Question/Prompt: Summarize either Virtue Ethics or the Ethics of Care.
My answer/response: Simply defined virtue is “the quality of a thing which enables it to perform its’ function well”. Taken a step further, moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” In addition it is important to know that character is “the enduring state of ones person moral identity”.
Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom went through different aspects of virtue theory. It is not a new idea although there are modern applications. To understand virtue ethics more completely it is important to have an understanding of how it has been described in the past and how it is applied and carried out today. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom began his summary by describing the “Spheres of the Moral Life”. These spheres included; forming the moral conscious, making moral decisions and forming moral identity.
The situations which virtue ethics apply to have changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics in Ancient Greece was founded in human nature. The virtue ethics fell into the following categories: Eudemonia – human flourishing, Ethos – character, Arête – virtue, excellence AND Ethos – habituation.
The main question that is being asked in trying to figure out a lifestyle by which to live is “What is the best possible life for all human beings?” This question is quickly followed by “What does the life of one who is truly, and deeply, happy look like?”
A virtue ethicist would argue that a life of virtue would result in a life that was truly and deeply happy. To know what happiness is we can look to the wisdom of both an ancient and modern philosopher. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Aristotle). Stanley Hauerwas would say “Happiness is not so much the end, but the way.”
These quotes give excellent insight into what a truly happy life would be like. But these quotes are based on a set of virtues that should be carried out in everyday life. The following list of virtues are things that should be found in a person who is living a happy life: wisdom, courage, compassion, humility, purity, patience, faith, prudence, justice, mercy, simplicity, gentleness, piety, hope, temperance, generosity, gratitude, tolerance, humor, loyalty, love. (virtues in italics are associated with Greek thought, words in bold are associated with Christian thought).
It would drive you crazy trying to remember to do each of these things everyday through your typical routines. These virtues come about as a result of practice as was stated earlier moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” This is what someone who desires to be happy should strive after.
Showing posts with label jottings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jottings. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jotting #14 Applying Virtue Ethics
Question/Prompt: Evaluate case #20, page 235 of HARRIS, as a virtue ethicist or care ethicist would.
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Jotting #12 Utilitarianism vs. Natural Law
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Be sure to include evidence from HARRIS and Dr. Snell.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jotting #11 - Utalitarianism
NOTE: Jotting#9 and 10 have been skipped on purpose. In case you are curious this is what they were on.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
- Jotting #9: Pick one of the questions at the end of The Hummer Case and give it an honest answer. (basically I ranted about the drawbacks of a Hummer)
- Jotting #10 What aspect of consumption would you like to focus on in your research paper? Use class readings and discussions and the Brain Teasers listed above to come up with a solid topic.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Jotting #6 - Conflict in Consumerism
Prompting: Try, in De Montaigne's sense of the word, any current issue (the war in iraq, using cell phones in cars, or genetic engineering, for examples) Suspend Judgment and ask "what do I know?" Play around, and take all sides.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Jotting #4 - Relative Ideas or Objective?
Question: Are your ideas about consumption and the environment relative or objective? Use examples from HARRIS to support your ideas.
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
Monday, January 21, 2008
Jotting #3 - Why Study Ethics
Assignment: Explain why we at North Park want to study ethics, giving at least one idea and at least three supporting details, particularly evidence from Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom's lecture.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
Jotting #2
I did not do jotting number 2.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
Jotting #1
Assignment: Pick one of the topics in the book Contemporary Moral Problems intro and dcide which are the factual, conceptual and moral issues.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
Jottings
As part of Dr. Rachelle Ankney's dialogue class we are required to do jottings. They are "freely written responses" to various readings and lectures. They are not necessarily graded on spelling and grammer or even organization. They are essentially used to see that we are thinking and doing the assigned work. "Jottings" will most likely make up the majority of this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
