I am a bit amazed that until this class I have never taken
an ethics class. I was not really sure what to expect. I was excited because I
heard rave reviews about this class. I was also nervous because I thought that
even though I try to be on the up and up that maybe I should be worried that I
am going to find out how tragically immoral I am. Luckily, it turns out I am doing
alright! While there were aspects I found challenging I feel like there was a
great value in checking in with these ethical concepts to reinforce doing the
right thing even when it is tempting not to or when you just aren’t sure it
matters. It does matter. Without further ado, these are a few of my favorite
things:
One of the first things I realized when I started examining
ethical theories is that I am largely not a consistent person. Consistency was
one of the most interesting themes to me throughout the course. I have the Piccadilly
of ethical beliefs. I pick and choose, just like at the restaurant, what I
believe. I have mentioned before in my blog that if Jack Bauer breaks a bunch
of laws and acts unethically but at the end of the day saves the world then the
ends justify the means. I do not usually tend to allow consequentialist ideas to
be my guiding light. The saving the world analogy is an above and beyond circumstance.
If it is a regular Tuesday and you are trying to make it to the bus on time and
you push people down and shove past them just to make it that is quite a
stretch. That would be an example of hiding behind ethical theories. Just when
you think I am going to bob I weave and my opinions are not necessarily
predictable based on one theory. However, a classmate of mine and a dear friend
told me that no ethicist worth their moral salt sticks to one ethical theory
for everything. I learned that it is okay to examine things as if they are relevantly
different, which is what universalizability asks of us. I fail to be consistent
in the concrete, but I would like to believe it is because I am keeping a
watchful eye for relevant differences.
This brings me to one of the biggest eye openers for me and
perhaps my favorite lesson, moral relativism. I read the LaFollette text and
was still at a loss. A couple articles later and Pecorino dropped some
knowledge on me. Another source to feeling that I am inconsistent lies in the
fact that we have relativistic ideas operating in my system. I concur that
unless you walk in another’s shoes it is hard to say what is right for someone
else. What is right for me might not be for someone else. I am not one to push
my beliefs off on another person, especially if I only assume I understand what
someone else has gone through. On the other hand, there are Middle Eastern
countries sometimes believe in honor killings. If a woman is raped the family
kills them. That seems pretty harsh when in our society we tell victims it is
not their fault, because it isn’t and we try to help them piece together their
lives. To me honor killings are insane. But here I am with my relativistic
ideas in conflict with each other. I am holding two opposing ideas at the same
time. It blows my mind how I thought I was so open-minded, but within mere
sentences I am contradicting myself. The LaFollette text points out that not
all moral beliefs are equally as good.
Lastly, when critical thinking meets logical fallacy and
ethics we meet the slippery slope argument. There are two types plausible and
implausible. Slippery slope arguments are a form of logical fallacy that is
based upon a chain of reasoning that follows a format such A leads to B, and if
B is not morally permissible, therefore A is unacceptable and we should stop A.
“The key claim in the fallacy is that taking the first step will lead to the
final, unacceptable step. Arguments of this form may or may not be fallacious
depending on the probabilities involved in each step” (Dowden, n.d., para. 2).
This reminds me that just because something is said at work, by a friend, in
the media etc. that is might not be a valid claim. This reminds me of mudslinging
in political campaigns. “This candidate was seen watching Fifty Shades of Grey
in theatres; therefore they are too immoral to be our leader!” Okay, that is a
total parody and was never said… but if you think about it that is kind of how
slippery slope arguments work. It also reminds me how those with certain moral
beliefs can let fear become fuel for anger and how there can be an outcry to
stop social progress. I am thinking about Equal Marriage Rights here. When
these arguments are used it can impede our ethical thinking about what we ought
to do with often unfounded and incomplete thoughts that are not based upon fact
or critical thinking.
References:
Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies.
Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SlipperySlope
LaFollette, H. (2007) The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA;
Blackwell Publishing
Pecorino, P.A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved
from: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment