ib extended essay: how moral pluralism contributes to diversity and social cohesion
TRANSCRIPT
IB Extended Essay
Philosophy
How Moral Pluralism
Contributes to Diversity
and Social Cohesion
Name: Pinnapa Phetcharatana
School: Vienna International School
Candidate Number: 00014-082
Supervisor: Madame Fella Hacini
Date: November 23, 2010
Word Count: 3,718
Abstract
The concept of moral pluralism emerged as result of a shift from modernist to
post-modernist beliefs. Attempts to establish common universal laws in order to seek
rational order were abandoned since the impact of globalization in the past few centuries
has resulted in more liberal views and a more differentiated community. Post-modernists
have moved away from classical absolutist beliefs towards a more open-minded approach
to defining morality. However, it is important to consider the degree of reality of this
ethical pluralistic concept when applied to an evolving and diverse world. To what
extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral
cohesion in society?
This essay discusses several aspects of moral pluralism, including the plurality
and conditionality of values that encourage the use of moral intuition, which promotes a
wider definition of what is ‘good’; the incommensurability and incompatibility of values
that hinders the creation of a rational moral ranking; and the acknowledgement of social
and cultural differences that may result in a more tolerant and flourishing society. Flaws
and limitations of the theory are also taken into consideration in order to provide an
unbiased outcome.
Pluralism promotes freethinking in the ethical sense since it does not attempt to
provide a fixed definition for morality. It further dismisses dogmatism as individuals are
encouraged to make use of moral intuition while taking into account appropriate limits.
Upon the demonstration that moral pluralism will lead to stronger social cohesion, there
is still the danger of the fracturing of morality and increased skepticism resulting from the
plurality of views, which may lead to a state of anomie. It is important that society
defines and establishes clear limits in regard to human rights in order to prevent the
dangers that threaten morality.
Word count: 290
Table of Contents
“How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion”
Introduction 1
Essay Body 2-13
Conclusion 14
Works Cited 15
Appendix 16-19
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
1
Introduction
The emergence of the postmodernist era has brought about a strong skepticism
towards universal morals. Critics claim that universal morality is disintegrating. Among
the majority of them were modernists who conformed to the “grand narrative”- a historical
story of ideologies and principles in different cultures and traditions that communicate
themes and values. However, the grand narratives were gradually dismissed as ideologists,
philosophers and social scientists realized the futility of seeking a common universal
ground in the moral sense. Deep differences in cultures and social structures call for a
more contingent and non-absolutist narrative, and this awareness ultimately gave birth to
the concept of moral pluralism. Bearing this in mind, it is important to consider the extent
to which the monistic view of morality should be dismissed, and more importantly, the
extent to which pluralism should be adapted effectively to ensure a flourishing society. To
what extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral
cohesion in society? This essay will discuss and analyze different aspects of moral
pluralism in regard to how it may contribute to higher social tolerance and diversity.
Certain limitations of the theory will also be addressed in order to achieve an equitable
conclusion.
As a result of society’s confusion about its own values, “moral dilemmas” occur
since there is no longer a “rational foundation for moral convictions.”1 What used to be the
solid core of morality is now uncertain, and everything concerning ethics suddenly
1 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 7
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
2
becomes questionable.2 Should moral value be defined through deontology, where duty
and obligation are prioritized and ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ are determined within an act
itself? Or would it be more appropriate to consider the ethical value in the actual outcome
of an action? Deontology and consequentialism are two clashing concepts that both appear
to serve as epitomes of morality; they are the basis for making moral decisions. However,
the theories should not be binding since different types of ethical situations require
different approaches. Perhaps what is ‘right’ may not always be ‘good.’ In light of the
extremes, the thesis has paved way for moral pluralism- an alternative that allows for open-
minded judgment in ethical situations. Pluralism asserts that there are no objective truths
and encourage the acceptance of a multitude of beliefs and values.3 It further leads to the
awareness of the fact that there exists no such rational system of ranking for these values.4
The inevitability of conflicting moral values that result due to the subjectivity serve to
bring about greater social tolerance for different ideas and conceptions of life, while
ensuring that limits exist in order to avoid abusing the contingency of values.
Unlike primary values that are universally known and predetermined (such as love
being regarded as a benefit or humiliation as harmful), secondary values differ depending
on societies, traditions and historical periods.5 Individuals prioritize their values in regard
to their social roles and personal beliefs. For example, a doctor is required to save lives, so
he places life above all other values. On the other hand, a soldier’s duty is to fight for his
2 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 7
3 McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”
4 McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”
5 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 18
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
3
nation, even if this means killing. One sees life as a higher priority, while another dedicates
oneself to patriotism. Different roles call for different rankings of values, and often, the
values come into conflict. What is regarded as beneficial to one may be considered harmful
to another. Moral pluralism brings awareness to the “vast individual differences that
emerge above the level of the values we are bound to hold in common [primary values].6”
Tolerance towards various culture and social groups may be encouraged by open-
mindedness towards new behaviors and opinions.
Values are conditional since they depend on social roles, individual preferences,
religious beliefs and many other factors that have affected one’s upbringing. However,
moral absolutists deny this, arguing that this extreme conditionality will lead to the
disintegration of morality as a result of a lack of norms. Kant’s deontological theory, for
example, defines morality through the intentions of the agent rather than the consequences
of actions. The will or motive of these actions must correspond to a particular given set of
ethical codes that determine the ‘rightness’ of a certain act. This means that one is always
required to obey a certain ‘moral’ rule despite how absurd it may seem given the
circumstances. If a murderer were to ask a man where his wife and children are, Kantian
ethics would suggest that it is the man’s duty to speak the truth. Lying, in this case, is
considered to be intrinsically ‘immoral,’ despite that by doing so may save lives. This
example serves to highlight the idealism in the absolutism-based Kantian deontology in the
sense that it attempts to bring an outright, rational order upon a situation that calls for a
6 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 19
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
4
deeper examination. It is important to consider that maybe what is morally right may not
always be the best choice. In order to prevent growing moral conflicts, absolutists believe
that there should be one overriding value in which all other values become automatically
subordinate to. This overriding value ultimately rules over other values in all moral
situations regardless of circumstances. If justice were an overriding value, for example,
then in conflicts between justice versus life, freedom or any other positive value, the value
of justice would preside over all- meaning that lives and liberties must be sacrificed for
justice. This notion brings convenience when resolving moral dilemmas; the overriding
value automatically takes precedence over the value it conflicts with. In Kant’s case, this is
shown through the universalization of moral codes: “Always act in such a way that you can
also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law.”7 This can be
drawn back to the concept of the grand narrative introduced previously where there is an
attempt to provide a logical justification for the ranking of values. Nevertheless, the
absurdity of this absolutist theory lies in the fact that it does not provide a justification for
why all other values must be positioned subordinate to the overriding value. Why are some
values placed below other values, when they all seem equally moral? What determines the
overriding value? These questions have been left unanswered.
Perhaps there can be no fixed, rational ranking of values, since differences in social
roles, religious beliefs, desires, and environments allow for the existence of equally moral
values, in spite of how they may all conflict with each other. Moral pluralism, on one hand,
7 Kay, “Notes on Deontology”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
5
will lead to unresolved conflicts among values because it allows for the interpretation of
values. During this stage of questioning, one would find oneself in a vicious circle until it
has been realized that more than one value can hold the same “ranking”- that there are
plural and equal values. The meta-ethical notion thus encourages society to become
conscious of the differences in preferences, i.e. secondary values, promoting less
prejudiced opinions and more open-mindedness.
Previously, the moral absolutist theory has been put to question. How is it possible
to place values into a universal system of ranking when there are countless factors that lead
to many different concepts of a good life? The monistic theory takes into account the
‘right’ type of life (deontology) while pluralists promote the ‘good’ life. More importantly,
pluralism recognizes the incompatibility and incommensurability of values as the reason to
why a rational ranking system cannot exist.8 Values are incompatible if they are mutually
exclusive and cannot be realized at the same time; for example, one cannot pursue both
independence and an active role in politics since they contradict each other; being
politically active requires taking into account the views of society whereas complete
independence excludes all social intervention. Incommensurable values are unrelated and
cannot be compared nor ranked on the same plane, such as vegetarianism versus
nationalism, cleanliness versus wisdom and so forth. The incompatibility of these qualities
makes the ranking of values impossible. Australian ethical philosopher John Kekes argues,
“On what grounds could any value be regarded as invariably overriding if the values it is
8 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 22
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
6
supposed to override are so utterly unlike it as to exclude the possibility of comparison
between it and them?”9 It appears that the attempt to rationalize by ranking values into a
fixed order involves arbitrary decisions that may lead to an inconclusive and fallible
outcome.
Absolutism favors the overriding value, claiming that the only exception to which
this value can be violated is that if it is for the best interest of the value- meaning “to
strengthen the value itself.”10
This may be considered doctrinaire in the sense that there is a
quality of permanence placed upon it. If life were an overriding value, the only condition
that would allow this value to be violated is to preserve another life. This is a case where
the overriding value comes into conflict with itself. If absolutists allow an exception in
which the overriding value can prevail over itself, the value appears to cancel itself out
rather than being strengthened. The absolutist theory provides a convenient solution for
moral conflicts by letting overriding values take precedence over subordinate values,
despite how unreasonable the outcome may be. Nonetheless, in situations where the same
value conflicts with itself (such as to sacrifice a life in order to preserve another life) the
idea of an overriding value loses its effectiveness as it cannot no longer be referred to as
the authority value, and this leaves one to make arbitrary decisions.
Since pluralism allows the conditionality of values, it promotes subjectivity in the
sense that there can be different and changing rankings of morals depending on the
9 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 22
10 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 23
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
7
situation and/or people involved. Yet, the complete reliance on subjectivity is dangerous;
subjectivity in this case should be valid only within a certain band with appropriate limits.
Under pluralism, one is encouraged to allow the guidance of moral intuition and reasoning
rather than having to conform to a universal set of moral rankings. For instance, if an agent
were to be faced with a moral dilemma in which he/she would have to steal a person’s boat
in order to save a drowning person, then the conflicting, incompatible values involved are
justice (to not steal) and benevolence (to save a life). A conducted survey11
reveals that the
majority is willing to violate justice in this situation in order to prevent harm after having
realized that a boat can be compensated for while a life cannot. Moral absolutism does not
provide a spectrum broad enough to reach this explanation as well as other reasons to why
a person might place certain values above others. It simply refers to an authority value that
presides over all, regardless of the situation, and often the best outcome is not achieved.
Pluralism fosters moral intuition, which allows one to realize, with reason, that
there can be exceptions to moral guidelines, such as in a case where one value may take
priority over another. Exceptions depend upon the agent and how he/she perceives the
definition of a moral duty. Referring back to the example above, it is apparent that this
type of intuition requires an understanding of the ethical features in any given situation.12
The agent realized the importance of life and harm-prevention over stealing and mentally
constructed a ranking of values in light of the situation occurring, leading him to perform
11
See survey attached. 12
Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
8
his “actual duty”13
of stealing the boat to rescue the drowning person. Yet even so, had he
believed that another person’s property should not be violated and thus decided to not steal
the boat, then he would be acting in favor of justice. Both options are equally correct and
moral in the deontological sense; the agent is acting upon either the values of justice or
harm-prevention, which are both considered intrinsically good, irrespective of his act’s
outcome. A consequentialist, on the other hand, would have decided to rescue the man in
order to prevent an injury or possible death, even if it required him to violate others’ rights.
However the consequentialist would first have to define the “best outcome” that would be
brought about by the act, and commonly it is the maximization of utility- “the greatest
good for the greatest number of people.” The consequential and deontological theories are
two common views from a broad selection that moral pluralism allows one to adopt. Yet,
there is one problem: the views cannot always be applied consistently. Suppose that there
is a person who takes money belonging to the wealthy and gives it over to the poor. How
can one measure this act’s degree of morality? Consequentialists, namely utilitarianists,
will claim that the act is moral since the pleasure and welfare gained by the poor is greater
in proportion to the loss suffered by the wealthy; while deontologists believe otherwise
because they consider stealing to be intrinsically immoral. A survey was conducted among
the same people, and it suggests that majority chooses to not steal in the first place because
they regard stealing as morally wrong.14
When asked why they had not taken this point
into consideration in the first example, they responded that this situation cannot be
perceived in the same way because it involves acting immorally towards a third party that
13
Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross” 14
See survey attached.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
9
would have otherwise been uninvolved (the wealthy population) and that there are other
moral means of earning money for the poor without having to steal, such as through
donations and job-training.15
Other responses suggest that they have based their choices on
moral intuition, claiming that they can ‘just know’ that stealing would not be the right
thing to do in this type of situation. More than fifty percent of this deontology-supportive
majority includes people who have chosen the consequentialist option in the first example.
Thus it appears that there is a lack of consistency in settling on certain views, which
perhaps results from varied judgments and situations and, not to mention, the very limited
scope confined by each of the views.
As a result of the conditionality of values, the lack of consistency in making
decisions is an inevitable feature of pluralism. Pluralism calls for the use of moral intuition
and reasoning in order to achieve consensus. In such situations, absolutists would have
simply allowed the overriding value to preside with little regard to neither the consequence
nor the degree of morality intrinsic to the act itself.16
However, there are more
complications in resolving conflicts among pluralists since some values are equally moral
and reasonable and may be questioned. It is easy for society to fall into deep skepticism
that may lead to a negative kind of nihilism. If all values were open to be interpreted and
questioned, society may then be drifting closer to the theoretical epochè where all
judgment is suspended.17
Would pluralism deteriorate morality, as the disintegration thesis
15
See survey attached. 16
Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 23 17
Encyclopedia Britannica
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
10
suggests? Pluralists must find the appropriate means to tackle moral conflicts without
inducing increased skepticism.
In a political society, for instance, policy-makers debate over common
controversial issues such as the legalization of euthanasia or marijuana. Reaching a
consensus would not be easy since controversies often involve a battle between conflicting
values that appear to be equally moral. In most cases, one side may have to compromise by
violating certain morals in order to reach an agreement, or the two opposing sides may
wish to establish a new common ground that appeals to the same morals. Yet, both cases
result in a stronger unity in which new views are being accepted, taking into consideration
society’s diversity and thus enhancing social tolerance.
The origins of the two opposing ideas of pluralism and absolutism become evident
when they are observed in terms of the battle between the bigger ideas of modernity and
postmodernism. Grand narratives, as previously mentioned in the introduction, appear to
lie under the general concept of moral absolutism. According to twentieth-century French
philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, a grand narrative is somewhat an attempt to maintain
“totality, stability, and order” by concealing conflicts and disorders that are evident in any
particular society.18
The dogma of this notion becomes evident; one may feel coerced to
accept that certain ‘disorders’ are ultimately ‘wrong,’ and that ‘order’ is ultimately
18
Klages, “Postmodernism”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
11
appropriate and rational.19
Conformers to the grand narrative strive to establish an
objective, universal truth without realizing that their ideas emanate from subjectivity.
Human knowledge, whether derived innately or through the senses, is limited in
comparison to all the knowledge that exists on this world- so how is it possible to seek a
general truth for the justification or impeaching of actions? Postmodernists thus have
introduced a replacement for grand narratives, known as ‘mini-narratives.’ Similar to
pluralism, mini-narratives are not committed to achieving universal truth as they only serve
to provide conditional explanations regarding individual events.20
Since this concept does
not attempt to generalize the immense diversity of the human race, but rather enables
society to examine situations from a variety of perspectives, it may further encourage the
ridding of prejudices and the acceptance of different ideas and customs. On the other hand,
grand narratives are criticized for potential bias and unreliability since it may be that
hierarchies and other authority figures in history have brought their own influences upon
them, altering its context to fit with the views of the time. As a result, once society starts to
become aware that grand narratives, just like government-based laws and policies, have
been created by humans that are capable of err and obscured judgment, and that the
subjectivity in establishing ‘truth’ is inevitable, there will be a greater inclination to accept
a multiplicity of different, smaller-scale narratives.
The strongest arguments that are posed against pluralism challenge the very basic
fundamentals of the theory itself: its plurality and conditionality that have so easily served
19
Klages, “Postmodernism” 20
Klages, “Postmodernism”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
12
to exonerate groups that have engaged in evidently unmoral practices. Dr. Alister
McGrath, Lecturer in Theology from Oxford University, questions the pluralist theory in
his work, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism: “Behind all the rhetoric
about ‘openness’ and ‘toleration’ lies a profoundly disturbing possibility- that people may
base their lives upon an illusion, upon a blatant lie, or that present patterns of oppression
may continue, and be justified, upon the basis of beliefs or outlooks which are false.”21
Can these illusions and lies be justified? After all, pluralism allows different conceptions
of what is perceived as ‘good,’ so would it be right to believe that everything and anything
can be permitted? When referring back to the crimes against humanity that have occurred
in the past, such as the Nazi regime or the Pol Pot genocide, it is difficult for one to accept
that the initiators held a perfectly rational mental state. Humans have been convinced that
they were ‘right,’ and this led to wars, genocides, slavery and racism.22
Consider the Hindu
custom of burning a widow alive after the death of her husband or the ritualistic sacrificing
of children in order to propitiate Gods.23
It is true that these practices may be considered
‘right for them,’ nevertheless it would be absurd to let them pass unquestioned.24
The
conditionality of pluralism, in this case, is a liability. Such an open-ended theory calls for
certain limits to be set in order to exclude certain views that are evidently morally
unacceptable.
21
McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism” 22
Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind” 23
McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism” 24
McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
13
The boundaries may serve to protect the basic primary values of life25
and should
thus be defined by human rights. As previously mentioned, actions and practices that are
known to be ‘evil’ such as child sacrifice, female circumcision or torture should not be
passed unchallenged since they all involve the violation of fundamental human rights.
There are also several values that are distinctly known to be ‘good’ in a variety of contexts,
such as justice and the protection of life from harm. Although these values appear to be the
most virtuous of all values, yet under pluralism, they are not overriding because all values
are said to be conditional. It is even possible that the seemingly moral values may be
reasonably violated in extreme cases where “the extraordinary and the abnormal may
occur.”26
This is why it is important to clearly define limits in order to eliminate potential
risks that the broadness of pluralism brings about.
An example of an attempt to establish boundaries within reasonable grounds can be
observed through the concept of prima facie duties. Nineteenth century Scottish
philosopher Sir William David Ross introduces this concept of obliging to duties that must
also be taken into priority unless reasonably triumphed by other duties.27
Clear examples
of prima facie duties include fidelity, gratitude, harm-prevention and justice.28
Thus, for
example, one ought to prevent harm in all cases unless there are stronger values that may
overtake harm-prevention. Prima facie duties are not to be confused with the absolutist’s
rational ranking of values because there is no specific order in which the duties are ranked,
25
Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 118 26
Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 120 27
Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross” 28
Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross”
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
14
and each value is not binding. Moral intuition and reasoning is heavily relied upon (refer
back to the example of the drowning man), and is determined by one’s moral upbringing
and background. Pluralism urges the use of moral intuition that will allow one to look
beyond dogmatic beliefs, moving towards a more sensible outcome.
Conclusion
On the surface, moral pluralism may appear to lead to skepticism and social
confusion as it accepts a variety of views and does not provide ‘truth’; it simply denies the
existence of any fixed universal rule or rules that attempt to justify certain actions.
However, by doing so, pluralism eliminates the possibility of being led into dogmatic
beliefs that attempt to impose rational order and further serves to encourage higher social
tolerance as it heeds the diversity of moral codes. However, bearing in mind that moral
pluralism is an open-ended theory, society must become aware of the responsibility of
establishing boundaries concerning the extent to how much an action can be justified.
There must be certain limits that serve as the stable, unchanging core for morality,
particularly in regard to the fundamental human rights. If this can be achieved, then
pluralism is less likely to harm the ‘morality’ of society and lead to the so-called
disintegration of morals. Pluralism, against a backdrop of democracy, urges society to look
past fixed, a priori rules and guidelines, whether in the form of religious codes or a set of
government policies, in order to develop a strengthened moral intuition that will ultimately
lead to a more socially tolerant and flourishing society that unites under one re-established
common ground.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
15
Works Cited
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1987. Print.
Garrett, Jan. "A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory
Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross." 10 Aug 2004. Web. 25
Aug 2010. <http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm>.
Kay, Charles, D. "Notes on Deontology." Web.
22 Nov 2010. <http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm>.
Kekes, John. The Morality of Pluralism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Print.
Klages, Mary. "Postmodernism." University of Colorado, Web. 11 Oct 2010.
<http://www.bdavetian.com/Postmodernism.html>.
McGrath, Alister E. "Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism."
Web. 17 Jul 2010.
"epoch!." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 22 Nov 2010.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/190459/epoche>.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
16
Appendix
Below is a survey conducted among 64 individuals in order to investigate which options
were most popular in an ethical dilemma.
1. You see a drowning man waving for help. Next to you is an expensive speedboat
belonging to a family. What do you do?
Username Answer
sophiek2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
hugob2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
javiern2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mariaflorenciac2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
tanjak2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
margheritam2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
chrisz2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
annag2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
laurianes2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
natalieh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
marie-louiseg2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
alexanderr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
andream2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
laurah2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
denisp2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
jacopoz2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mikes2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
thomasr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
amilap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
rouzbehm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
lisbethh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
pinnapap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
josephh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
masatakaf2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
ondrejs2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
sharont2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
sabinat2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
miland2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
annam2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
nathaliem2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
christophh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
radikah2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
christosv2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
da-youngl2011 Walk away because you don't want to be involved. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
juliand2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
sarap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
evgenyr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
beattak2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
17
davidar2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
tjeripot2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
dimitriosg2011 Watch the man drown because you don't want to steal the boat. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
dbancroft Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
michelleq2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
maximiliant2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
po-weiy2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
manuelh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
corneliab2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
pilarh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mariap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
danielw2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
paulaisabell2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
tayof2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
manuelm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
andreasr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
lok-szel2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
surbhik2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
alia2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
faisala2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
ranih2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
davidd2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
felicitask2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
leonidm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
jung-hyunl2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
davidr2011 Walk away because you don't want to be involved. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
Summary
2 people out of the 64 surveyed have decided to walk away because they do not wish to be
involved in the situation.
1 person out of the 64 surveyed has decided to watch the man drown because he/she does
not wish to steal the boat.
61 out of the 64 surveyed have decided to steal the boat in order to save the drowning
man’s life
2. What is your view on a person who steals money from the rich and gives it to the poor?
sophiek2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
hugob2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
javiern2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mariaflorenciac2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
tanjak2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
margheritam2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
18
chrisz2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
annag2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
laurianes2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
natalieh2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
marie-louiseg2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
alexanderr2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
andream2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
laurah2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
denisp2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
jacopoz2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mikes2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
thomasr2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
amilap2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
rouzbehm2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
lisbethh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
pinnapap2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
josephh2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
masatakaf2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
ondrejs2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
sharont2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
sabinat2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
miland2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
annam2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
nathaliem2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
christophh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
radikah2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
christosv2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
da-youngl2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
juliand2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
sarap2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
evgenyr2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
beattak2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
davidar2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
tjeripot2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
dimitriosg2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
dbancroft Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10
Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082
19
michelleq2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
maximiliant2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
po-weiy2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
manuelh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
corneliab2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
pilarh2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
mariap2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
danielw2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
paulaisabell2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
tayof2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
manuelm2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
andreasr2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
lok-szel2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
surbhik2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
alia2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
faisala2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
ranih2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.
davidd2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
felicitask2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
leonidm2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.
jung-hyunl2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.
davidr2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.
Summary
29 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral since it is considered
stealing, which they believe is a bad action in itself.
10 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral because they believe that
poor people need to find more proper ways to make their own living.
20 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the benefit
gained by the poor people is greater than the loss experienced by the wealthy.
5 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the money is a
necessity for the poor people, whereas the wealthy do not need it.