From Lawrence Hinmans (http://ethics



From Lawrence Hinman’s, Webpage: “Ethics Updates”

()

Sources:

•     The Philosophers’ Index lists articles and books by specific topic; it also contains abstracts for many of the articles.  It is available both in bound volumes and on-line for computerized searches through Dialog Information Service.  Consult with your college librarian about how to choose keywords for searches.

•     Several philosophy journals specialize in articles about ethics: Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Journal of Value Inquiry, Social Philosophy & Policy, the Journal of Social Philosophy and the Hastings Center Report.  In addition to this, some journals have individual issues devoted to particular topics.  The Monist and Midwest Studies in Philosophy, for example, have had several issues devoted specifically to ethical issues.

•     Anthologies are often an excellent source both of reprinted articles and bibliographies.  Often they contain bibliographical essays or introductions that map out the current state of the discussion.

•     Several excellent reference works are available in ethics, especially The Encyclopedia of Ethics (2002), 3rd ed., edited by Lawrence and Charlotte Becker;  A Companion to Ethics (2002), edited by Peter Singer, and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), edited by Paul Edwards.

Quoting and Footnoting

There are a few easy and basic rules to keep in mind when using other sources in your writing.

• Whenever you directly use the words of another person, those words must be enclosed in quotation marks and a reference to the source must be made.  To fail to do this is to plagiarize! 

o Tip: When you are making notes on your readings, be sure to use quotes for any passages where you take the words directly from someone else.  Otherwise, you may use your notes as part of your final draft and forget that they are composed in part of direct quotations.

• Quote as little as possible.  In general, when instructors are reading your paper, they are trying (among other things) to reach as informed a judgment as possible about how well you have mastered the material under consideration.  If you are able to accurately paraphrase difficult ideas instead of quoting them directly, this is much stronger evidence that you have mastered the position.  If you give a long quote, the evidence that you understand it (especially if you don’t then discuss the interpretation of the quote after you give it) is very weak.  The longer the quote, and the shorter your discussion of it, the less likely it is that you will convince anyone that you understand it.

• Quote when it is important to draw the reader’s attention to the exact language of the text.  Sometimes, especially when there is a controversy over exactly what a particular philosopher believes, it is necessary to quote the philosopher’s exact words.  Usually such quotes will be immediately followed by a discussion of specific points in the actual wording of the quote.

• For example, Immanuel Kant tells us not to treat people only as a means to an end—but he does seem to allow that we may partially treat them as means to an end.  He writes, “Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in anyone else, as an end in itself and never merely as a means.”  The phrase “ and never merely as a means” suggests that it is permissible to treat other people (and oneself, for that matter) partially as a means.  Quoting Kant directly in this context lends support to this claim, which is strengthened by the direct quote.  Clearly, quoting in this context is an indication that you have read the text closely and mastered it.  In this context, quoting is not a substitute for understanding the text.

• Whenever you are using some else’s ideas (but not their exact words), indicate this through a footnote or reference of some kind.  Again, to fail to do this is plagiarism. 

o Tip:  It is easy to acknowledge your debts to other authors in passing with such simple phrases as, “As Williams has pointed out …”, “Nozik has shown that …”, or “In light of Rorty’s claim that…”

Some Common Pitfalls

There are a number of common pitfalls that you can easily avoid with a careful review of the draft of your paper before you submit it.

• Avoid rhetorical questions.  Often we use rhetorical questions as a way of dismissing an idea.  If the question is worth asking, it is worth answering.  If you find yourself asking a question such as, “Who’s to say what is moral?” try to answer the question.  This transforms it from a question into an assertion which can then be assessed on its merits.

• Avoid clichés.  Sometimes we resort to stock phrases that we have heard time and again—but perhaps not really thought about.  How often have you heard someone say reject an idea by claiming that “it's like saying that the end justifies the means.”  If you think about it for a minute, you will see that the end often justifies the means.  Indeed, for pure consequentialists, it is the only thing which justifies any means.  Similarly, “You can not legislate morality.”

• Be aware of exact meanings of words.  Do not use big words in order to sound impressive.  Philosophers often use a specialized vocabulary that has a precise meaning within the philosophical community, just as any group of specialists does.  Use this vocabulary when it is needed and when you have mastered it.  (The glossary in this book is intended to help you gain a mastery of some of this vocabulary.)  Do not use it if you do not know what it means or if it's not appropriate to the context and to your audience.

• Be specific and concise. 

• A spell-checker is not enough!  If you prepare your paper on a computer, use a spell-checker and, if available, a grammar checker.  However, after you have done that, check the text yourself.  A spell checker cannot differentiate between “there” and “their” or between “effect” and “affect.”  If you forget the “h” in “threat,” it becomes a “treat.”

• Use gender-neutral language.  In recent years, we have become increasingly conscious of the ways in which our language gives the (sometimes unintended) impression that we are referring just to men when it is more appropriate to refer to both men and women.  Many of us now try to avoid this.  Some authors use constructions like “he/she” or “her or him;” others alternate, sometimes using feminine pronouns and at other times using masculine ones.  My own inclination is to use plural forms whenever appropriate or to use constructions that avoid the need to employ gender-specific pronouns, since I find the other two ways stylistically awkward.

• State what you’re omitting.  It is usually impossible in a paper, or even a book, to cover all the relevant issues.    There's nothing wrong with admitting this.  In fact, it's often advisable to let your reader know that you are aware of important issues that you have chosen not to treat in that context.  Often, this can be accomplished in a sentence or even a clause.  Here are a couple of examples. 

o “I realize that Kant’s philosophy is open to criticism on many fronts, but in this paper I will concentrate solely on issues about how maxims can be formulated and then subjected to the test of universalizability.”

o “Many thinkers have offered important insights into the nature of courage in a wide range of situations, but here I will be concerned only with instances of courage within a military context.”

• If you’re undecided about an issue, say so.  It's OK to say that you're undecided about an issue.  Sometimes you have reflected on an issue and see strong arguments on both sides of the question and have not yet decided where you stand.  It's often appropriate to admit this as long as you show a critical awareness of the arguments on both sides and give some indication of how you have progressed in your thinking on the issue.

• When you make a mistake, learn from it.  Keep a list of the spelling and grammatical mistakes that you make in each of your papers, along with the appropriate corrections.  Review it before you submit the final draft of your current paper and then proof read your current paper in light of the mistakes you typically make.

The Dilemma

When criticizing an opponent’s position, philosophers often try to show that the opponent’s position involves a dilemma.  The word “dilemma” comes from the Greek” “di” means “two” and “lemma” means “proposition.”  In setting up a dilemma, you attempt to show that your opponent’s position leads to either of two propositions and that neither of these propositions is acceptable.

We employed a version of the dilemma argument in criticizing deterministic ethical egoism.  The first horn of the dilemma was to interpret deterministic ethical egoism as strongly deterministic, that is, as saying that all human beings are determined to act only in their own self-interest.  Yet if that is true, then what is the point of telling them that they should act in this way?  On the other hand, if deterministic ethical egoism is saying that we ought to behave in this fashion, then it is implying that we have a choice.  But if we have a choice, then we are not determined and thus deterministic ethical egoism cannot be true.

There are three ways of replying to this kind of attack.  First, one can attempt to show that the position does not lead to the unacceptable conclusion.  Second, one can try to show that the conclusion is not unacceptable.  Third, one can try to go “between the horns of the dilemma,” that is, to show that there is a third possibility that escapes the liabilities associated with the first two.

A Cautionary Conclusion about the Goals of Criticism

Philosophical criticism is often negative and combative in character.  Many philosophical articles try to show that an opponent’s position is flawed in some way—that it has some internal contradictions, that it leads to unacceptable consequences, etc.  Yet as we have seen in Chapter Nine, this adversial model is not the only legitimate paradigm of philosophical discourse.  In writing philosophical papers, it is equally legitimate to advance and defend positive theses instead of attacking the positions of others.  It is equally legitimate to build on the foundations of other philosophers, extending their insights and applying them to new areas.

Remember that writing papers is a process of discovery.  The ultimate goal is to learn more than you knew before, to become clearer about an issue that was puzzling to you.  Use your writing as an opportunity to do work that you will benefit from and to address issues that are important to you.

Ethics Cases: Case of the Week (Ethics Updates) August3, 2003

"Abortion and Embryo Adoption"

What do you think? Join the discussion!

Ever since it became possible to freeze embryos as part of the process of assisting in reproduction, doctors and the couples themselves have faced a growing problem: what to do with the frozen embryos.

Couples who are trying to have a baby are usually advised to freeze and store “extra” embryos, that is, the embryos not implanted on the first attempt at conception. There is a simple reason for this: the process of harvesting the eggs to be fertilized is a highly invasive one for the woman, not only requiring surgery but also a regime of drugs designed to force the production of multiple eggs at one time. Minimizing the number of such invasive procedures is medically wise, since those procedures take a significant toll on the woman producing the eggs. It is better, all things considered, to maximize the possible benefits from putting someone through such a procedure.

Often, couples who have successfully gone through fertility treatments and now have the size family they desire simply want to forget about the hardships they have gone through to conceive; they are happy simply to get on with the task of raising their children. Memories of the process are often painful. In some cases, this results in couples simply abandoning the remaining embryos at the fertility clinic, not even responding to letters about what should be done with the remaining frozen embryos.

In other cases, however, couples want to see those frozen embryos bring happiness to other couples with infertility problems, especially those who cannot produce eggs on their own. As a result, they give their physicians permission to give those embryos to other couples trying to have a baby. Doctors often send frozen embryos to other physicians with infertile couples who are looking for a good biological match with the embryos (eye and hair color, etc.). This is largely an informal network among physicians who want to help their patients get pregnant. It is not a money-making network, since such exchanges are usually done simply for the cost of the transportation. Such exchanges may be viewed simply as donations akin to organ donations or may actually be covered by a legal contract similar to those used for transferring property. Typically, there would be no screening of those who receive the embryos other than the fact that they are patients of the participating physician. Recently, there has been pressure to regulate this process and, in particular, to require the receiving couple (or single woman) to go through the type of screening and home study that is mandatory for adoptions. Such screenings insure that the embryos will receive a good home, just as they are intended to insure that adopted children are placed in an appropriate setting. Embryos are not property, advocates of this recommendation maintain, and thus cannot be bought and sold like property or even given away like gifts.

Several states are now considering legislation that would require that embryo transfers be treated like adoptions, with all the safeguard that have over the years been built into the adoption process for the protection of the adopted child. Opponents of such legislation worry that it could erode abortion rights for women, since it provides legal support to the view that embryos are persons, even at this very early stage of fetal development.

A few legislators are even considering the next point of analogy between embryo transfers and adoptions: should those who are donating the embryos be required to participate in some kind of counseling? After all, the embryos that will be brought to term are their full genetic offspring and, biologically speaking, siblings to the other children they have together. What might happen if, for example, the child they bring to birth dies in an accident several years later? They realize that they have another biological offspring somewhere. What might they then do?

Finally, what rights might the adopted embryo eventually have in regard to knowledge about his or her biological parents? Should they be able to request that information be available to them when they reach adulthood? How is this to be balanced with the interests of the couple that has donated the embryos, who may not want such contact? Indeed, the couple may not even have told the children they have raised that they were conceived through artificial reproductive techniques.

Imagine that you are the legislative aide to a state senator whose committee has been charged with the responsibility for developing policy recommendations that address this problem. You have been asked to develop those policy recommendations for your senator. Faced with the set of issues outlined above, how would you develop a public policy to guide us through such situations? Explain clearly what your recommended policy is and how it addresses the multiple interests and concerns outlined above.

From Lawrence Hinman’s “Glossary of Terms”

Altruism. A selfless concern for other people purely for their own sake. Altruism is usually contrasted with selfishness or egoism in ethics.

Categorical Imperative. An unconditional command. For Immanuel Kant, all of morality depended on a single categorical imperative. One version of that imperative was, "Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law."

Consequentialism. Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences.

Deontology. Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on whether they correspond to our duty or not. The word derives from the Greek word for duty, deon.

Emotivism. A philosophical theory which holds that moral judgments are simply expressions of positive or negative feelings.

Ethical Egoism. A moral theory that, in its most common version (universal ethical egoism) states that each person ought to act in his or her own Self-interest.

Ethics. The explicit, philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices. The difference between ethics and morality is similar to the difference between musicology and music. Ethics is a conscious stepping back and reflecting on morality, just as musicology is a conscious reflection on music.

Hypothetical Imperative. A conditional command, such as, "If you want to lose weight, stop eating cookies." Some philosophers have claimed that morality is only a system of hypothetical imperatives, while others—such as Kant—have maintained that morality is a matter of categorical imperatives.

Means. Philosophers often contrast means and ends. The ends we seek are the goals we try to achieve, while the means are the actions or things which we use in order to accomplish those ends. A hammer provides the means for pounding a nail in a piece of wood. Some philosophers, most notably Immanuel Kant, have argued that we should never treat human beings merely as means to an end.

Morality. "Morality" refers to the first-order beliefs and practices about good and evil by means of which we guide our behavior. Contrast with Ethics, which is the second-order, reflective consideration of our moral beliefs and practices.

Natural Law. In ethics, believers in natural law hold (a) that there is a natural order to the human world, (b) that this natural order is good, and (c) that people therefore ought not to violate that order.

Nihilism. The belief that there is no value or truth. Literally, a belief in nothing (nihil). Most philosophical discussions of nihilism arise out of a consideration of Fredrich Nietzsche’s remarks on nihilism, especially in The Will to Power.

Prima Facie. In the original Latin, this phrase means "at first glance." In ethics, it usually occurs in discussions of duties. A prima facie duty is one which appears binding but which may, upon closer inspection, turn out to be overridden by other. stronger duties.

Relativism. In ethics, there are two main type of relativism. Descriptive ethical relativism simply claims as a matter of fact that different people have different moral beliefs, but it takes no stand on whether those beliefs are valid or not. Normative ethical relativism claims that each culture’s (or group’s) beliefs are right within that culture, and that it is impossible to validly judge another culture’s values from the outside.

Rights are entitlements to do something without interference from other people (negative rights) or entitlements that obligate others to do something positive to assist you (positive rights). Some rights (natural rights, human rights) belong to everyone by nature or simply by virtue of being human; some rights (legal rights) belong to people by virtue of their membership in a particular political state; other rights (moral rights) are based in acceptance of a particular moral theory.

Subjectivism. An extreme version of relativism, which maintains that each person’s beliefs are relative to that person alone and cannot be judged from the outside by any other person.

Supererogatory. Literally, "above the call of duty." A supererogatory act is one that is morally good and that goes beyond what is required by duty. Some ethical theories, such as certain versions of utilitarianism, that demand that we always do the act that yields the most good have no room for supererogatory acts.

Universalizability. Immanuel Kant used this term when discussing the maxims, or subjective rules, that guide our actions. A maxim is universalizable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only maxims which are morally good are those which can be universalized. The test of universalizability ensures that everyone has the same moral obligations in morally similar situations.

Utilitarianism. A moral theory that says that what is moral right is whatever produces the greatest overall amount of pleasure (hedonistic utilitarianism) or happiness (eudaimonistic utilitarianism). Some utilitarians (act utilitarians) claim that we should weigh the consequences of each individual action, while others (rule utilitarians) maintain that we should look at the consequences of adopting particular rules of conduct.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download