Phil 340: Social Ethics

Katelynn Burns

1. There is no reason rights in a society should be different from rights in another. I believe rights to be things that satisfy human need. Rights that are included in this are the right to proper nourishment (clean water, a balanced diet, etc.), the right to resources to help one withstand their climate (blankets, roof, proper clothes, etc.), the right to emotional stability (living an abuse-free life, access to counseling and treatments, being able to make your own choices, etc.), and the right to feel wanted (a family, a partner, friends, etc.). Basically, in any society any given person should be able to leave their adequate home, holding the hand of whomever they love, not fearing to be assaulted as they walk to get lunch and decide if they’d like an abortion or not for their accidental pregnancy as they meet up with a counselor. As I think deeper into this question and about my life, I realize that being happy and free is a right, as I might not survive without those two things. Every society must foster a right to emotional stability or people will just start eliminating their lives because they see nothing worth living for. The ability to make choices shouldn’t matter because you live in the east or west hemisphere, because without that freedom, who are we? And if we are no one, what is the society we live in? It is simply a land, not a culture, not a flavor. One could argue that some areas are just too strict to be an individual, like say being a monk in the Catholic Church. There are so many rules that limit who one can be, yet you still have the opportunity in even that situation to make a choice. Martin Luther was a Catholic Monk who made a choice to stand against something he felt was wrong, and now look; we have a whole new religion based on his ideas. If we lose these basic rights, we lose ourselves, but most of all, we lose our ideas. Society cannot progress when we remove rights, because we take away ideas. A true society will satisfy the basic human needs, allowing us to grow into complicated and unique creatures that fuel a constant revolution.

2. This is your big break. You have the opportunity to move up in Google. Will it hurt many people, probably leading to the death of most of them? Yes, but this is your chance to buy that new Mercedes. And anyway, if the activists were smart, they would use code words. Would it be your fault that they get in trouble when they are the ones who typed Tianamen Square? You may not have typed it, but you sure brought it to the government’s attention. This is a tough decision, no matter how you look at it. At some point, you have to think about what’s best for you. For me? Well, knowing I killed a bunch of people who were simply fighting for better treatment of their country’s people would not benefit me. I would just feel incredibly guilty about the entire thing. However, for others, their greed would overpower their conscience and they could live with it. Another thing I would look at to make this all seem a bit more simple of a decision would be Apple and their Chinese factory. Google is all about treating their employees well. To even be associated with a country that cares little about the age, health, and working conditions of its people is just flat out against what Google stands for. It would actually be pretty bad for our image anyway.

3. The Puzzle-Maker Thought Experiment is an incredibly intriguing way to look at the way we are growing as an individual. When taking two people, Person A and Person B, we can evaluate what percent of the puzzle they have completed at different times. Say A is born with 80% of their puzzle completed. They have two hardworking and supportive parents who encourage A to do everything they want, helps them with homework, A’s mom makes a well-balanced lunch for them to take to school every day, and there is a lot of love. Now B was born with only 10% of

their puzzle put together. They were born to a single mom who loves them almost as much as her heroine needles. B at least has what one might call a house, but everything they do, they have done for themselves. Now, fast forward 18 years to A and B’s high school graduation. A graduated with 87.5% of their puzzle completed; 3.85 GPA, accepted into a private university, voted Most Likely to Succeed, and still has both parents by their side. Person B however has 50% of their puzzle now completed; 2.8 GPA, recently promoted to shift leader at their minimum wage job, joined Art Club, stayed clean their whole life as they supported their in-and-out-of-rehab mother, just obtained a second job, and is getting ready for community college. Now, one might say that A has a better life, which may be true, but when comparing the two, A has only completed 7.5% of their puzzle since birth and B has completed 50%. In reality, it seems B has done a lot more to better their life. Boylan’s point is that sometimes people are born destined to fail based on the situation they were born into. Do I agree? I don’t think anyone is necessarily “destined to fail”. I think for some people the road to success is a much rockier path, but I think we all have it within to find our specific road to success and from there decide how filled in our puzzle is.

4. Deontology is a position that judges the ethics behind decisions based on their ability to follow a rule or obligation. Teleology is based on the final outcome of a situation, asking those to follow an ethical standard that will benefit the end. When it comes to understanding global justice issues, it is better to look at it from a teleology standpoint. It is sometimes difficult to look at something as an end result, and avoid the present, but when it comes to the survival of a population, that is really the only way. Shooting someone who has an incredibly contagious disease that could wipe out your population seems a lot more reasonable from a teleology view over a deontology view which would say that the killing of an individual is wrong and should not be done. To me, it seems that deontology focuses on details, while teleology focuses on the main idea. The best way I can put it is you are standing at the top of the stairs and you see a one hundred dollar bill sitting on the landing at the bottom; a deontologist would look at the steps to get to the bill and notice that their cat is sitting on one stair and would take the extra time to avoid it, risking someone else picking up the money, while one who follows teleology would run down the stairs, only focusing on the money, stepping on the cat’s tail, making it forever mad at them, but at least they got the $100. Which idea is better? They both have their strengths and weaknesses. As far as a global standpoint goes, doing things “for the greater good” has always seemed the most logical standpoint; however, each person must think for themselves and develop their own ethical standards for their life. Quite frankly, I think it comes down to the degree of greed you have. We all have greed and those with a higher level of greed may seek to simply act in a way that would grant them intrinsic finality, while someone with a lower level of greed might seek to look at the actions they are doing to find a more extrinsic finality.