Class Notes - 2/4/09

Review: The key thing we are looking for is a way to justify ethical claims, which are different than factual claims and claims of opinion. Historically, factual claims and ethical claims were thought to be the same thing; however, ethics today has moved away from this view. Factual claims can be verified (the sky is blue) while ethical claims are normative and make a statement of what to do (don’t kill). There are two ways to justify ethical claims: consequentialism and non-consequentialism. The consequentialist sees punishment as a way to deter future bad behavior; punishment may help rehabilitate the guilty party and punishment may separate a potentially dangerous person from society. They are looking for ways to maximize the good. The non-consequentialist sees punishment not as a way to deter further bad behavior but as a way to provide retribution as a way to punish the guilty and not the innocent.

Non-consequentialism has many features. First, it seeks to treat people as ends rather than as means. Happiness and pleasure are not particularly important, but respect for persons is. It states we can’t use other people merely for our own good because if we disrespect their rational capacity then it ultimately diminishes our own rational capacity. The non-consequentialist is concerned with duty and obligations. We have these duties because people deserve respect for just being people; however, they must be rational, or reasonable, to be considered a person who deserves respect.

There are two problems with consequentialism. The first problem is that we don’t know what the consequences will be; it depends on what happens in the future. The second problem is it leads us to moral places that violate our moral sense. For example: We could cure cancer if we caused a small group of children to experience cancer and by learning from them, millions and millions of people could be cured of cancer. The pain of a few would benefit a larger group. It justifies what many people would consider immoral. The problem with non-consequentialism is that we are to recognize the value of a person and show them respect but how does punishment that causes pain show respect? And non-consequentialism tends to display an interest in the consequences of actions in order to determine if they are ethical. (Strike and Soltis pp. 26-29)

Utilitarianism’s central doctrine is that social policy ought to be determined by what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It requires that all of the consequences for everyone’s well-being be taken into account. (Strike and Soltis p. 12)

Philosophers Locke and Kant believed that a person had certain rights just because they’re a person. Kant believed that personhood was something that you achieved. Being rational makes you a person but you are not born rational. You have to develop it.

Rationality is what makes us fully human and deserving of respect. We can’t use people merely for our own gain. When we disrespect someone else’s rationality then we diminish our own rationality. We must also ask ourselves whether our course of action should be an action for everyone. We can’t lie because we don’t want others to lie.

In an ethical view rules matter more than consequences. Rules that are rational demand our attention. Rules have to be based on something. The rule “don’t lie” has to be based on a law that defines what a lie is. Rules become justified by other rules that are justified by other rules and it becomes a vicious cycle. Where do we start?

Kant tried to start with our rationality but we are not always rational. Competent means a demonstrated ability to make rational choices. This is designed to rule out those who are clearly mentally ill and children – both of which are unable to be rational. Because some people are not able to make rational decisions we have a duty towards them but we don’t have to agree with their decisions.

Case studies: (1) Ms. Jones calls Johnny’s father to school to talk about a fight that he had started. When Mr. Pugnacious arrives it is obvious that he has been drinking and he is holding a belt in his hand ready to punish Johnny. Ms. Jones lies and says that Johnny did not start the fight. She takes the conequentialist approach. The non-consequentialist approach would have had Ms. Jones tell the truth and deal with the father’s reaction.(S&S pp. 9-17)

Several observations were made: What if Johnny confesses to his dad that he did start the fight? The father will now think that Johnny lied to his teacher and he might also think that the teacher lied to him. Who should he trust?

Should the teacher have allowed Johnny to ride home with his dad since the dad had obviously been drinking? Ethical obligations often overlap with legal obligations. Legally if a teacher suspects that a child is being abused she has to report it.

Can we vacillate between a consequentialist and a non-consequentialist view? The goal of philosophical ethical theory is the attempt to justify ethical claims which can change from theory to theory.

(2) Henry, a basketball player on scholarship, plagiarizes an English paper. If the teacher fails him he will have to retake the course; he will lose his scholarship; he will be suspended from the team; he will be unhappy, the school will be unhappy and the team will be unhappy. But if she passes him is she doing the right thing? The class decided that the teacher had a third option: to work with the student to rewrite the paper. (S&S pp.1-3)

Why do the consequences matter more in case study number 1 than in case study number 2?

Ethical theories should cause us to reflect on our intuitions, the reasons we use for making our decisions and identifying the common elements. By introducing these theories it should provide us with a common terminology and conceptual apparatus to organize our thinking. By placing it in historical, philosophical, social and legal context will stretch our thinking. Without theory it boils down to the anecdotal evidence that we can muster.

Remember, ethical theory’s goal isn’t to help people make ethical decisions, but is an attempt to have them justify their ethical claims. In ethical decision making, you shouldn’t come up with your response and then pick the theory that best fits your answer. This is backwards and can lead to significant inconsistency. Instead, you should first pick the theory you want to use and then come up with your response.

The goal of our text is to cause us to reflect on:

1. Our intuitions
2. Whatever we bring to the table to make our decisions
3. The reasons we us in making our decisions

(3) A teacher searches a student’s sweatshirt thinking that she might find a wallet that had been stolen earlier in the day and finds a knife instead. Her principal asks her to lie about it. The law says that students can be searched while on school property. The teacher was within her rights to search the sweatshirt without having to lie about looking for a wallet instead of a knife. It was unnecessary for the principal to ask her to lie. (S&S pp.18-19)

The ethical issue is whether to lie if a superior asks you to lie. It is important to recognize how our ethical processes work. Sometimes we vacillate back and forth when making a decision but that is a very important part of the decision making process.

(4) Mr. Fuse, a chemistry teacher, leaves the classroom for an emergency call and while he is gone someone opens a locked cabinet and uses those chemicals to cause an explosion. No one confesses so Mr. Fuse punishes the entire class. The next day he receives an anonymous note blaming Alex. Alex refuses to admit to causing the explosion but Mr. Fuse punished him anyways and lifts the class punishment. (S&S pp. 22-23)

The consequentialist and non-consequentialist view in this care are very different. For the consequenstialist the important thing is that this never happens again. It doesn’t matter that innocent people were punished. For the non-consequentialist punishing Alex on the basis of an anonymous note is not showing respect for him and the decision to punish the entire class shows a lack of respect for them as well.

Nel Noddings

Nel Noddings theory of caring is not based on rationality but on the idea of caring. For Noddings the basis of ethics is our relatedness. The ultimate relationship is the caring relationship between a mother and a child. This relationship requires two parts: the one caring and the one being cared for. Each part has a role and if those roles are not performed then the relationship will be diminished. These roles are not equal with regards to responsibility. The idea is that if a student sees that you care, it influences them to care as well. If they see that their teacher doesn’t care, why should they care? This caring relationship is one that has to be developed. Teachers need to help their students see themselves as cared-for and also see themselves as one day being the one-caring.

Nodding believes that schools are not doing enough to provide a caring/ caring for relationship. She believes this caring relationship ought to be exemplified in schools, but schools aren’t places that let care happen – they inhibit it. Noddings thinks the exact opposite should be happening. Schools should teach individuals to recognize that they are being cared for and to eventually care for others.

The two principle obligations of the one caring are: engrossment – trying to see things from the other persons perspective; and motivational displacement toward the projects – taking your motivations and putting them aside to focus on the motivations of the one being cared for. (Curren p.372)

The cared-for principle duty is to respond to the one who is caring.

Noddings recognizes that this theory will be hard to carry out but we shouldn’t sell ourselves short. Once you start the caring process everything else will fall into line. “Everything we do, as teachers, has moral overtones.” (Curren p. 374)

A possibility to help this relationship occur could be looping. That way, teachers get to know their students very well and can jump right into learning the following years.

Dr. Pope reminded us that this caring relationship is not all hugs and flowers. Caring also involves doing things that aren’t fun. We as teachers may have to do things students don’t like but are ultimately in their best interest.

For more information on Nodding’s caring relationship as it relates to teachers, see her book “The Challenge to Care in Schools.”

Summary: The ethical ideal is how we see ourselves. We can only see that through our relations with others. We try to see ourselves as others see us. The key is to care for others as well as you care for yourself.

Dewey

Both Noddings and Dewey’s theories can be seen as a philosophical way to approach classroom management. The basis for classroom management for Dewey is the interest of the class as a whole and getting the individual to see himself as part of a whole/society. What happens in the classroom should also happen in the school and therefore should happen in society. For this to happen there have to be rules that are followed. The rules come from the activity. The class members recognize that they’re all in this together and in order to accomplish things then there need to be rules in place.

Dewey says that the rules only work if the people involved in the activity understand the rules and choose to play by the rules. Students need to understand that the rules governing their conduct grow out of the fact that they’re all in it together.

Compiled by: Sarah Dagenhart and Maryanne Hatchell

Act of Mercy or Murder

This morning on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer interviewed an attorney named John West. He has recently written a book entitled, "The Last Goodnights: Assisting My Parents with Their Suicides." His father, "Jolly" West, a renowned psychiatrist, had been diagnosed with cancer with only months to live. He asked John to assist him in his suicide which he did by providing him with a cocktail of pills. His death was attributed to cancer.

Later his mother Kathyrn "K", a clinical psychologist, was diagnosed with alzheimers and she made the same request of John and he complied.

John says that his parents had "deep insight into the human condition . . . and they knew what they wanted."
John believes as his parents did in "freedom of choice" and the right to choose death with dignity. Assisted suicide is not lawful. Even if it is intended as an act of mercy. The statue of limitations for assisted suicide has expired but John could still be charged with homicide or possibly murder.

John and his parents both knew the law and yet they decided to break the law because it would ease the pain and suffering due to their deteriorating health condition.

A non-consequentialist would say that John responded out of duty, obligation, principle (and love) and those considerations are more important than the consequence of possibly serving jail time.

West's desire is that his book will promote debate and discussion so that others will not have to break the law but that the laws would be changed.

Obviously the utility of Jolly's and K's lives revolved more around pain than pleasure.

So was John West justified in what he did? Did he make the right ethical choice? The law says no. His answer would obviously be yes.

Sports or Academics?

I was talking to a lady from home that teaches high school biology, and I thought it fit in nicely with our ethics discussions. She has a young lady in her class that is also one of the star players on the softball team. She had a paper due in the class on a Wednesday that she failed to turn in. The state softball tournament was that Friday. The teacher told her that she needed to turn in some form of the assignment before playing in the tournament because school came first, so the student just decided to not show up to her class at all for the remainder of the week. The softball coach looked it up online on the state tournament webpage that she did not have to attend school in order to play in the softball games that weekend. It creates a huge ethical dilemma because technically the softball coach is correct that the student is allowed to play, but the student also got around not turning in her assignments when she is a student first and foremost. I don’t know that I completely agree with telling the student that she wouldn’t be allowed to play without turning in the paper, but it is also wrong of the coach and principal to go behind her back.

Moral Intuitions

In reading this week’s assignment in The Ethics of Teaching, the material discussed about reflective equilibrium was interesting to me. The part that really sparked thought for me was the idea of moral intuition. I believe that is what the majority of us base our ethical decisions on because we try to determine what is right and what is wrong with the particular situations. As with the case that we read regarding Ms. Jones and Mr. Pugnacious, she reacted in a way that was sparked by her moral intuition. As it states at the bottom of p. 97, we can not always react with exactly what pops into our hearts or minds. Sometimes we need to identify the moral concepts that cause us to react in the manner that we do and be able to back up our decision that we make. The reading continues about where do we get this moral intuition from? I agree with the authors’ point in that it is an innate feeling of what seems right just as it is with in formulating our language. This type of reaction is problematic is cases such as Ms. Andrews with Tim and Paul. In her mind, what is right is to not “punish” one by putting them in the lower reading group, but their behavior problems are not fair to the rest of the class’s learning. In this situation, it would be hard to act with a moral intuition because there are too many factors weighing into her decision. I still don’t know what I would do if I was put into her situation. It is sometimes easy for us to read the cases that are in the book and criticize the teachers for their decisions; however, we don’t know how we would act with our moral intuition and ethical decisions until with are put on the spot with these decisions ourselves.

Consequences or Fairness?

Going into the reading and class on Tuesday night, I always thought I knew what was right and wrong and that it was a black and white matter. However, after reading, and especially after our class discussion, there was more grey area than I thought. In the case of Henry the basketball player, I immediately thought he should receive an F on the paper, and consequently would fail the course. At Clemson, we also had a strict plagiarism rule that we had to write on every test and assignment. After our class discussion about the consequentialist theory, I could understand some points of view as to why he should not automatically fail the class. What I still don’t agree with though is the fact that because of the consequences he would have under this theory, someone may allow him to pass the course or at least have another chance, while failing a student with the same grades and circumstances that would have different consequences. For me, I think all students should have the same opportunities to repeat an assignment, or lack of opportunities if that is what the teacher decides. I realize that it is a huge issue in universities with athletes because of all the repercussions there could be for the team, and potentially the university; I believe that they are students first and should be required to do the same work that other students are required to do. Very few athletes are able to go to the pros and make a living off of that. Therefore, it is our responsibility as teachers to prepare them for the future equally, just as we are preparing every other student in our classroom for their futures. I still don’t know that I know at this moment exactly how I would handle the situation, but I do know that I may side slightly more with the nonconsequentialist theory on this with respect to the fairness issue.

Immature Adults

A few few questions resulting from the commentary on Mill's "On Liberty". Pg. 40 "Elsewhere Mill indicates that the benefits normally resulting form liberty do not accrue to the immature, who are not capable of profiting from free and equal discussion. Mill concludes that the immature may have their liberty intefered with provided that the end is their own betterment." Pg. 41 "Instead his point is that adults are permitted to restrict the range of children's freedom for the benefit of the child, whereas such paternalism would be impermissible if directed toward adults. Adults have a right to freedom. They cannot be intefered with for their own good."

My question is, Are there immature adults? My premises being that adults are members of society of the age of 18 or older. Also maturity being composed of an education, competence, and unimpaired judgement.

My next question being if there are immature adults do mature adults have the right to restrict the range of freedom of the immature adult provided that the end is the immature adults own betterment?

According to the nonconsequentialist argument education is a prerequisite to moral agency and the tool to develop competent and morally responsible persons. (pg. 46) Also on pg. 45 "Competence is a prerequisite of responsible choice." Can we then say that lack of an education and incompetence results in impaired judgement?

If judgement is impaired then according to the nonconsequentialist argument the mature adult would have the right to intefer with the choices and freedoms of the immature adult if they believed the choices of the immature where not to their own benefit.

I think it would be interesting to discuss what Dewey's thought would be on this. He discussed the roles of the mature and immature and believed that those of maturity and greater experience had some level of duty to guide those of less maturity and experience.