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:
- Our intuitions
- Whatever we bring to the table to make our decisions
- 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
No comments:
Post a Comment