Monday, April 25th
Choose 1 of the following:
A. What are morals or values that you see as self evident? How or can someone prove that a value or moral is self evident?
B. What is an example of something that you don't think is ethical but is considered ethical in another society (or vice versa)? When can ethical relativism be justified and when can it not be justified?
Regardless of which you choose to answer PLEASE use concrete examples. Thanks.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Meredith Aby-Keirstead's Introduction to Philosophy class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. There is an expectation by the instructor & the JHS administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at JHS apply to the blog.
26 comments:
First yet again.
B. I think that in society, it is considered okay to think negatively of same sex marriage, race, religion and for getting into war. War is never okay, the death of innocent people is unexcusable. There are other ways to peacefully solve problems. People lose close family members and friends in war and that is unjust. Also, 25 States allow people to marry their first cousin, but not to marry someone of the same gender. This is completely unethical. Society should not make love socially unacceptable in all it's forms.
Moral values that are self evident are things like do not cheat, steal, or lie. These are self evident because these acts cause guilt, which means you feel what you did was wrong. If an action makes you feel guilty then that should be your first sign that its a self evident moral value.
Ethical relativism states that there are no absolute morals. What is right for someone may not be right for another person. Our morals evolve and change with the social norm over a period of time. I personally believe that the death penalty is unethical, and that no one deserves to be killed by other people. We live in a country where several states have the death penalty. Just because the government says something is ok to do, does not necessarily mean something is ethical. If they say something is wrong, it may not actually be wrong. Don't trust the government.
I think that rape and murder and domestic violence are wrong in a sense that naturally, as human beings, we agree. We have a concept of good and bad at an early age. Whether it's shaped by punishments or opinions of those who raised you, we all have an understanding. No one just wakes up one day and thinks that killing another person is completely justified, unless that person was savagely raised that way. Humans are brought up socially, not by instinct. If you socially aren't brought up, or deprived of others, that's when mental problems occur. We were made to fed off of one another. Not literally, but we grasp understanding by inspecting other's actions. Closure and isolation is sometimes nescessary, and possible. But we were raised by humans as a side we aren't as independent as we thought. And that's how we learn our morals.
I don’t find sacrifice to be ethical in our society but in others where they believe the continuance of their survival rests on it, it is ethical. The mayans and even in the time of Jesus, sacrifices were made to supposedly help the society. Our society would find it barbaric and wrong but to them it was an act promoting the common welfare. Ethical relativism can be justified when the issue at hand betters the society and if those it hurts are willing participants. Such as with samurai who would fall onto their sword for their emperor but if the victim is unwilling then the ethical idea cannot be justified.
B. I don't think it is ethical to give the death penalty to someone in public. Historically, people have been killed at public events in many ways as a form of punishment. People have been stoned to death, hung, crucified, burned at the stake, and more. I don't always think that the death penalty its self is unethical, but to have it done in front of a crowd is definitely right. Onlookers should not view death as a form of entertainment. It would be extremely shameful to be killed for your wrong doings, but adding embarrassment to that factor would be really harsh. People should not be able to take part in someone else's punishment. The public isn't always completely informed about the person's crime, and shouldn't be given the chance to make fun of someone who is already being punished. In many cultures, it is completely ethical to make the death penalty a public event, but in America, it is not legal, and I think that is good.
I think that having more than one spouse is really unethical, yet some societies accept & encourage it simultaneously. I believe that ethical relativism can be used as an excuse many times, saying that nothing is right or wrong depending on the view of the person. So many people can & have used this as an excuse to do bad things, and then just say that it was something they personally believed to be acceptable. It is definitely not acceptable when it comes to other people. If there is something involving someone else's state of well being, ethical relativism is not okay because so many bad things could come of it, and an excuse of ethical relativism could be used.
There are many things that we see as ethical and unethical. Other societies see what we think is unethical as ethical. There are many other countries that see the death penalty as a ethical option for punishment of a crime. Some states in the US also think it is an ethical punishment. The definition of what is ethical is different from person to person and it is hard to say that what is unethical.
I think that the death penalty is ethical treatment for someone who commits murder but in other foreign countries like Europe they think that it is unethical and is not justified regardless of the crime. I know that it is legal in some states but not others but the fact that we have it at all when Europe wont even consider having it shows we have differing views on the ethical treatment of criminals.
Self evident is something that can be evident in itself without proof. I think that this can relate to many morals and values in todays society. I believe that a few examples of these would be to not murder, rape, cheat, or steal. These are common sense and should never happen under any circumstance. If a person was brought up in a respectable household with even a little bit of direction, they should be able to learn from society that these actions are not acceptable. One can prove that a value or moral is self evident by looking at the effects on society. One should ask his/her self "Is this action helping or hurting?" If the answer is hurting, the action should not be committed.
In some Asian societies, killing yourself is seen as an ethical way of death. In our society, suicide is sometimes seen as the result of a mental and emotional instability or weak character. These two views are polar opposites yet both societies interact and communicate with one another with minimal conflict. I think it really depends on the topic or context of the situation when trying to find ethical relativism. Many cultures would agree that rape, stealing, and in some cases murder are unethical things. I think when another country begins to practice these things, either through genocide or another political practice, cultural relativism can not be justified.
B. Americans, in general, love to eat meat. I wouldn't give eating a hamburger a second thought. In India, however, cows are respected on a higher level than humans. This theological difference is a great example of something which is ethical to most Americans, but would be considered sacrilegious in other countries. Eating cow meat can be justified here, since we need food to survive and we consider cows to be less important than humans. Due to their differing religion and ideologies, eating cows in India could not be morally justified and is therefore unethical. Religion usually plays a large part in ethical relativism, but when no people are being directly harmed for the most part these theological differences are harmless. Especially when they work to keep cows from being slaughtered for food!
There are morals and values that are self-evident. It is important to have a moral base from which other virtues can develop. Striving to tell the truth and being loyal to close friends are examples of implied ethics. Personally, I see compassion for other people and fairness as obvious ethical actions that should be obeyed always. It is difficult to determine what is an implied virtue and what is not. There are so many different schools of thought that is makes the classification of these virtues impossible. They can try to prove a virtue's self-evidence by seeing how the value falls and its relation to other virtues.
B. What is an example of something that you don't think is ethical but is considered ethical in another society (or vice versa)? When can ethical relativism be justified and when can it not be justified?
As trite as this answer may be, I wholeheartedly oppose the idea of only cisgendered couples being able to marry. Obviously, there are many societies that consider same sex relationships as being unethical (and even consequential.) Even in our own society, we blindly adhere to acts like the "Defense of Marriage Act" that so blatantly discriminates against certain groups of people. I think that surely ethical relativism can be justified, in this case and others of the same sort, if it doesn't involve harm. As history has shown, societies tend to gravitate towards the social norms that they've always been familiar with... So, perhaps a little ignorance can be justified. But it isn't just the pacifist in me talking when I say that it's totally unethical for someone to be physically hurt, or condemned, or whatever, for something like this.
There are no self evident morals or values because they are all relative to the perspective and priorities of a human being. The ideas of fair and unfair, just and unjust, and right or wrong all exist in our minds and in our minds alone. All opinions on morality are essentially biased by the experiences of the person that conceived them. An example of this would be the vast differences in cultures around the world, if morality were self evident there would not be the same amount of diversity.
In a world with so many differences in culture and upbringing it is hard to find any specific actions that are universaly considered immoral. However, if one turns to the more primal senses, those actions which cause pain and fear are seen throughout the globe to have an immoral impact. Things such as rape are seen everywhere to cause pain to the recipient, and causing another to experiance fear through threats and direct hurt is also an inherantly unethical practice. Actions which are more ambiguous, such as lying, and do not in all cases always cause pain or fear cannot be considered a universal moral. Another concrete example of a universal moral is the act of killing, which in all cases causes pain to the recipient.
B. What is an example of something that you don't think is ethical but is considered ethical in another society (or vice versa)? When can ethical relativism be justified and when can it not be justified?
Photographing passersby is perceived differently in many different cultures. Travelers in foreign countries are often advised to be very careful about who they take pictures of, as taking someone’s picture in that country can be seen as ‘taking their soul,’ or a paraphrase of this. A quick Google search reveals that the belief that cameras imprison the soul is prevalent in many Central and South American cultures as well as among Native Americans. This sentence would be a pun about ‘concrete’ examples if I had more time to think of an amusing one. In the United States people may have some legal right to their image’s use in photographs- after all, I haven’t filled out a forest-worth of consent forms for school activities for nothing- but it is generally ethically accepted that taking pictures of people is appropriate. This is a clear example of ethical relativism.
What is an example of something that you don't think is ethical but is considered ethical in another society (or vice versa)? When can ethical relativism be justified and when can it not be justified?
I do not think it is ethical to be so emotional distant from the world. In the united states people use their cell phone almost ever day and see almost no problem with it as well. In korea cell phones are almost never seen in public and people are so emotional distant from each other.I believe ethical relativism can be justified when it hurts more than one person or even on person it should be relativism when it hurst some one and not relativism when no one is hurt
A. I believe that not murdering people is a self-evident moral. People can prove that something is self-evident by showing that it is critical to positive and healthy relationships with people and things, and that it is common sense to people in many cultures. People can show that respecting life and not murdering people is self-evident by showing that humanity and society are better when people don't walk around killing one another for no reason. You don't have to explain that not murdering people is self-evident because in most cases children and adults know that it is wrong to kill each other and they understand that it is wrong without needing a a long moral lecture.
Going with A.
A moral I see as self evident is the golden rule. While subjective to individual preference, it nrequires that a person only acts as they would find acceptable on themselves. If a person lives in a society that shares similar perspectives, then the rule functions really well. The problem in today’s world is no society has a unified perspective which throws the rule into a tailspin and turns what should be a self evident moral into a paradox. ie. If other people are exceptions to the rules that govern your own actions then the karmatic incentive “what goes around comes around” disappears. But if you don’t analyse it and just use the golden rule as a guide for daily action then it seems self evident.
Another is killing human beings. Growing up in a community of other people it feels apparent that killing other people is wrong because, similar to the golden rule, your instincts tell you not to want to die/be killed and so do the contrary to other people feels wrong. Perhaps that’s why people struggle to kill even when trained in it such as with the military. Sort of on a tangent but I wonder if coming to terms with killing, as happens in the military and with sociopaths, causes the person to lose some of his or her humanity. Well anyway I figure it is a self-evident moral.
A. The morals and values that I find to be self evident are to be honest and to not be unnecessarily cruel. Being honest is almost always the best course of action, because if you lie it will almost always come back to bite you in the butt. If your significant other asks you if a certain piece of clothing looks good on them, you should tell them if it does or does not. Otherwise they would walk around looking like a fool all the time. Honestly though, appearances don’t matter very much to me. If you lie to make someone feel better, then you are just setting up a false reality that will eventually be pulled out from under them. In my previous example, when someone tells your significant other that what they are wearing is ugly or some such. Sometimes you have to be mean to be nice, but there is no reason to be unnecessarily cruel. Telling someone that what they are wearing doesn’t look the best on them and they probably should go change is being a little mean to be nicer. But that doesn’t mean you can beat up some kid repeatedly saying it will make him tougher, because it is not necessary to make him that tough. It would be unnecessary to prove something that’s self evident, but if you could show the reasoning behind it would probably be the best way to show why it is self evident.
B. Something I believe isn't ethical in our society but is in a different society is misogyny. Of course, we haven't reached a perfectly equal world ourselves, but other society's live with much more gender inequality than ours. Basic societal rights are denied to women in many other cultures. Women's rights are incredibly important because of the simple fact that women represent half of the world. It is horrible to think about all of the potential that the world has squandered withholding women equal rights. Ethical relativism can be justified basically in any circumstance as long as people are not mentally or physically harmed.
A. I actually think that, when looking at the base foundation of natural and self evident morals and values, there aren't any. Frankly. There have been cases where children were raised without the thought that murder is bad. I think it's very reasonable to think that there aren't any, and that what we think is self evident is just the simplest things that our society can instill. "Don't murder people," is so simple that it's ground into everything. It doesn't even have to be said like that to be portrayed.
Nature vs. nurture; I happen to think that moral ideas are nurture. I think one isn't born into a belief, and culturally, there are vast differences that show us that there is a hard chosen universal. One might not even be able to find an actual universal in the societies.
You try to prove that there is this self evident fact, some perfectly definable moral that is universal, self evident to humanity, someone will have a way to shoot it down. "Murder is wrong! Humans should never do it!" and someone will cry of capitol punishment, war, sacrifice, moral justification, self defense, and others I don't even need to list. I just think that there are values and morals so stealthily instilled in us by our society and by our peers and family that we start to think of it as natural even. Self evident is just an illusion for the fact that we pick up what we run into.
An example of something I don’t think is ethical but other societies may think is ethical is the killing of people based on anything but self-defense and a few other cases. I simply think that life is too sacred to wantonly throw away in such a manner, unless your own life is at risk or, as I said, a few other examples. That said, ethical relativism is always justified, in my opinion. I can’t say for certain that I would feel the same way I feel about that now if I lived and had grown up in such a society that I am merely alluding to. Thus, I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to say that other people are objectively wrong for something I feel could definitely be something my society instilled in me.
Post a Comment