29 Dec Take your personal ethica

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 1 Discussion

DQ1 Helen’s Wisdom of Friends Dilemma

Textbook: Chapter 1, 5, 12 (section: “Introduction”; “The Classical Period”; and Appendix – “Writing about Moral Issues”)

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Dilemma

Helen wants to move to a new community, and she is applying for a job with a small retail establishment. She is confident that she is fully qualified and will be able to perform well if she gets the job. The employer, however, has advertised for someone with three years of retail experience, and Helen only has two-and-a-half years. She is considering whether to exaggerate slightly on her resume in order to improve her chances of getting the job.

Helen asks three friends to offer their advice on what she should do.

Henry says, “Go ahead and claim three-and-a-half years of experience; they’re going to be so happy with your work that by the time they check (if they ever do) it won’t matter.”

Jennifer says, “I’m sure you’ll arrive at the best decision on your own; I’ve always known you to be an honest person.”

George says, “It is never all right to lie, even when you are unlikely to get caught and it seems relatively harmless to do so.”

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address all of the following questions relating to the dilemma:

Upon which of the Three Primary Schools of Ethics is each of Helen’s friends relying? Explain your reasoning.

Can you imagine other people using the same approaches to arrive at different kinds of advice? Provide examples.

Do one of these Three Primary Schools of Ethics feel like the style you usually use already? Explain.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

DQ2 Study of Ethics Philosophy

Textbook: Chapter 1, 5, 12 (section: “Introduction”; “The Classical Period”; and Appendix – “Writing about Moral Issues”)

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

The study of ethics and philosophy is one that brings many different kinds of “thinkers” together. One person’s philosophy on ethics is another person’s philosophy on evil. We will be working this term on constructing personal ethical bases and understanding how ethical codes (both personal and professional) are created and followed.

To start us thinking about the different areas of philosophy and ethics, and how we fit into the different molds or world views, let’s discuss the differences and similarities between these views. To do this, let’s look at the role of right and wrong, laws which regulate behavior, principles vs. morality, and the role of ethics in our society.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address one of the following questions:

Do we need ethics if we have laws? Why or why not?

Examine the issues with changing our own views of ethics based on the situation we are in?

Can we “legislate” ethics? If so, how do you see this happening? If not, what are the obstacles to legislating ethics?

How does Aristotle’s “virtue ethics” mirror your ethical view, or how is it different? Make sure to explain your reasoning.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 2 Discussion

The Struggle of Good vs. Evil

Textbook: Chapter 3, 4, 12 (section: “The Medieval Period”)

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

Personal struggles with one’s own tendencies, desires, lusts, and self-interest have placed people in conflict with other people and their own communities farther back than any of us can read. We read about the struggles of others in history – what about ourselves? Yes, us! What about our experiences of being ourselves? When we look back in history, we find people who are not so different from us – struggling with their human nature – and trying to live ethical lives in whatever way they can do so. They aspire to live ethical lives and find themselves failing again and again.

St. Augustine in the 5th Century held that although we feel free to make choices in life, our true nature as human beings includes a persistent disregard for what is good. On this view, we are sinners whose only hope for redemption lies in the gracious love of a merciful deity. Whatever I do on my own, Augustine would argue, is bound to be wrong; whatever I do right, must be performed by God through me.

St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century brought Aristotle’s theories back into vogue, soon after St. Augustine’s death (if 800 years is soon, that is.) He allowed humanity to have a bit of secularity along with faith, and his ethics allows for a Natural Law, which can be found in the heart of man. Be sure to listen to the audio simulation in this week’s lesson before posting in this discussion.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, consider the sophistication and technology of the 21st century. Examine how the medieval account of human nature aligns with your own experience of human action. That is, do you observe (in yourself and others) an inclination toward evil instead of toward good? Explain and analyze your observations. Bring in examples of scenarios that bolster your view or that tend to bring your view (or others) into question.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 3 Discussion

Living in Our State of Nature

Textbook: Chapter 6, 10, 12 (section: “The Modern Period”)

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.

Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism:

We are all self-interested.

Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests.

We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order.

Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.

Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” – a kind of perpetual state of warfare.

Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right – and sometimes the duty – to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action themselves to punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address the following:

Which philosophy do you espouse?

How much authority should be granted to governments (e.g., the right to kill (death penalty/capital punishment/use of deadly force)? How much would you give up in return for safety?

If you side with Hobbes, do you support at any point recourse if the government violates its own contract (if so, you probably have a bit of Locke in your thinking)?

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 4 Discussion

Kant

Textbook: Chapter 9, 12 (section: “The Ethics of Duty”)

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying, for any reason, is universally wrong. Be sure to listen to the audio simulation in this week’s lesson before posting in this discussion.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, select one of the following scenarios:

Consider the famous case of the Crazed Murderer. In your town the Crazed Murderer comes to your door looking for your friend and wanting to kill him. You know that your friend went home to hide. What do you tell the murderer? When he leaves and runs up the street to your friend’s house, what do you do?

Consider the positions for and against stem cell research. If stem cell research can benefit a large segment of the population (from repairing cells to curing diseases), is it our duty to continue with such research even if there is the potential to abuse such technology? If so, what steps should be taken to prevent such abuses. Apply the Three Primary Schools of Ethics to determine if stem cell research should be allowed or prohibited.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Address at least one peer who chose a scenario different from yours. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 5 Discussion

Dealing With Emergencies and Outcomes

Textbook: Chapter 2, 7, 12 (section: “The Ethics of Consequences”); review Chapter 9 (section: “The Munich Incident”), 10

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.

The 1972 Munich Olympics hostage situation was a high-tension moment, full of dangerous surprises and strategies to deal with the situation that did not work out for the best. Among the strategies was the idea to kill the leader of the terrorists so as to disrupt the terrorist plot and to allow a good outcome in which the hostages would be saved. In the situation, it was also entirely possible that a terrible outcome might occur in which all would die. The situation was an emergency.

The German legal system might eventually take the terrorists and their leader to trial, but first there was the need to end the hostage situation. The account in our text ends with, “But it was the lesser of two evils.”

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, respond to the following as utilitarian ethicists:

How shall we reason through to the decision of the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 Munich Olympics?

How are we to balance protecting people versus allowing people to participate in and enjoy an event? After all, doing away with events entirely would be easier in terms of safety, but most people would say that that “solution” is worse than the problem.

Also, how does one approach dealing with threats in ways that do not alienate or marginalize groups of people? The Olympics bring this to the forefront, as it brings people together from literally all over the world in what is intended to be a welcoming environment.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 6 Discussion

DQ1 Applying Rand’s Objectivism

Textbook: Chapter 8

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy has been touted by her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested selfishness. Her four epistemological principles include the following:

Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.

Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.

Ethics: Self-interest not only in what behavior is but also what it should be.

Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.

In the early 1960s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in an Objectivist’s free society. The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.” Based on Rand’s works, Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this would be the answer Ayn would have given to that student as well.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address all of the following:

What do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?

Examine the notion that Objectivism, like moral relativism, is the opposite of ethics. Provide support for your position.

What clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?

DQ2 Working Conflict Resolution Method

Textbook: Chapter 8

Lesson

Minimum of 1 professional ethics code

Introduction

Different ways to analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will help direct you to the correct or “best” solution to a problem. As we discussed in Week 1, sometimes right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be made.

In the lesson this week, you are given three ethical dilemma resolution models to try out on a dilemma provided there. Please review that interactive before working on this assignment

Initial Post Instructions

For this discussion, address one of the following questions:

Review the sample solution to the Laura Nash method. Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what parts do you think really helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which parts do you not agree with?

Review the sample solution to the Front Page of the Newspaper method. Do you think this is one of those types of dilemmas for which this model works? If not, why not? If so, why? How did using this method help you work through the dilemma?

Review the sample solution to the Blanchard and Peale method. Do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not? If so, in what way did this help you analyze this dilemma?

Be sure to show that you have viewed the lecture and interactive and that you attempted an analysis for “high quality” posts this week.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Respond to one peer who chose a different question than you chose. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 7 Discussion

Business Ethics & the Hovercraft Debacle

Textbook: Chapter 11 (review), 12

Lesson

Link (website): Project Management Institute (PMI) Code of Ethics (Links to an external site.)

Link (website): National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics (Links to an external site.)

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

This week, we looked at two ethical codes— one for the Project Management Institute, and one for Engineers. Appropriate professional behavior, practice, and discipline varies among professions and reflects the needs and values of the professional society in question. In this discussion, you will assume professional roles as we work on a fictional scenario.

Scenario

It is 2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.

However, the downside is that during the transition time, GFC’s Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee’s will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC’s marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.

The Chief Engineer (CE) of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds — projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.

The U. S. Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC’s stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel (CLC), and together they agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project Manager (CPM), who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.

Our class is a team of young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:

A-G: Attorney on the GFC team

H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team

0-S: Engineer on the GFC team

T-Z: Congressional Aide

Somebody sent a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CE, CLC, CPM, and your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save the world!

Each of you feel a very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all have mortgages, and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on this report, you will lose your job and your livelihood. You’re not even sure who wrote the study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address all of the following:

Utilizing your profession’s code of ethics, what would be your first step?

Who would you talk to first?

Would you go to the press?

Would you go to your boss?

Should you do anything at all?

Research professional ethics codes with international scope to see the guidance given for dilemmas such as this.

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers (from any team) or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 8 Discussion

Personal Ethics Statement

Textbook: Review all chapters

Lesson

Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Optional Resources

The following resources may be useful but are not required for this activity:

Link (website): Ring of GygesLinks to an external site. (for those who wish to read the whole story)

Dilemma

One of the great examples of ethics and morals in all of literature comes from Plato who wrote about the Ring of Gyges in The Republic, Book II, starting at paragraph 359a.

The story goes that Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King. In a most unusual circumstance he came upon a dead man, removed the man’s ring, and discovered that it made him invisible. He conspired to take the periodic report of the shepherds to the King – once there he seduced the Queen and eventually took control of the Kingdom by conspiring with the Queen. Plato continues the story:

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.

Initial Post Instructions

For this discussion, address the following:

Create a personal ethical philosophy and explain from which philosophies you created it and why the contents are important and meaningful for you. List its precepts.

Take your personal ethical philosophy statement and use it to work through the famous case of the Ring of Gyges. This story raises the question of what sanctions prevent people from just taking any liberties they are inclined to take. The whole subject of ethics, seen in large scale, is that of accepting and living under moral standards.

What would you do if you had that second ring?

What else within this course helps in responding to this fictitious situation or in explaining it?

Follow-Up Post Instructions

Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Are they holding true to their own personal ethical philosophies in their resolutions of the dilemma? Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.