I want to tell you again this is a times Quize and I don’t have multiple tries to retake it, so please if you have much knwoldge about scop of Ethical Consideration let me know, the Quize is ready just let me know when you’re ready to I’ll click to begin?
below are the links for read and watch
this is Water
What does this have to do with the scope of ethical consideration? What is our ‘water’?The Examined Life by Mitch Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccwmn5T3-54Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace: http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
Consequentialism and Poverty: In “Poverty, Affluence and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that we have an ethical obligation to undergo small inconvenience for relatively large gains in the happiness of others. For this reason, he argues that we ought to give most of our money away to charity instead of spending it on luxuries for ourselves. He writes:“People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look “well-dressed” we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called “supererogatory” – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.”Singer believes that an ethical evaluation of the consequences of our actions should lead us to make extreme adjustments of our lifestyle. Evaluate Singer’s argument. What do the consequences of our actions demand of us? Are we behaving unethically when we indulge ourselves instead of contributing to the well-being of the less fortunate?Please watch “Peter Singer’s Ethics” and the following introductory videos for utilitarianism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dMUtilitarianism Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvmz5E75ZIAUtilitarianism Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGDk23Q0S9E&t=21sUtilitarianism Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoCuVa9UeR4&t=4sand please read “Consider the Lobster” (linked above) and “Famine, Affluence and Morality” which you can find here: https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm
Second part to read and watch
Scope of Ethical Consideration (Part 2)Ethics studies questions like “What should I do? What are my responsibilities? What’s for the best?” Our values determine how we answer these questions, and different sets of values might give rise to distinct answers to these questions. By ‘values’, I mean the full range of concerns that you might have, both implicitly and explicitly held, including preferences, goals, assumptions, traditions, and politics, but also theories about how the world works and methods for evaluating its performance. In simplest terms: your values are all the things that matter to you.I want to talk about the scope of ethical consideration. By “scope”, I mean to ask which issues and perspectives that are included in our discussions of values, and which are excluded. How broad is the scope of ethical consideration? Here, we mean more than just morality – good and bad. When we talk about the scope of ethical consideration, we are speaking more broadly – about human flourishing, about values and about perspectives.For instance, which values or perspectives (if any) should be ignored? Are all values the same, or do some values and perspectives matter more than others? Whose values and perspectives matter more? Should they matter more? What impact does the scope of ethical consideration have on how we navigate the online world, our professions and our relationships in the digital era? As David Foster Wallace put it: “… learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed.” (full text) To what extent can we control what we think and value? What control do we have over the scope of ethical consideration?
Ethics and ConsequencesConsequentialism is an ethical theory which holds that we can evaluate the value our actions entirely by weighing their consequences. According to consequentialism, an action’s rightness or wrongness is determined entirely by its consequence. There are different forms, not all consequentialist theories or theorists are the same: Different forms of consequentialism describe different standards and methods for weighing those consequences.A popular form of consequentialism, and the one we will focus on is called “utilitarianism”, and weighs consequences in terms of their “utility”, or the “happiness” they cause. The utilitarian argues that for any creature that can feel pleasure or pain (the so-called “sentient creatures”), happiness represents an intrinsic good, and suffering an intrinsic bad. Therefore, the ethical thing to do is to always try to maximize happiness for the greatest number of sentient creatures. The principle of utility, upon which utilitarianism is premised, is easy to remember: greatest good for greatest number of people. Utilitarians believe that our primary ethical obligation is to increase the overall happiness, and that we should act in a way that maximizes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. It sounds fairly simple, but when you get into different “trolley car” type case studies, it begins to get more complicated.I shared this video already, but worth re-watching and please consider the ethical dilemma Peter Singer proposes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dMPlease also read this very short article: https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704–.htmVideos!Consequentialism explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hACdhD_kes8Utilitarianism Part I: http://www.wi-phi.com/video/utilitarianism-part-1Utilitarianism Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGDk23Q0S9E&t=22sUtilitarianism Part III: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGDk23Q0S9E&t=22sTrolley ProblemPeter Singer on the Ethics of Philanthropyhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-singer-on-the-ethics-of-philanthropy-1428083293Join wall street: Save the Worldhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/31/join-wall-street-save-the-world/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f7b3c293c16Not everyone is thrilled by this way of ethical thinking, one such objection can be found here:Zizek First as Farce…Challenger case study: Challenger disaster. In what has become an engineering ethics legend, Morton-Thiokol Senior Vice President Jerry Mason told VP of Engineering Bob Lund “to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.” The subsequent vote overrode the concerns of engineers and went forward with the tragic launch. Consider the relationship between management and engineering in the decisions that led to the Challenger explosion, and how this conflict of perspective might be avoided. Whose values matter more: engineers or management? Are there exceptions to this rule?Video of the Challenger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBEVideo: Richard Feinman on the Challenger Disaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpDg7MjHps