Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Lesson 10: Understanding and Responding To Moral Pluralism

    Uploaded by

    Carol
    This document provides an overview of understanding and responding to moral pluralism. It discusses three types of pluralism that contribute to moral pluralism: intellectual pluralism from postmodernism that asserts no objective truth, religious pluralism that views all religions as equally valid, and liberal political philosophies that emphasize individual freedom and toleration. It then outlines Frank Schaeffer's model for responding to moral pluralism, which is to demonstrate pluralism is untenable and that moral and religious pluralism are linked. The document provides context and examples for conceptualizing harms related to moral rules and determining moral responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lesson 10: Understanding and Responding To Moral Pluralism

    Uploaded by

    Carol
    50 views15 pages
    This document provides an overview of understanding and responding to moral pluralism. It discusses three types of pluralism that contribute to moral pluralism: intellectual pluralism from postmodernism that asserts no objective truth, religious pluralism that views all religions as equally valid, and liberal political philosophies that emphasize individual freedom and toleration. It then outlines Frank Schaeffer's model for responding to moral pluralism, which is to demonstrate pluralism is untenable and that moral and religious pluralism are linked. The document provides context and examples for conceptualizing harms related to moral rules and determining moral responsibility.

    Original Title

    Lesson 11 ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of understanding and responding to moral pluralism. It discusses three types of pluralism that contribute to moral pluralism: intellectual pluralism from postmodernism that asserts no objective truth, religious pluralism that views all religions as equally valid, and liberal political philosophies that emphasize individual freedom and toleration. It then outlines Frank Schaeffer's model for responding to moral pluralism, which is to demonstrate pluralism is untenable and that moral and religious pluralism are linked. The document provides context and examples for conceptualizing harms related to moral rules and determining moral responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    50 views15 pages

    Lesson 10: Understanding and Responding To Moral Pluralism

    Uploaded by

    Carol
    This document provides an overview of understanding and responding to moral pluralism. It discusses three types of pluralism that contribute to moral pluralism: intellectual pluralism from postmodernism that asserts no objective truth, religious pluralism that views all religions as equally valid, and liberal political philosophies that emphasize individual freedom and toleration. It then outlines Frank Schaeffer's model for responding to moral pluralism, which is to demonstrate pluralism is untenable and that moral and religious pluralism are linked. The document provides context and examples for conceptualizing harms related to moral rules and determining moral responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 15

    Lesson 10:

    Understanding and Responding to


    Moral Pluralism
    UNDERSTANDING MORAL PLURALISM
    • An intellectual pluralism, which finds its expression in postmodernism, which asserts
    that there is no objective truth. Plurality of beliefs is thus inevitable and to be
    encouraged. As a result, those who claim to have access to truth are to be regarded
    with something between suspicion and derision.
    • A religious pluralism, which takes its starting point from the undeniable observation
    that many different religions exist in North America, and proceeds to draw the
    conclusion that they are all equally valid manifestations of the same ultimate reality.
    Recognizing that religions have ethical beliefs associated with them, this leads to the
    assertion that moral pluralism is to be tolerated, indeed, even celebrated. To do
    otherwise would seem to belittle important minority elements in North America
    culture.
    • A prevailing liberal political philosophy, which encourages plurality of beliefs and
    actions, and places considerable emphasis upon individual freedom of action. Moral
    pluralism is the inevitable consequence of any political philosophy which emphasizes
    toleration and individual self-determination.
    RESPONDING TO MORAL PLURALISM

    • The Schaeffer Model.


    1. Demonstrate that moral pluralism is untenable.
    2. Stress that moral pluralism and religious
    pluralism are inextricably linked.
    Ethics, (or morality)

    is the study of how people should act toward one


    another, other species, and natural systems. The
    fundamental expectation is that people should avoid
    causing unjustified harm.
    Four Categories of Choices
    • Ethically prohibited actions are those that are wrong. These are actions that
    cause unjustified harm or that involve a person’s unjustified neglect of his or
    her role-related responsibilities.
    • Ethically required actions are those that follow directly from a person’s role-
    related responsibilities. This category is the inverse of actions in the prohibited
    category: It is ethically required to avoid causing unjustified harm.
    • Ethically ideal actions occur when a person meets his or her role-related
    responsibilities, avoids causing unjustified harm, and also acts in a way that
    promotes the good, and that prevents, mitigates, or addresses harms that have
    been caused.
    • Ethically permitted actions are those that range on the continuum between
    those that are required and those that are ideal. A variety of alternative actions
    might be ethically permitted
    Systematic Moral Analysis
    • It is systematic in that it follows a specific procedure to make sure that
    all important aspects are considered and it is systematic in that it is
    based on a well-developed theory, by philosopher Bernard Gert.
    Conceptualization is the process of determining that there is potential
    harm and that someone is morally responsible for that harm.
    What is the Problem?
    Who is being harmed? Who is likely to be harmed and how? Gert provides the following list of moral rules. Harms are
    caused through violations of the moral rules.
    • Do not kill.
    • Do not cause pain.
    • Do not disable.
    • Do not deprive of freedom.
    • Do not deprive of pleasure.
    • Do not deceive.
    • Keep your promises.
    • Do not cheat.
    • Obey the law.
    • Do your duty.

    Who is Responsible?
    • Does someone have role-related responsibilities (RRR) with regard to the person or subject of moral
    worth that might be harmed? If so, what are those responsibilities and how do they relate to the
    causing of the harm?
    • If the harm caused is not a violation of a person’s RRR, could the harm have been predicted and avoided
    in achieving some legitimate goal? If the goal is not legitimate, then causing harm is rarely justified.
    Some Tips for Conceptualizing and Justifying

    Complete explanation of moral rule violations can be found in the works of Bernard Gert, listed on
    the resources page, but here I include some tips that students unfamiliar with Gert’s work have
    found helpful.
    Any ethically questionable action toward a human being can be reduced to one or more of these 10
    moral rule violations:
    • Do not kill.
    • Do not cause pain.
    • Do not disable.
    • Do not deprive of freedom.
    • Do not deprive of pleasure.
    • Do not deceive.
    • Keep your promises.
    • Do not cheat.
    • Obey the law.
    • Do your duty
    Close Analysis of Deception, Cheating, and Promise-Breaking
    Deception, cheating, and promise-breaking are common moral rule violations in personal, public, and professional
    life. Because these are common acts and are often denied or misunderstood, complete descriptions for
    conceptualization and justification of these moral rule violations follow.
    • Deception
    • Conceptualization
    • Deception is the correct label for any action or non-action that is intended to lead others to a false conclusion.
    • Paternalistic Deception is deception that is done with the intent of acting in the best interest of the person
    deceived.
    • Non-paternalistic Deception is deception that is not done with the intent of acting in the best interest of the
    person deceived.
    • Lying by speech or action is ethically questionable and requires justification. (If I dress like a physician to gain
    entrance to a patient’s hospital room, I have ‘lied’ by how I dressed.)
    • Failing to disclose information only sometimes counts as deception. Failing to disclose information is an act of
    deception only if the failure to disclose also:
    • breaks a promise, or
    • cheats, or
    • is illegal, or
    • neglects one’s duty.
    • Misleading people by using accurate statements also counts as deception as it is failing to
    disclose one’s true intentions and involves cheating. It is an act of cheating because using
    accurate statements to mislead violates general rules of how people use language.
    • Justification
    • Paternalistic Deception is justified by how likely the deceived person would be to consent to
    the deception:
    • If the person deceived is a rational, competent adult, it is justified only if the person gave
    consent or would consent to the deception. For example, if a patient with advanced illness
    requests that his doctor NOT tell him when he is likely to die, it is justified deception for the
    doctor to fail to provide this information (that would otherwise be the doctor’s duty to
    provide).
    • If the person deceived is a child or non-competent adult, paternalistic deception is justified if it
    • advances this person’s growth or autonomy, or
    • protects him or her in a way that he or she would wish to be protected if it were possible for him or her to
    give consent.
    • Non-paternalistic Deception is justified if both of the following conditions are met:
    • The harm caused by the deception is significantly less than the harm caused if the deception
    does not occur, and
    • The deceiver is willing to publicly advocate that deception be ethically permitted
    • in all cases of this kind (even if he or she were the person deceived).
    Cheating
    I. Conceptualization
    • Cheating is different from deception. Cheating violates rules or standards that everyone is
    reasonably expected to follow. One can cheat by action or non-action. It is reasonable for my
    students to expect me to show up on time to teach class. If I fail to do so, I have cheated the
    students.
    • It is possible to deceive without cheating and it is possible to cheat without deceiving. For
    example, if I lie to Federal investigators about how I got that investment tip, I haven’t “cheated”
    in telling the lie, but I’ll be likely to go to prison anyway. I have acted deceptively.
    • On the other hand, if I move my ball from the sand trap to the fairway when my subordinates
    are playing golf with me, I have cheated, even if everyone puts up with it because I’m the boss.
    I haven’t deceived anyone, I have just taken advantage of my position in violating a standard or
    rule that everyone can be reasonably expected to follow. I cheated.
    II. Justification
    • Cheating is justified if the following two conditions are both satisfied:
    • The cheating is a public act that can be known to all involved or the cheating is a significantly smaller rule
    violation than the one being prevented by the act, and
    • The cheating does not involve misuse of power, objectification or exploitation of another.
    Promise Breaking
    I. Conceptualization
    • Making a promise turns an act that is morally neutral into one that is morally required.
    Promising is a performative – just the act of saying “I promise” or “I certainly will” gives
    the person responsibilities that she or he didn’t have before saying those words. A
    promise is binding only if the act is voluntary.

    II. Justification
    • Breaking a promise is justified if all of the following conditions are met:
    • The harm caused by keeping the promise is greater than the harm caused by breaking the promise,
    and
    • The harm vs. harm balance is done with every person directly affected being
    • considered and the consideration favors the most vulnerable, and
    • The promise-breaker acknowledges to all parties involved that the promise is being broken and
    provides reasons for that.
    Life of an Ethical Person
    Excuses, rationalizations, and explanations are all methods that people use to deny their moral responsibility. Even
    though there might be justification for breaking a moral rule, it is necessary to admit the moral rule violation. Here
    are the common ways that people deny their ethically questionable acts. They say to themselves (or others):

    1.Other people do it.


    2.(Some authority) told me to do it.
    3.I didn’t intend to hurt anybody.
    4.No one knew that I did it.

    •As the activities in this book have shown, justifying an ethically questionable act takes careful and honest
    consideration. Here’s what is wrong with these common excuses:
    •Other people do it. The fact that other people do unethical things does not justify me doing the same thing. If the
    action is ethically prohibited, it is wrong no matter how many people are doing it.
    •(Some authority) told me to do it. Competent, rational adults cannot pass their moral responsibility off to another. I
    might choose to stay in a job that requires me to act unethically, but that is an economic choice, not an ethically
    sound decision.
    •I didn’t intend to hurt anybody. Most of the interesting ethical issues arise when good people are trying hard to do
    the right thing. The fact that causing harm was unintentional might mitigate the level of moral responsibility, but
    doesn’t change the fact that harm was caused.
    •No one knew that I did it. When I do something unethical, I know it. I am the person to whom knowledge of my act
    matters most.
    Thank You!

    You might also like