Discussion 1:
Watch Chimamanda Adichie TED talk about "the danger of the single story".
1. Explain what a "single story" means. In your words, what does it mean to say that someone might have a "single story" about a culture, nation, person, ethical view, religion, etc.?
2. What is the danger of having a single story about someone?
3. Name one groups of people, culture, nation, religion, etc. in which you may have a single story about.
4. How might someone have a single story about you? If you are comfortable doing so, share an experience that defies this single story.
Your response should be composed of at least four well-developed paragraphs of no less than 100 words each. Always write formally, as if you were going to publish your piece.
Discussion 2:
Try the experiment "Should you Kill the Fat Man?"Links to an external site. on the philosophy experiments website. Let us know whether the experiment said your view was consistent and your thoughts about the moral dilemma it presents. It is also fair game to criticize the conclusions the website draws about your views.
For your initial post write at least three paragraphs due Wednesday. Comment on two of your classmates posts by Sunday.
Write at least three paragraphs about your results and your reactions to the thought experiment. Include the following:
Explain briefly to your reader what the thought experiment is. (This will help you have a conversation with others that don't know what it is.)
Why do you think it is right or wrong to flip the switch to save 5 people?
Why do you think it is right or wrong to push the man off the bridge to save 5 people?
Define Utilitarianism. Are you a Utilitarian?
What were your results? Are you consistent or inconsistent in your ethical intuitions?
Remember to write in formal style and check your grammar. Paragraphs are 3-6 sentences long. Aim at writing SUFFICIENTLY. Never assume that your reader knows the concepts or thought experiments-- explain it.
Discussion 3:
We are now in a position to compare and contrast Utilitarianism and Kant's deontology. The following exercise of the imagination is designed to do precisely that.
Assess the Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism and Kant's deontology.
Make use of the imagination and creativity in thinking about ethical issues.
Consider the two hypothetical worlds below.
1. In which world would you rather live?
2. In which world would Mill find to be a morally better world? Why?
3. In which world would Kant find to be a morally better world? Why?
4. Which world do you think is closer (has more properties) to our world?
Answer the above questions in essay style (do not type the numbers in). Make sure you give me evidence that you understand Kant and Mill. Always separate your explanation of Kant from your explanation of Mill. Always use separate paragraphs for explanations versus assessments (e.g. "I agree" is an assessment.) 2 or 3 paragraphs should be sufficient for this assignment (1 or 2 paragraphs on items #2-4 on the list above and 1 paragraph on item #1). Each paragraph should be well developed (100 words or more) and be sure to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Comment on two of your classmates posts.
World A. The land of good motives:
The good news about this world is that everyone living in it means well-- they always act on good intentions. The bad news is that they aren't very smart-- they rarely achieve their intended consequences, and they often make things worse. There are few technological advances in this world, due to clumsiness. Even so, there are no ill-intentioned people living here. One can always find a friendly neighbor willing to lend a helping hand-- never mind that in helping, something is apt to break.
World B. The land of good consequences:
In this world, everyone is driven by greed-- every action is motivated by selfish considerations. Because of the money to be made from medical breakthroughs, there is virtually no physical illness in this world-- greed-driven research has led to cures for almost all diseases. Similar benefits account for technological breakthroughs in virtually every aspect of life. In terms of technology, this is utopia. But watch your back: the people in this world would sell out their best friend for a dime.
Discussion 4:
Consider the 2 scenario's below. Write at least one paragraph (must be at least 100 hundred words each) on each scenario. Be sure your paragraph answers these three questions. 1. What would be the right thing to do according to Kant's deontological moral theory. 2. What would be the right thing to do according to Mill's Utilitarian theory. 3. What do you think is the right thing to do and why? (Initial post due Wednesday). Follow up by commenting on at least two of your classmates posts (due by Sunday).
Scenario 1
Imagine you own several houses in 1944 in the Netherlands. Anne Frank and her family are living in one of these and hiding from the Nazis. Suppose some Nazi SS officers ask you if anyone lives at the house where Anne Frank and her family living. You can lie and save them or tell the truth and doom them to death in a concentration camp.
What would Kant say you should do and why? What would Mill say you should do and why? What would you do and why?
Scenario 2
A brilliant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy you traveler, just passing through, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Should the doctor will the traveler to harvest his organs and saver the five people.
What would Kant say you should do and why? What would Mill say you should do and why? What would you do and why?
Tips:
Watch the spelling of "Mill" and "Mill's theory."
Give sufficient explanation of the Categorical Imperative. Explain WHY Mill and Kant would choose the actions.
Watch the structure. Write one topic per paragraph. Paragraphs that explain Kant's view, or Mill's view, should be kept separate than your own arguments.
The response should include a reference list. Double-space, using Times New Roman 12 pnt font, one-inch margins, and APA style of writing and citations.