Read it tonight - it's chapter 21 in our (CD or online) text. FYI, the "Ideas of Interest" (pp. 225-26) will likely be part of our discussion in class tomorrow, if you want to glance at them as well.