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

Bang! Zero Tolerance

Seeing as how the cases at the end of The Ethics of Teaching are left to us to analyze, I thought I would give this one a shot (no pun intended). In this scenario, James gets beat up and robbed on a regular basis by the school bullies. He brings an unloaded gun to school in an attempt to frighten off his attackers and the teacher, Ms. Hesston, sees it. She ponders whether she should stick to the school district's Zero Tolerance Policy (enforced by law) or try to quietly cover up the issue since James is truly a victim and is right about the school's inability to prevent bullying.

The consequentialist may consider the following: the gun was not loaded, noone was hurt with the gun, James (and possibly others) are being harmed everyday by the bullies, and James' parents are being harmed since the lunch money they give him is being stolen. If Ms. Hesston enforces the Zero Tolerance policy, James will be harmed by having to go to Juvenile detention, his parents will be harmed by his absence, finding a gun in school may give the school a bad reputation, and students/parents may consider Ms. Hesston cruel for punishing James' attempt to defend himself. If Ms. Hesston does not report the gun, James will not go to Juvenile Detention, his parents will not be hurt, and the school's reputation won't be harmed. However, if Ms. Hesston covers up the fact that James had a gun and the school/police find out anyways, she will be in trouble as well as James, facing losing her job and potentially criminal charges. Since this would cause the same harmful effects as before, in addition to harmful effects to Ms. Hesston herself, I would think that the consequentialist would consider the harm done by not telling (if discovered) to be greater than the harm done by telling and would thus enforce the Zero Tolerance policy.

Since the non-consequentialist views people as ends and not means, he would say that James is a free-moral agent and therefore should know that bringing a gun to school is wrong (even if he does not know that the school has a Zero Tolerance policy). He is responsible for his actions and must suffer the consequences. The non-consequentialist would say (and I agree) that Ms. Hesston must report the gun incident.

However, I must ask myself (and this is personal feeling) what should happen to the bullies? If James was under so much duress from these bullies that he felt the only resort was to bring a gun to school, then I do not think they should go unpunished - if they are guilty. Of course, in order to observe due-process there must be some proof (perhaps a witness) that the bullies were attacking James before they can be punished. It's sad that James might suffer while his attackers go on to victimize other children.

This is a tough one!

My favorite part of the book that we are currently reading are the cases that each chapter presents. I like having a scenario based on the material that we are reading. It allows me to put myself in the shoes of others and see if my opinion tends to alter or stay the same. I like the case that talks about "A Christmas Quarrel." Since I grew up in a Christian school, I realize the signifigance of celebrating Christmas and what it represents to students as well as faculty. I think that a case involving religion is a serious and touchy subject. I understand the argument that they cannot accomodate everyone's needs for religion, but I think that it is also extremely hard to get rid of religion totally. I would suggest that they keep the religion and the celebration of Christmas out of their curriculum in order to support the "seperation of Church and state." If individuals feel that it is important to keep religion in schools then people can start private schools that are based on different religions. I also think that in order to maintain the excitement that a child has with any holiday of any religion, that they should not ban religious activities such as gift giving and parties. I would allow children to give gifts, but not make it a school sponsered function. I would also keep the tradition of having parties and dances, but eliminate the religious name attached to the event. I wonder which approach the students and their families favor and how they would react to my suggestions.

Thoughts on Consequentialist View

I've never been put into a situation in which I have to choose the "ethical" thing to do regarding a star athlete. However, the more I think about our class discussion from Tuesday night, the more I realize that I may not be the most ethical person in the world. My first thought with many of the cases was to protect the student and not give failing grades or expulsion as a punishment. I think that many people would say that a student that fails to follow the rules deserves to fail the course. I wonder if their minds would change if and when they are actually presented with a situation like the one with Henry. I know that I used to say that I would always do the "ethical" thing no matter what the circumstances, but for some reason I have changed my view somewhere down the line. I have learned that once I am actually faced with a situation in which an important decision needs to be made, that I might alter my beliefs. I think that I would have a hard time giving a student an "F", especially knowing their personality and having had them in class for the entire semester. What if I actually like this student and think that they have potential to be great in whatever they choose to do in life? How then could I make a decision to fail them when I see so much potential? I just feel that sometimes people say that they would make this decision or that decision, but in the end they end up changing their mind to an "unethical" decision when they are actually faced with the situation. I know that I have been guilty of doing this as well. In the past I have said that I would do a certain thing if faced with a particular situation, but I ended up making a totally different decision when the time came. I guess this means that I look at situations from a consequentialist view since I want to make sure that the consequences of my decision does not affect the student in a negative way. I’ve always been this type of thinker, and who knows maybe later on down the road I will actually change my view when I’m faced with a situation similar to this one.

Class Reflection on the Mr. Fuse Case

The discussion on the Mr. Fuse case brought me back to a similar incident in fourth grade: The Case of the Missing Lenten Money.

At Sr. Adele’s suggestion, our homeroom class took up a collection for Lent. Every morning we would bring in our spare nickels and dimes to add to the collection box. By the fourth week of Lent, our meager contributions added up to about $65, a sizable sum of money at the time. But before we could donate the money to The Home for Crippled Children, the collection canister turned up missing. For two hours, the nuns interrogated us as we sat in our rows of wooden seats, glancing suspiciously at each other. At one point, they told us to remove our shoes and place them on our desks, so that they could check our shoes for the missing money. When this tactic failed to recover the money, they told us that unless the guilty party admitted to the crime, they were going to spank all of us, going in alphabetical order. It just so happened that the alphabetical system of doling out spankings would have meant that the two worst troublemakers in the class, Christopher Aiello and Jimmy Bosack, would have been spanked first. I didn’t think it would come to this, and I felt confident that they would never spank me. In fact, I found the whole incident rather amusing until I noticed Mary Ann Wood, the star pupil, seated beside me, reciting the Our Father between choked backed sobs. That got me thinking. Maybe I should take this threat a little more seriously. I formulated a plan. If Sr. Adele attempted to spank me, I would kick her as hard as I could in her bony shins. My parents would understand. I would explain to them that she was trying to punish me for something I didn’t do.

The guilty party never came forward, no one was spanked, and after lunch, class resumed as normal, much to my chagrin. When I got home that night, I told my parents about the incident. My dad’s reply was, “You tell that nun to go to hell!” I’m sure this conjures up an image of my father as a raging alcoholic, much like Mr. Pugnacious. To the contrary, my dad is a well respected member of his church and community who also happens not to indulge in even the occasional glass of wine. But he does have an acute sense of what is just and fair. In his view, even the threat of punishment was an unjust act. What did I learn from this incident? I learned that punishing everyone for the actions of one or a few is a warped application of justice that favors punishing blindly to not punishing at all. Also, this practice does not always ensure that the guilty are punished. Who’s to say that the janitor didn’t take the money? Or, maybe that explains why Sr. Adele showed up the next day in a spanking new pair of black shoes. ;)

Ethics in Athletics

When reading "The Ethics of Teaching" I was thoroughly intrigued by the case scenarios that each chapter presented. In reading these cases I viewed the situations as if I were the one solving the problem. I realized that in addition to working with students, I will also be working with athletes. Some of these athletes will be vital to my success as a coach. In reading the opening case regarding Henry, the college basketball player who plagiarized, I put myself in the shoes of Cynthia. From the perspective of a teacher, Cynthia would need to abide by the rules of the school system and have Henry expelled. However, from my perspective as teacher and a coach the decision becomes one of much more difficulty. Part of me would want to give Henry the punishment that is required by the school system for breaking the rules, but the other part knows what an asset Henry is to the team and how much his life revolves around the sport of basketball. This is where the role of ethics comes into play. I know what is right and I know that Henry should be expelled, but the other side makes me wonder if no one found out then no harm no foul. Do I treat Henry the same way in which I would want to be treated? I find this difficult because in the case with Henry, basketball is his life and he has nothing else to work toward and a small chance of being successful in his future. If this were me, I wouldn't want to be expelled in this situation, so does that mean that I don't expel Henry? If I don't expel Henry is it simply for the reason that I should do unto others and I would have them do unto me?I think that it becomes an extremely hard situation when you have teachers who are also coaches. It almost allows the teacher to choose favorites and those favorites end up being their athletes. This is something that I'm sure I'll have to deal with in one way or another. I'm just not sure if I can make the right decision based on what is "ethical." Who defined what is right and what is wrong and gave us all these rules to go by? I agree that what Henry did is wrong, but why do the consequences have to be so harsh? Is it because the ethical standards are set so high and if you make a mistake then you are pretty much done? I personally think I could reprimand Henry and not report this to the principle and still be acting in an ethical way. Everyone has their own opinion about what is right and wrong, but in the end I think it comes down to how you feel about yourself at the end of the day and whether you think you make the right choices or not.