Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Ethics by Mind Map: Ethics

1. Technology:

1.1. The need to solve new problems that arise

1.1.1. Creating distances between individuals and oneself (how the moral issue affects someone)

1.1.1.1. stealing of personal identity, plagiarism

1.1.1.2. new methodologies in the Sciences (eg genomic research)

1.1.1.3. cyberbullying, cyber-attacks (knife -> automated gun -> etc.)

1.1.1.4. artificial intelligence (reasoning v intuition)

2. Scope & Application (Sabrina)

2.1. Terminology

2.1.1. DESCRIPTIVE morality: aims to uncover people's belief about certain values

2.1.2. PRESCRIPTIVE morality: what should we do?

2.1.3. MORALS: what is the 'right' thing to do in an ethical situation.

2.1.4. ETHICS: study of morality

2.2. Subtopics in ethics

2.2.1. Metaethics: the study of whether right and wrong exist and the nature of good

2.2.2. Descriptive ethics: the study of what people think about morality

2.2.3. Normative ethics: study of how to be ethical on the premise that good exists

2.2.4. Applied ethics: Applying normative ethical principles to real life examples

2.2.4.1. Environmental ethics

2.2.4.2. Business ethics

2.2.4.3. Social ethics

2.3. why do we study ethics

2.3.1. to make our society work

2.3.2. As a basis for many political, government, judicial decisions.

2.3.3. to produce theories

2.3.4. explain why certain societies work the way they do

2.3.5. explore benefits and disadvantages of certain ethical frameworks

2.4. Relationship between ethics and the law

2.4.1. the law is not always moral

2.4.2. law is set guidelines for a situation, but ethics only gives a variety of ways of thinking of the situation, and is left to the person making the decision.

2.4.3. law is prescribed by an authority

2.5. Key questions

2.5.1. are there universal moral truths or are morals just opinions?

2.5.2. how can we measure how good an act is?

3. Language & Concepts (max)

3.1. Trolley Problem

3.1.1. Scenario: 1) Would you switch a lever to move a train that's approaching 5 people on the railroad, onto another track with just 1 person on the railroad

3.1.1.1. Most people say yes

3.1.1.1.1. A lot of people don't know why they chose what they chose

3.1.2. 2) Would you push someone in front of a train to save 5 people from the train

3.1.2.1. Most people say no

3.2. Moral Development

3.2.1. Kohlberg's and his Stages of Moral Development

3.2.1.1. Pre-Conventional Morality (<9 years old)

3.2.1.1.1. Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation

3.2.1.1.2. Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange

3.2.1.2. Conventional Morality (Teens/Adults)

3.2.1.2.1. Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships

3.2.1.2.2. Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order

3.2.1.3. Post-conventional morality

3.2.1.3.1. Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights

3.2.1.3.2. Stage 6. Universal Principles

3.2.1.4. Problems with this theory

3.2.1.4.1. The dilemmas are artificial

3.2.1.4.2. The sample is biased

3.2.1.4.3. The dilemmas are hypothetical

3.2.1.4.4. Poor research design

3.2.2. Piaget's Theory of Moral Development

3.2.2.1. Explores not what children do, but what children think. Children's Moral Reasoning

3.2.2.1.1. - Children's Understanding of Rules - Children's Understanding of Justice - Children's Understanding of Moral Responsibility

3.2.2.1.2. Heteronomous Morality

3.2.2.1.3. Autonomous Morality

3.3. The Harm Principle

3.3.1. Does the action harm anyone?

3.3.1.1. Yes

3.3.1.1.1. Don't do the action

3.3.1.2. No

3.3.1.2.1. Action shouldn't be prevented

3.3.2. This principle is limiting when choosing between multiple actions that all do not harm anyone.

3.4. Ludwig Wittgenstein's Theory

3.4.1. Idea that language creates facts about the world

3.4.1.1. language cannot be deemed true or false. Language must be interpreted in certain contexts

3.4.1.1.1. e.g. Religious language is meaningful in the context of religion. However, not so meaningful when out of context.

3.5. HUME's FORK

3.5.1. Knowledge can only be based on reason or definitions. Thus, moral judgements can only be made based on what's known. Accusations, need evidence in a crime example.

3.6. Normative Theories

3.6.1. Consequentialist Theories

3.6.1.1. The Utilitarian Approach

3.6.1.1.1. Who are the stakeholders?

3.6.1.2. The Egoistic Approach

3.6.1.2.1. Guided by self-interests. Often powered by emotion

3.6.1.3. The Common Good Approach

3.6.1.3.1. How do I benefit from society?

3.6.2. Non-Consequentionalist Theories

3.6.2.1. The Duty- Based Approach

3.6.2.1.1. Universal moral law, often factoring in reason.

3.6.2.1.2. Kant's Deontological Ethics

3.6.2.2. The Rights Approach

3.6.2.2.1. Approach that focuses on respect for the human race

3.6.2.3. The Justice/Fairness Approach

3.6.2.3.1. Equality - distributes benefits and harms equitably across all stakeholders

3.6.2.4. The Divine Command Approach

3.6.2.4.1. Morality is based on what god considers moral or not

3.6.3. Agent-Centred Theories

3.6.3.1. The Virtue Approach

3.6.3.2. The Feminist Approach

3.6.3.2.1. An approach that theorises that traditional ethics underrepresented women's rights

3.7. Moral Judgements about...

3.7.1. obligatory action

3.7.1.1. Where action MUST take place

3.7.2. impermissible action

3.7.2.1. An action that is wrong to do, and right not to do.

3.7.3. permissible action

3.7.3.1. An action that is right to do, however not mandatory like obligatory. Opposite to impermissible action

3.7.4. supererogatory action

3.7.4.1. The performance of an action that is ethically correct, yet the action performed was MORE than asked for

4. Methodology (misato)

4.1. Production of theories in ethics

4.1.1. theoretical approaches

4.1.1.1. e.g Kant, Bentham, etc

4.1.2. experimental approach using methods of NS

4.1.2.1. e.g. J. Greene

4.1.3. experimental approach using methods of HS

4.1.3.1. e.g. J.Haidt, Hauser

4.1.4. the ways in which the philosophers come up with theories may explain the morality of one's behaviour and can serve us as a guide when making moral decisions

4.2. FACTs in ethics

4.2.1. factual information in ethics can be stretched to more than empirical facts

4.2.1.1. normative statements

4.2.1.1.1. these statements are dependent on culture and context

4.2.1.1.2. subjective

4.2.1.2. accepted principles

4.2.1.2.1. also dependent on culture and context

4.2.1.3. theoretical framework

4.2.1.4. empirical facts

4.2.1.4.1. used in experimental ethics

4.3. Ethical Theories and predictions

4.3.1. this presents us with options as what we could or should do

4.3.2. this explains the principles and mechanisms of an (un)ethical action

4.3.3. also helps us to make decisions in the future

4.4. how can one discriminate between competing theories

4.4.1. Kant : ethics depends on your rational approach

4.4.2. moral skeptics: there are no rational grounds and equally consistent moral systems

4.4.3. method of reflective equilibrium

4.4.3.1. introduced by Nelson Goodman

4.4.3.2. named by John Rawls - used in his 'A Theory of Justice'

4.5. Method of reflective equilibrium

4.5.1. working back and forth among our judgements

4.5.2. this method is succeeded when we arrive at an acceptable coherence among the beliefs

4.5.2.1. acceptable coherence

4.5.2.1.1. our beliefs should be consistent with each other

4.5.2.1.2. some of our beliefs should provide support or a good explanations for the our ethics and our other beliefs

4.5.2.2. through this process, we may modify our original beliefs but also add new ones

4.6. How do ethicists work?

4.6.1. Aims

4.6.1.1. to understand and examine the morality in its totality

4.6.1.1.1. free from ignorance, prejudice

4.6.1.2. to seek understanding, not to be right

4.6.1.2.1. to develop arguments based on premises and explore these

4.6.2. Traditional Moral philosphy

4.6.2.1. SK: reading works of other philosophers / ethicists

4.6.2.2. PK: the importance of one's experience:

4.6.2.2.1. Observation, Reflection , Critical/Philosophical thinking, Debating (experiences of others)

4.6.2.3. reflective tools

4.6.2.3.1. convergent awareness

4.6.2.3.2. critical thinking

4.6.2.3.3. creative thinking

4.6.2.3.4. divergent thinking

4.6.2.4. Approaches to investigation

4.6.2.4.1. Logic-based (Descartes)

4.6.2.4.2. First-person Observations and Reflections

4.6.2.5. how do ethicists develop their own perspective

4.6.2.5.1. successive approximation

4.6.3. Experimental Moral Philosophy

4.6.3.1. randomized assignment to varying conditions of objects from a representative sample

4.6.3.1.1. using statistical comparison of the outcomes for each condition

4.6.3.2. The variation in conditions is sometimes called a manipulation

5. Historical Development (Anton)

5.1. Production of knowledge and changes of the method; to establish ethical theories

5.1.1. Data-collection:

5.1.1.1. Technology enables greater amount of information and widen the sample as research (global scale)

5.1.2. Data-handling:

5.1.2.1. It is much easier and faster to handle the data obtained

5.1.3. New methodology:

5.1.3.1. The move from the traditional moral philosophy to experimental moral philosophy

5.2. Language and concepts (meaning):

5.2.1. Technical language:

5.2.1.1. increasingly more technical language when it comes to the use of technology

5.2.1.1.1. Incorporating of the research from NS in the ethical studies

5.2.2. language used when moral values are communicated

5.2.2.1. Chat rooms:

5.2.2.1.1. virtual reality

5.2.3. Personal Knowledge; shared via social media in written language: misinterpretation of the values shared (sarcasm, dark humour)

5.2.3.1. development and hierarchy of our personal and communal moral values

5.2.3.2. affect our moral responsibilities and obligations

5.2.3.3. The need for a new moral code of conduct

5.3. Cultural anthropology

5.3.1. cultural relativism

5.3.1.1. Belief: moral truth depends on the moral beliefs of various groups or individuals

5.3.1.1.1. moral truth depends on the moral beliefs of various groups or individuals

5.3.1.1.2. boundaries and distinctions among the variously named theories were often vague or imprecise

5.3.2. ethical relativism

5.3.2.1. differences in moral judgments across different people and customs

5.3.3. moral relativism

5.3.3.1. intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper

6. Personal Knowledge (prarthana)

6.1. What is the nature of the contribution of individuals you know personally to this area, in terms of your experience?

6.1.1. Personal knowledge is used frequently by many people to assert certain beliefs;

6.1.1.1. In the case of UWC, we frequently are told to adopt certain ideologies in order to ensure sustainability

6.1.1.1.1. UWC tries to appeal to reason; For example, in reference to climate day, the school presents us with a factual representation and certain statistics to back up their claims regarding climate change

6.2. What responsibilities rest upon YOU by virtue of YOUR knowledge in this area?

6.2.1. Another way personal knowledge is developed can be through intuition.

6.2.1.1. For example, the Australian educational reform professor is directly arguing with paediatricians, despite his lack of knowledge in the subject

6.2.1.1.1. This can be credited to be a complete trust in intuition, rather than fact

6.3. What are the implications of this area of knowledge in terms of YOUR individual perspective?

6.3.1. Faith

6.3.1.1. Through complete faith, many people stick to their beliefs

6.3.1.1.1. Religion serves as the basis for faith

6.4. What assumptions underlie YOUR own approach to this knowledge?

6.4.1. Perspective

6.4.1.1. When I learn certain opinions

6.4.1.1.1. It is important to understand the importance of persepctive

6.5. Consider the WOKs in relation to your experiences, how have these affected what and how you know in this AOK?