Which knowledge issues and ‘theories of knowledge’ are raised in this area of knowledge?
chriscoeyproject Blog
A Sacramento City School Blogs weblog
Which knowledge issues and ‘theories of knowledge’ are raised in this area of knowledge?
Outline:
* Moral Reasoning
– A simple Model: premises in a agreed moral principle.
– Consistency: We expect people to be consistent in their moral judgments with everyone. ( no exceptions)
-Facts: relevant as they provide empirical evidence to justify is something is “bad” or “wrong.”
* Self- Interest Theory- We are selfish and aren’t able to live up to moral values!
-Definition Argument
-Evolutionary Argument
– Hidden Benefits Argument
– Fear of Punishment Argument
*Theory of Ethics- There is a moral knowledge and people are capable of acting upon it.
– Religious Ethics
*Duty Ethics
– Kant’s Approach- ” Golden Rule”
2.
* Mora Relativism- Our values are determine by the society we grow up in, and there are no universal values. They vary from culture to culture.
– Arguments:
* Diversity Argument: The variety of moral practices suggests that there are no objective values. ” We do what seems right for us, and we let others do what seems right for them.”
– Weaknesses- Falls apart on more complex issues such as Nazism, cannibalism, and slaughter.
*Lack of Foundations Argument: Moral Values are ungrounded, and there is not a “moral reality” against which we can test our values to see if they are true or false. We can’t use reason nor perception to justify our moral convictions.
– Arguments against Moral Relativism:
* There are some core values, which we can justify, since they are intuitively obvious.
3. An ethical dilemma in a minor scale I experience is whether or not I should pay the light rail fare when I leave school and go home. In one hand, the light rail is providing me a service. In this case, getting me from point A to B. And it seems fair that I should reciprocate that service by paying the established fare. In this case is $1.25. On the other hand, one can argue that since I am only one station away from my destination, paying 1.25 for the light rail ticket is too excessive. After all, I can’t even use it as a transfer for a bus ticket. And I will eventually need to pay another 1.25 for the bus. I find myself asking, ” Is it morally correct to pay 1.25 for a service that only lasts a couple of seconds? According to moral relativism, our moral convictions are independent from an “absolute morality” and are subjective to the knowledge communities we belong to. In my ethical dilemma, I find people who feel they should not pay the light rail ticket because they are only traveling from one station to the next. And I ask, “Why do I pay for the ticket while everyone else around me do not?” This situation shows the weakness for moral relativism. If we based our convictions on this theory, then no one is doing anything immoral. I pay for the ticket because I think it is morally correct and the guy next to me does not pay because he thinks it is morally incorrect, that paying is a misuse of his money. But this is not the reality, since people get tickets for not paying for the bus. We have a higher authority ( police) enforcing a moral value ( paying.) They are imposing what they claim is the morally correct think to do. And by imposing their moral convictions on us, aren’t they violation our civil rights? It seems that the best alternative is to not use the light rail. But again, not using the light rail will be a form of being passive on my ethical dilemma. I would be avoiding it, rather than finding a solution to it.
Intermediate Questions
Can being selfish be a form of true morality? ( Ayn Rand’s philosophy)
Does having the responsibility to act upon a moral issue makes humanity un-free ?
If it us our moral obligation to prevent immorality, isn’t that a form of disrespecting their values, therefore is morally incorrect?
Is morally directly associated with fairness?
Are there universal moral values?
Knw. Issues Q.
-To what extent can science justified moral claims? Throughout history people have tried to scientifically prove that some “races” are superior to others, and that is why it is acceptable to treat them as less than humans.
– How do we value a conviction as morally right or wrong?
– To what extent does our interpretation of biblical texts affect the moral values we acquire?
– How certain can we be that something is right or wrong?
In the chapter ‘Ethics’ we learn about the four types of ethics people follow which are moral reasoning, moral relativism, utilitarianism and self-interest theory. All four of these types of ethics had arguments in favor of and against it. An argument in favor of moral reasoning is that people look for value-judgments. In a situation people will look at what is right and what is wrong. For example, cheating on a test. When facing this problem people will ask themselves is it ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to cheat on a test. People will look at how other people’s ethics might think like is it moral to cheat on the test if it helps you get into a better college? One con against this type of argument is that people have different ethics and think differently so in the case of cheating on the test some people might think it is ‘good’ and some ‘bad.’
Another type of ethics argument is moral relativism. This argument states that people’s ethics are determined by the society they live in. For example, in this society committing suicide is selfish and not right while in the samurai society it is honorable. When cultures clash together that is where the problem is going to be at. How do we decide who’s ethics are better? and how do these different cultures coupe with one another if they value different things? I personally think this is the weakest argument because everyone is different and we all believe in different values and we live in different societies.
Self-interest theory was the argument that said that people are naturally selfish and will always choose the situation that will make them feel better. One way or another, as the book states, people will always be selfish in a way. For example, if someone likes helping out the society and they do so they are selfish because they are doing something they like. So this makes me ask the question that if you do not want to be selfish you have to do something you do not like?
This brings me to the next argument which is utilitarianism. This argument states that ethics should be based on doing what is best for everyone. All actions should be for the greater ‘good.’ The problem with this one is that if you are in a situation where the society says they will be happier if you kill your mom would you do it? Sacrificing someone for the greater good is good. In this case isn’t everyone’s life worth differently? How do we determine when someone is happy and they are contributing to the greater good? Is it right to make someone feel unhappy just so others can feel happy?
As I was reading this chapter I was thinking of personal examples I had for each argument that I had to face. When I was reading the section on moral reasoning, I remembered a time when I had to choose to help a friend cheat on a test or not. We were in class taking a test and then I could see that my friend was asking for the answers and I was about to give them to him but I stopped and started thinking. I had done it many times before but I did not want to do it this time. I was thinking about what benefit will cheating do to him. Then after a while I came to the conclusion that helping him was not beneficial so I ignored him. By not helping him on the test he would flunk the class and stay back again one more year to actually learn the material. This was an easy choice for me to decide. When I read the section on moral relativism I started thinking about my religion. Every day I see my mom pray and I ask myself why? She believes in God and follows all the rules. I do not know why people have to follow these rules. There is a sin of gluttony which I do not understand. What is wrong with enjoying food? This and several other sins I see as human nature and if God created us why did he allow us to have these? This is why I do not follow religion. I was relating a lot to the self-interest theory. I was thinking to myself that almost everything I do is for me. When I play a sport or help around the house it is for my benefit. The only time I see when I am not selfish is when I do something that I do not enjoy at all or when I am forced to do something. But then again I do not want to do these things because I am thinking of myself. Selfishness? I do not know. While reading the utilitarian section I was listening to the song ‘Don’t Cry’- GnR and this song made me think about murder. If someone murders your brother or a family member for the greater good and makes you cry or be sad is it right? As I think of is that when someone gets happy someone else in the world gets sad.
In the end as of now I follow none of these arguments permanently. When the time comes I will decide which one to use but why will I choose that one? Selfishness? Utilitarianism? Or moral relativism? Who knows?
Theory of Knowledge: Ethics
Outline:
Ethics is the main point of how we wonder that justification in moral judgment leads to our moral knowledge, however there is no such thing as moral knowledge. The moral knowledge leads to moral reasoning. Moral reasoning comes from the values and judgments that come from how we judge the matter, which we want people to give a moral reasoning on how they can justify and put them with support to their values and judgments. However there is a moral principal that ethics argues about doing the right or wrong thing such as joining a criminal-gang to kill or to be protected, which is why we question or think about the decision of what is morally right or wrong. When it comes to how we make decisions, we expect to be consistent because we cannot be certain that all decisions are right or wrong, which it leads to difficulties of how we judge the matter. In the perspectives of how people see one thing right or wrong is the fact that they are being drawn into, which the fact is their value-judgment that makes them choose to side with there own matter by seeing what is right or wrong.
Claims and Counter-Claims:
The pros and strengths of ethics are that we can only judge and value the matter that we are able to. The cons and weaknesses of ethics are that we have limitations to judge and value what we do not know. We have religions that help us to judge and are our value that puts us under the matter to value-judgment to our beliefs, however we cannot judge other’s religion by our perspectives because we have no clue of how the religion works or how much it values to those who are in the religion, and we cannot judge them by not thinking about our own religion also, which we come to what is moral. We have our own duties to judge and values by doing the right thing for us, which we completely think of ourselves not others, however we are not doing the exact duty that we are supposed to do. With these arguments, ethics is questioned of how a person’s characteristics lead to the value-judgment of moral beliefs and duties.
Personal Connection:
During Theory of Knowledge class along with the classmates and teacher, we discussed about the reason of paying taxes or what is the use of paying taxes. Some students drew out there perspectives by debating about taxes. The Pros’ students agreed to pay taxes because they did not want to go to jail, want to help out the community and country, the military, and the world. The Cons’ students disagreed of paying taxes because they didn’t want to help out the war just for killing innocent lives or helping the world without any matters that will benefit them, however both group had good reasons on the debates. When the debate was done the whole class was to come up and joined a side, however some were in between and I was one of them. I chose to be in between because I think that it will be better to benefit both side, which I had some arguments on both positions about taxes. I think that it is good to pay taxes to help out my country; however I will not be paying taxes just for a war for killing innocent lives, which is not morally right that I would pay taxes to kill innocent lives to help out my country.
Knowledge Issue Questions:
How is ethics created or discovered?
Can we judge ethics by its moral or values?
To what extent does ethics put into the areas of knowledge?
What can we acquire from ethics?
What is the status of ethics in the Theory of Knowledge and areas of knowledge?
How can ethics be classified into justification?
Where can ethics be experienced or explained in the ways of knowing?
Outline:
Introduction
The human race is troubled by the idea of morality because it does not have a simple answer.
Moral Reasoning
A simple model
• We use commonly agreed moral principles to argue for ethics.
• We look at people being consistent in their judgments and if the facts of those judgments are true.
Consistency
• Be consistent in judgment
• If it’s wrong for one to cheat then it’s wrong for others to cheat
• Receiving the same punishment
Facts
• Use facts to back up moral judgment
• Even though facts are agreed on, value-judgments may differ
Disagreements about moral principles
• What happens when what one does is wrong in the eyes of others, but OK in the eyes of the beholder?
Moral relativism
Arguments for moral relativism
The diversity argument
• There are no objective moral values
The lack of foundations argument
• Moral values come from the environment we grew up in
• Same facts do not lead to same conclusions
Does relativism imply tolerance?
• Cultural imperialism – one culture imposes its values on other cultures
• Their values are as valid as ours (culturally)
• The belief in universal tolerance is not consistent with moral relativism
Arguments against moral relativism
Self-interest theory
• Everyone is selfish
Theories of ethics
Religious ethics
• Ethics is a matter of doing your duty and fulfilling your obligations
• What would happen if everyone did that? Chaos.
• No individual should be given preferential treatment, but no individual should be discriminated against.
• Moral values are determined by motives
• Moral absolutism – certain moral principles should always be followed
• Too focused on reason at the expense of feelings
Utilitarianism
• Seek the maximize happiness
• Judge whether it conforms to a rule that promotes general happiness
Conclusion
• We can never be sure if we’re doing the right or wrong thing
Claims and Counter-Claims: Utilitarianism
Pros: 1) Simple way of solving moral dilemmas. 2) Every individual’s happiness is taken into account. 3) Focuses on long-term happiness, not short-term. 4) Distribute needs according to level of happiness.
Cons: 1) Happiness cannot be measured. 2) Consequences cannot be predicted. 3) Happiness is not always a good thing. 4) Actions should be judged by motives not consequences. 5) Need to consider moral obligations and individual rights.
Knowledge Issues:
• How do morals affect our perspective in education?
• What is the relationship between morals and religion?
• How do our experiences shape our morals? How do our morals shape our experiences?
I apologize if my response is too long. I did not feel like erasing everything I’ve written so far. I also apologize if it is not long enough, because I was typing my response on e-mail due to the fact that I do not have Microsoft word. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Ethics Chapter Reading Response
-Moral Reasoning: Justified reasoning is made with value-judgement claims along with evidence to support it.
-Moral Relativism: No universal values; values are determined by the society people grow up in.
-Moral Absolutism: Certain moral values should always be followed.
-Self-interest Theory: Human beings are always and everywhere selfish.
-Cultural Imperialism: A culture imposing its values on another cultures.
-Kant’s Golden Rule: “Do as you would be done by.”
-Utilitarianism: There is only one supreme moral principle; everyone should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number or “maximize happiness”.
-Rule worship: To blindly follow a moral rule without regard to the consequences.
-Special pleading: To justify one’s own behavior that one would not find acceptable for another person to have/be.
In moral relativism, there are two main arguments or reasoning that support it: the diversity argument and the lack of foundations argument.
The diversity argument states that because there are so many cultures out there in this world, many with different values from another, there cannot be any objective morals. An example of another culture that has different values from the U.S.A are cannibals. Cannibals find it acceptable to eat other humans for food. The U.S.A., however, would consider a human eating another human as disgusting or repulsive. If a U.S. citizen kills a human being in a cannibal society (assuming that the citizen has been accepted into the community and hasn’t been eaten yet), then the U.S. citizen would not be given any penalties unless he/she has done something else to offend the community. However, if a cannibal (regardless if he/she is a U.S. citizen or not), kills a U.S. citizen for food in the U.S.A., then he/she is tried for murder. The lack of foundations argument states that moral values are somehow ungrounded or lacking in foundation because there does not seem to be an independent ‘moral reality’ against which we can test our values to see if they are true or false. This means that our morals are influenced by our own communities. Moral relativism implies tolerance because if you believe that cultures influence our values and morals, then whatever a culture does that is unappealing to you is not necessarily bad. If you are a moral relativist, then you are open to the values and morals of other communities and understand why they do what they do.
As there are two main arguments for moral relativism, there are two main reasons against it as well. One, there are several core values in each culture that have been accepted by all cultures. Human beings have similar needs to one another, so it is essential that those needs are fulfilled. Because we live on the same planet with one another, it is not strange to find similar methods to fulfill our needs. Two, values can be justified because some core values, such as the belief that random torture is wrong, are intuitive to most people. Although not everyone will agree, the majority of the world would.
In the Hmong culture, it is immoral marry someone with the same last name because you and the other person belong to the same clan. Because the clan you belong to is symbolically your family, marrying someone within the clan is equivalent to incest. In the American culture, it is not immoral to marry someone with the last name as you, as long as they are not your immediate family. In my culture, the Fang clan is considered to be related to the Vang clan. Due to the lack of evidence, the claims to how these two clans are related are still disputed to this day. One of the main stories told is that two members of the Vang clan decided to marry and have kids. When they greeted their clansmen, they were shunned because they had committed taboo and were immediately forced to change their last name to Fang, which would mean their actions would not dishonor the clan. Eventually, the Fang family became large enough to be considered a clan, and because they were originally members of the Vang clan, Fang and Vang are related. Another story that is often told is that the Fang clan was a smaller clan and was dependent on its neighboring Vang clan. Because the Fangs were dependent on the Vangs, their friendship grew and eventually vowed themselves to be blood brothers/sisters. I decided to look into moral relativism in the Ethics chapter because I grew up in two communities: American and Hmong. Although, in the Hmong culture, marriage within the clan is considered incest, I do not see it as incest unless it is with my immediate family. This thought of mind began to develop as I continued live my life in the USA. However, even though I may not consider the marriage to be one of incest or immoral, I would not marry a Fang or a Vang because the Hmong community would see it as immoral. On second thought, that last sentence is more of an “ought” statement because I have dated someone with the last name Vang before. Although at first I was opposed to the idea of courting her, I learned about my family tree and found out that my great-grandfather was actually a Vietnamese child who was adopted by my foster great-great-grandparents. Because of my family history, I convinced myself that it was okay to date her because my last name is just a carry-on without blood.
Is it possible to know someone’s moral belief through their cultural background?
Can we differentiate “ought” and “is” statements without context?
If all cultures grew up the same way with the same values and morals, would moral relativism still exist?
The chapter “Ethics” in the Theory of Knowledge book has topics about “Moral reasoning, Moral relativism, Self-Interest Theory, Theories of Ethics, Duty Ethics and Ultilitarianism.” The topic that I want to specifically focus in on is the “Self-Interest Theory.” The Self-Interest Theory suggests that “human beings are always and everywhere selfish.” Which is also and idea that I believe is to be true. There are the four theories to discuss this claim and also to criticize it; the definitional argument, evolutionary argument, hidden benefits argument and the fear of punishment argument.
The first theory which is the “Definitional argument” argues that no matter what you do, it is always selfish. An important example from the text uses Mother Teresa and Donald Trump. Mother Teresa does what she wants, which is to help the poor people, now to respond to your own desires that gives you pleasure is being selfish. However Mother Teresa is responding to her own desires as a means to help the poor, so is she being selfish? Donald Trump makes off millions of dollars, however it’s his interest to make money, so does that mean that he’s being selfish? They, Mother Teresa and Donald Trump are both responding to their desires, the criticism however is that we should always distinguish the differences between “self regarding desires and other regarding desires.”
The Evolutionary Argument states that we as human beings are selfish because it is in human nature to fight for survival, thus it is in the best of every humans interest to respond to our natural instinct of selfish desires. The criticism explains that there is also evidence that we also inherit feelings of empathy and altruism besides our selfish instincts. An experiment with monkeys show that monkeys will sacrifice food if it means that another monkey doesn’t get hurt.
The Hidden Benefits Argument states that we are kind to others because it will gain us praise, gratitude and a”positive image of ourselves.” There are also those kind actions that cannot be repaid such as donating an organ. However there are also those who jump into extremely life threatening situations to earn such praise and etc… Such as samurai soldiers who would die with honor after defeat by seppuku. The major criticism for this theory is that even though we people sometimes act in kindness or bravery towards others because we expect some gratitude in return, however there are also those who do so because they take pleasure in helping others.
The last argument for the Self-Interest Theory is the Fear of Punishment Argument. This argument states that we human beings are uncivilized and like animals it takes fear to tame us. The government is a great example because they keep track of us domestic people and enforce laws so that we may learn to obey through fear of punishment. Although we cannot assume this about everyone, we can never judge a persons’ motivation to obey the laws because there are people out there in the world who do obey the law because they respect the law.
After having read so much knowledge this far, I have made a theory that knowledge is nothing more than claims with limitations that we decide if we should value or not depending on how much the knowledge affects directly and indirectly.
I for one do many things that earn me praise and gratitude, however I perform kind actions not only out of hidden benefits but because it also pleasures me to see others happy. A long long while ago, when I was still young I had met a girl, she was very nice and had a bright personality. I liked her a lot. After a year of being friends with her I finally admitted my crush to her, however I was too late, as usual, and she had already gotten into a relationship. I sincerely apologized and let her be, but stayed friends with her for another year until we lost contact over the summer. I don’t know if that’s really personal experience that would apply to this area of knowledge, but it was a “selfish” act of me and I did it out of innocence.
Tok Chapter Reading Response: Ethics
When dealing with the area of knowledge Ethics, you often have to ask your self is this wrong or right? Or is this the good thing to do or the bad thing to do? Being part of the human race it is part of our nature to go through these types of questions because of our ability to think. There are also knowledge issues in figuring out how we know what the right or wrong thing to do is or how we even determine it.
Moral reasoning is one way that we are able to determine if a situation is wrong for example, Is it wrong to have sex before you are married? When dealing with moral reasoning, this type of question is often categorized the same as Do you like hot dogs? It’s a matter of if you yourself believe if it is wrong or not. It is like your sense of taste, in other words what you like or what you ‘believe’ is good. There is no arguing about what you think is better so this is just based on ones perspective and we often go along with it because of that. For example I may ask my friend do you think abortion is wrong? They may say no but how does what they say determine what others think? It really does not matter it is all based on opinions. What they believe would not change what you believe would it?. Moral relativism suggests that what is decided to be wrong or right is in the eye of the beholder meaning who ever sees it and think that it is wrong, then it is to them. The knowledge communities that one grows up in affects what they believe is the correct or incorrect thing to do. For example, one may have a religion or grown up in a community which believes that it is okay to eat other people. However if you ask around ‘Do you think cannibalism is okay?’ Then others in your community will either agree or disagree depending on the community they are most familiar with. I personally believe that cannibalism is disgusting and a foul practice to do but some cultures believe that it is moral because that is just the community that they have grown up in. Counter Claims that question moral relativism is the fact that we as a human race all have some kind of similar characteristics that are accepted but all religions or cultures. For example violence can considered to be morally wrong by most cultures because it can be argued that there is at least some kind of form in limiting violence in a culture. So we may suggest that violence is overall wrong. This still may be overruled by the fact that humans are capable of creating their own cultures and beliefs so there is really no limit to what humans think may be wrong or right.
Self-interest theory suggests that everyone is selfish. The definitional argument of this theory is based on our actions and how they are are mainly based on what we want to do and most of the time what we do want to do, we do it. For example, if you really enjoyed dancing, and you wanted to go to dance class and this was the last day to join, and the same day is your little brothers graduation. Someone would most likely choose what they are most interested in even though they may feel obligated to do the other.
For a personal experience of mine, I personally believe that ethics can only be determined on how you have grown up. Which is Moral relativism. This is because one day, I was at my friends house and they are Hmong and have grown up in a Hmong enviorment. I have grown up in a society that is christian and have my own set of beliefs. While at my friends house, I was standing up and my friend was lying down on the floor. To the side of her was a coffee table which had my cup on it. I know nothing about the Hmong culture so I stepped over my friend in order to get the cup. The next thing that I know all of my other Hmong friends are yelling at me. “Dominic!. You are not suppose to step over her like that!” It was some sort of bad luck to them. They believe that this is Morally wrong because that is what they were taught and also this is what they have grown up believing. I believe that it is just a step over someone so I did not have the same mind set as my friends while stepping over her. This was a sign of disrespect that I have put on them and they took it pretty seriously. I learned from this experience that cultures that others may have, have their own perspective on what is morally right and morally wrong.
Knowledge issue Questions:
How are we able to tell if an action we take is morally right or wrong?
Is it Immoral to ‘believe’ something and bring it upon someone else who believes the opposite? It is only expressing your own set of moral ideas but then going against others.
How do we ‘Classify’ if something is Moral or Immoral?
Great anecdote about your cultural naivete. Do you believe it is “wrong” if you are ignorant of the moral code? To what extent are feelings, our emotional knowledge, a better moral compass than reason?
Ethics is to know what is good and bad. We tend to ask many questions. It is expected of people to justify their judgments and support them with reason also known as moral reasoning. And many times we agree on morals that are commonly agreed upon. It is important to be consistent with your judgments. A judgment should not be different for another person. Moral relativism says morals are determined by our society and cultures. According to culture imperialism, a culture cannot impose its values on other cultures. Self interest theory states that human beings are selfish. Selfishness determines their moral behaviors but we have inherited empathy as well as we have inherited selfishness. Kant, a philosopher talks about a generalization test. Before you make the decision, think about what would happen if everyone did that. But he also says that you should not lie. If you were in a bad situation and you needed to lie, you would lie. Utilitarianism is a theory about one supreme moral that benefits a greater number of people. This theory deals with pleasure and happiness but we should also realize that there are bad pleasures, for example, malicious and empty pleasures.
Kant’s approach to ethics is about generalization. As stated earlier, his idea is thinking about, what would happen if everyone did that? His concept makes sure no one person is treated differently. He states that someone should not give up their life for the greater good. Objects have value, humans have dignity. Value can be replaced but dignity cannot and therefore death shall not be accepted for the good of others. Another great idea he talks about is that the moral actions are determined by motive over the consequence. Even if the consequence was bad and the intentions were good then you meant good. As said before, Kant disagrees with lying. But if someone needs to lie then it is necessary they lie. Kant’s ideas work too much on emotions. What about our duties? Do we think about what others would do or what is right for the other person or our duty?
I remember there was a time when I was in TOK and Mr. Coey told us to make a dating profile. This was something we don’t do in my culture. In my culture, we don’t date; it is not allowed. Even though it was not real, I had to think about the aspects of dating. This situation was culture imperialism. Another cultures value was imposed onto my culture. I chose to do what went against my culture which was against my morals. Therefore according to my culture I did the bad thing. It was not Mr. Coey’s fault because he did what he thought would make it fun for us to learn. He has different morals and values from me because he has a different culture and has grown up in a different society. But all together, I understand that I have to evolve and understand other cultures as well. But I cannot fall away from my culture because a culture makes up who you are. This situation developed the ideas of Moral Relativism.
What justifies our ethics? Can our ethics/morals be classified? How does experience affect our way of deciding what is right and wrong? Who decides whether our ethics are correct? How do we evaluate what is wrong or right? How do we shape our morals?
Thanks for pointing out my moral imperialism!! Brilliant! By the way, please let me know if my assumptions are insensitive. I would love to hear about your culture.
Great questions!
Yer Lee
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Period 6 ToK
Coey
Ethics Reading Response
Outline:
• We, as human, question ‘What should I do?
• Guided by habits and custom.
• Consider options and think seriously about actions.
• Controversial questions force us to think about our values.
• Does not always have a straightforward answer.
• Relativism: there is no such thing as moral knowledge.
• Self-interest: even if there is, we are incapable of acting on it.
• Moral Reasoning: two things we often look at- 1) how consistent their judgments are 2) whether the alleged facts on which those judgments are based are true.
• Self-interest theory: human beings are always and everywhere selfish.
(i) even if there are objective moral values, we are incapable of living up to them.
(ii) the definitional argument: it is true by definition that everyone is selfish; one do what one wants to do; sense of guilty considered selfish.
(iii) the evolutionary argument: human beings are naturally selfish creatures who are programmed to pursue their own interests; survival and passing our genes into the next generation cause us to spend a huge amount of time looking after “number one”; people’s interests only concern us to the point where it affects our own; capitalism vs. socialism.
(iv) the hidden benefits argument: gratitude, praise and a positive image of ourselves are hidden benefits; if you help me I help you.
(v) the fear of punishment argument: keeps us in line and prevent our doing wrong; law and order vs. law of the jungle.
Claims and Counter-claims:
The pros about the self-interest theory are that we, human beings, treat others the way we want to be treated and that fear keeps us in line and from doing something wrong. If we treat people the way we want to be treated, we often do what is considered the best thing to do, which often will not hurt others and both parties are happy. The cons about the theory are that one’s actions are only for their own benefits, sense of guilty will only make one do what is considered the best thing, and one only take actions if it affects them too. Someone doing something nice for others is only to accomplish the gratitude or praise from other people, which is only for their own good, if it were not for the gratitude or praise from other people, that person would have never done something nice to others. One only do things they don’t always like to do because of guilt. One would also only take actions to prevent the bad things from happening if it affects them; this means help is not always reliable.
Personal Connection:
One Saturday morning, my family and I went to the supermarket, i was about five years old. When my dad asked one of the employees to help us find a product, I saw a twenty dollar bill dropped from the employee to the ground. I saw that the employee did not notice it and my parents did not see it as well, so I picked up the bill and I gave it to the employee, I told him he dropped it. He took the dollar bill. My mom then asked me in Hmong why did I give it back to him and she told me I should have just kept the money because it was “luck”. I told her that I did not know. I then thought about it and I questioned why I did not go to my parents first. Before my mom said anything to me, the reason I gave back the money was because it is not mine and I saw that it belong to the employee, I learned not to take things that do not belong to me. However, after my mom told me that it was “luck” and I should have kept it, I was troubled and I felt bad I did not go to my parents first. After that, I thought I shouldn’t have given back the money. Now, thinking about it, I’m glad I did not go to my parents first, if I had, I would have kept the money, but it was a good thing I gave it back.
Knowledge Issue Questions:
1. How does beliefs influence morality?
2. What is morality based on?
3. To what extent can explanations determine value-judgments?