On Tuesday, we mentioned the disaster of Primavera Island, and the resulting ethical dilemma associated with a scarcity of resources coupled with preconceived notions of utility v. innate value. Most teams chose the route of pure, arbitrary chance, and rationalized this ethical decision as "blindness leads to fairness". Some teams began rationalizing in order to avoid the ethical decision (does the baby count as a passenger due to weight? etc.). One team couldn't select more than 5 "useful" people, and would thus have some extra leg room. What separates these ethical decisions from one another? Can we make some progress on this notion of Ethics with thoughtfulness despite societal complexity? Is there meaning to "right" and "wrong" action?
On Wednesday, we discussed the competing theories of ethics. Utilitarian Ethics suggests a focus on end results towards a maximum happiness. Deontological Ethics suggests a focus upon the virtue of an ethical choice in terms of its innate rationality above its ultimate consequence. We offered examples of both that were sometimes palatable and sometimes difficult in order to recognize the debate may not be simplistic.
On Thursday, we developed a Socratic Seminar on the topic of Discriminiation. The concepts included 1. How subcultures are formed 2. How complexities of culture are simplified to emphasize differences 3. How discrimination may lead to solidarity and new worldview formations. and 4. The interaction of nature with discrimination practices.
Assignments:
TOK Chs. 7-8, p. 237-257
Team 1: 237-241
Team 2: 242-246
Team 3: 246-251
Team 4: 251-257
Team 5: Case Study 1
Argue it Out: Gene Modification
No comments:
Post a Comment