Ethics exam 2 part 2

10. What are some of the strengths and limits of the Ethics of Relationship?

DD - Look at notes

11. What are some ways that a dialogue may be under duress? What are some of the ways that the text recommends responding when dialogue is under duress? -

DD - Look at notes

Which writer wrote about: He who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another man merely as a means, without the latter containing at the same time the end in himself For then it is clear that he who transgresses the rights of men intends to use the person of others merely as a means, without considering that as rational beings they ought always to be esteemed also as ends, that is, as beings who must be capable of containing in themselves the end of the very same action. A [person] finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself: "Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way?" Now, although this cannot be justified in our own impartial judgment, yet it proves that we do really recognize the validity of the categorical imperative and (with all respect for it) only allow ourselves a few exceptions, which we think unimportant and forced from us. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

*Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals

Which author - It is feminine in the deep classical sense - rooted in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness. It represents an alternative to present views, one that begins with the moral attitude or longing for goodness and not with moral reason. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

*Nel Noddings*, From Caring

8. What is a "community"? What ethical difference does a community make?

1. Community is some linked set of others that we share a compelling commonality. 2. Examples: Neighborhoods, religion/faith group, sports, online community 3. We define ourselves as members of communities. 4. This identity needs to be nurtured and supported 5. Communities can cause people to change religions, political parties, and change certain values of people. 6. What we do (ethically) reflects on the community. 7. We are also required to better the community through our actions.

7. According to Nel Noddings, what are some of the implications of an Ethics of Care?

1. Ethics of care is individualized to each person and there isn't a set of rules that tells us what to do. 2. We often tend to focus on the logical side of ethics and reject the personal human side. 3. Joy is our basic human effect, not anguish. 4. A joy that accompanies our fulfillment to the ones we love enhances our commitment to caring for others. 5. We often have a reason for why we care including, feelings, needs, and impressions.

3. What is a religious understanding of the preciousness of persons?

1. Every person is valuable because they were made in the image and likeness of God. 2. People are a distinctive part of creation. 3. Humans are rational and thinking creatures that have value. 4. We are self-conscious, free, and can create. 5. We can be moral. 6. We are called to love and care for one another. For example, "thou shall not kill"

4. What does Philip Hallie mean by "hospitality"? How does it relate to the value of persons?

1. Hospitality is a complete and unreserved recognition and 'welcome' to the other. 2. It is the absence of cruelty and the replacement of something positive. 3. We not only recognize something of value in other persons but open-heartedly embrace them as if there were no other way. 4. This relates to persons because it is a depiction of how the other should be treated. It relates to the value of persons by showing that no matter what religion, race or gender someone is they still deserve to be treated as human. An example is when he talks about the town Le Chambon and how the people there welcomed the new refugee family and they put a wreath on their door. they were so kind to these people who were hated by the Nazis.

2. How do Buber and Levinas's understanding of others relate to the value of persons?

1. They were philosophers that study other people with their own experiences. 2. They found that people stereotype others based on past experiences or relating them with another similar bad experience without trying to know the person before judging them. 3. Both believed in valuing the person as an individual instead of an object. 4. Buber believed in the *I/thou relationship* where people are fully present to each other. 5. We recognize the value in both the other person and in the encounter itself. 6. There is immense depth to the person and demand infinite respect. 7. Buber had a recognition of persons and ethics of the other. 8. He saw others as things of value.9. Levinas followed Buber and specifically focused on the face of a person and their depth. 10. Levinas argues that the face of the other demands respect.

1. Why is treating someone as a person not the same as just being nice to them?

1. When we are nice to someone, we do not question our stereotypes. In contrast, treating someone as a person is treating them with respect and responding to something unique in them. For example, in the "Mona Lisa" story, a girl was frightened and alone in New York when a homeless person named "Mona Lisa," came up and talked to her. The girl did not treat Mona Lisa as a stereotype of a homeless person but rather treated her as a person. The nice thing to do would've been to just buy a spin top from Mona Lisa and walk away, but the girl chose to get to know Mona Lisa as a person instead..

9. What is Aldo Lepold's criterion for the ultimate standard of right and wrong?

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (pg. 260)

ESSAY #1 - Why shouldn't we lie to get ourselves out of sticky situations, according to Kant? Be sure to explain Kant's categorical imperative and its two formulations. Do you agree with Kant's reasoning? Why or why not?

According to Kant, we should not lie to get ourselves out of sticky situations because you cannot will it to be a universal law that everyone should lie to get out of a sticky situation. This would violate Kant's first formulation under his categorical imperative. Kant's categorical imperative is a fundamental principle of ethics where an obligation applies to us regardless of our other goals. We make a maxim and ask, "If everyone follows the same rule, would there be a conflict in achieving our goal?" In this case, if everyone lies then no one would believe that Kant's lie is the truth either. Logically this would be irrational and psychologically, Kant would be treating himself as more special than others. Kant's categorical imperative has two formulations that state: 1) Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law. If everyone else cannot do it, then we should not do it either. 2) Treat humanity in yourself or others always as an ends and never as a means. Do not treat someone as a tool to get what you want. I understand Kant's reasoning, but it is unrealistic to say that everyone should always tell the truth. I believe that there are instances where a lie might be the best thing to do for the greater good. For example when people lied about hiding Jews from the Nazis. The truth would have led to them all being killed. Another example would be if a spy is caught. They could tell the truth and save themselves, but how many other people may die from him telling national secrets or the names of other spies?

Which piece of literature? Talks about our responsibilities to the environment. The land is another community member. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Aldo Leopold, "Land Ethics"

Which writer wrote about: When god-like Odysseus returned from the wars in Troy, he hanged all on one rope a dozen slave-girls of his household whom he suspected of misbehavior during his absence. This hanging involved no question of propriety. This extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolution. Its sequences may be described in ecological as well as in philosophical terms. An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an example. Later accretions dealt with the relation between the individual and society. The Golden Rule tries to integrate the individual to society; democracy to integrate social organization to the individual. There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus' slave-girls, is still property. The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations. The extension of ethics to this third element in human environment is, if I read the evidence correctly, an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. It is the third step in a sequence. The first two have already been taken. Individual thinkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have asserted that the despoliation of land is not only inexpedient but wrong. Society, however, has not yet affirmed their belief. I regard the present conservation movement as the embryo of such an affirmation. Animal instincts are modes of guidance for the individual in meeting such situations. Ethics are possibly a kind of community instinct in-the-making. THE COMMUNITY CONCEPT All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for). In human history, we have learned (I hope) that the conqueror role is eventually self-defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always turns out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat themselves. That man is, in fact, only a member of a biotic team is shown by an ecological interpretation of history. Consider, for example, the settlement of the Mississippi valley. In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Consider, for example, the settlement of the Mississippi valley. In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Consider, for example, the settlement of the Mississippi valley. In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Land, then, is not merely soil; it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals. Food chains are the living channels which conduct energy upward; death and decay return it to the soil. The "key-log" which must be moved to release the evolutionary process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. You can catch a hint of this too in a report from Onandaga chief and "Faithkeeper" Oren Lyons. The bulk of all land relations hinges on investments of time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Aldo Leopold, From "The Land Ethic"

Which writer wrote about: Among our birthrights as humans is the experience of the . . . pleasant feelings of positivity. It comes in many forms and flavors. Think of the times you feel connected to others and loved; when you feel playful, creative, or silly; when you feel blessed and at one with your surroundings; when your soul is stirred by the sheer beauty of existence; or when you feel energized and excited by a new idea or hobby. Positivity reigns whenever positive emotions— like love, joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, and inspiration—touch and open your heart. Whether it's fascination, laughter, or love, your moments of heart-felt positivity don't last long. Good feelings come and go, much like perfect weather. It's the way we humans were designed. Positivity fades. If it didn't, you'd have a hard time reacting to change. If positivity were permanent, you wouldn't notice the difference between good news and bad news, or between an invitation and an insult If you want to reshape your life for the better, the secret is not to grasp positivity too firmly, denying its transient nature. Rather, it's to seed more of it into your life—to increase your quantity of positivity over time. . . . Downward spiral or upward spiral. As I see it, that's your choice. However much we resist acknowledging it, we humans are not static. We're either on a positive trajectory or a negative one. Scientists say that emotions trigger specific action tendencies. Fear is linked with the urge to flee, anger with the urge to attack, disgust with the urge to expel, and so on The urge to flee that comes with fear doesn't simply roll around in your head. It infuses your whole body, your entire being. The concept of specific action tendencies made two important scientific contributions. First, to the extent that these urges helped our ancestors act quickly and decisively in life-threatening circumstances, it explained how the forces of natural selection shaped and preserved emotions as part of our universal human nature. Second, it explained why emotions could infuse both mind and body by orchestrating a cascade of physiological changes. One scientist linked joy with the urge to do anything. Others linked serenity with the urge to do nothing. These urges aren't nearly as specific as fight, flee, or spit. What's more, the physiological changes that come with positive emotions seem like nothing compared with those linked with negative emotions. Positive emotions simply didn't fit the theoretical mold that worked so well to explain the value of negative emotions. Given these observations, the question What good are positive emotions? provoked considerable scientific curiosity. I created the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions to answer the riddle of positive emotions. . . . I proposed that, unlike negative emotions, which narrow people's ideas about possible actions, positive emotions do the opposite: They broaden people's ideas about possible actions, opening our awareness to a wider range of thoughts and actions than is typical. Positivity opens us. The first core truth about positive emotions is that they open our hearts and our minds, making us more receptive and more creative. Let me tell you about patas monkeys. Like humans and many other mammals, when these monkeys are young, they play chase. Yet their game of chase has a twist. They run headlong into a flexible sapling or bush to catapult themselves in an unexpected direction. If you close your eyes and picture this stunt, you'll see that it would defy getting "caught." It turns out that adults of this species never pull this stunt themselves. Never, that is, unless they need to escape a predator. In play, patas monkeys develop a particular physical skill that might one day save their lives. Likewise, we've all heard the phrase "the family that plays together, stays together." Positivity transformed early humans for the better, leaving them with extra measures of physical, social, intellectual, and psychological resources. The sparkle of good feelings enticed early humans to broaden and build when they felt safe and satisfied. Those who gave in to this pull became better prepared to survive future threats to life and limb. Those who didn't fared less well. Over millennia, natural selection sculpted our ancestors' capacity to experience heartfelt positivity, creating the form and function of the positive emotions that we modern-day humans experience. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Barbara Frederickson, From Positivity

Which writer wrote about: [First,] plagiarism involves the intent to deceive. . . . Deception may be justified under certain circumstances—for instance, where some great good is to be achieved or people's fundamental rights are to be upheld. Putting the point in Kantian terms, the wrong of deception involves treating another as a mere means. The plagiarizing student regards the professor as a mere means to a grade by acting in a way to which the professor could not in principle consent. Professors give time and energy to educating students on the presumption that students are open to being educated. When a student commits any form of academic dishonesty, he or she is shutting-down the possibility of being educated; [Seventh,] unpunished academic dishonesty diminishes the value of a university degree. Employers expect students who graduate from a university to have certain demonstrable skills acquired in their education. This engagement is not possible when a student plagiarizes, and . . . one of the fundamental and distinguishing features of higher education is the interpersonal engagement it affords, then plagiarism thwarts or defeats that purpose. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Brook J. Sadler, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?"

ESSAY #2. Present two objections to utilitarianism by referring to specific cases. And how could utilitarians respond back? Construct and assess utilitarian responses to those two objections. Be sure to offer reason and examples to support your assessment.

DD - Look at notes

Which writer wrote about: I would like to offer several suggestions that, in my opinion, are undeniable theories that self-recommend and self-justify: 1. A life with unnecessary suffering is absurd, useless, and reprehensible. 2. Sacrifices, on an individual's part, are only justified when there is an increased chance for happiness. 3. Only the attainment of happiness for all might justify limiting and restricting access to individual pleasures. As a corollary: 4. Happiness (with its meaning duly explained) constitutes the meaning of life, and its advancement should guide all individual and collective actions. [. . .] I will focus on what I consider to be the corollary of my theories: happiness constitutes the meaning of life. We are born and our lives acquire meaning when our abilities are developed, our feelings of frustration are transformed into satisfactions brought about by the achieved goals; the pain of solitude and marginality are substituted by the joy of meeting others, by being in the company of others, by our friendships with and affections for others, by cooperation and shared work. . . Do not undervalue your life in search of things; do not give yourself up to anyone in exchange for things. Only your profound and everlasting happiness has value. Hedonism . . . is a fight against authorities and not a lounge or armchair philosophy. Hobbes, a sort of hedonist himself, used to say that egoism smelled of hypocrisy. Once, when he was asked why he had come to rescue of someone in need, Hobbes replied that seeing them suffer caused him sorrow, while easing their suffering meant alleviating his own pain. HAPPINESS IS LIKE A BIRD Beauty is part of happiness. Beauty does not exist by itself. We call things beautiful because we like them, they give us pleasure, they alleviate our pain, and they cause ecstasy. Beauty has so many doors that it doesn't just live in Wagner or Beethoven, in Picasso or Velazquez, but also in a wisp of herb, a simple tablecloth, a meal shared with others. Beauty drinks from joy, and joy—from beauty. Mill reminds us that the role of the economy is not to increase productivity and profitability, but to satisfy the inner self of human beings. He dedicated himself fully to the betterment of humanity, without the need to abandon private pleasures of life in Harriet's company. It will not hurt to point out several differences between the two. Kant divides human nature into passion and reason, flash and spirit. His zeal for rational ethics makes him belittle human needs and desires. He belittles human beings, putting them in service of a strange and suspicious form of irrationality, called "pure" reason. We need people who will not just defend Mill's words, but will dedicate their lives [to] spreading the energy that inspired them, balancing the demands of freedom with those of solidarity and safeguarding harmony between them. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Esperanza Guisán, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity"

1. Which piece of literature? Discusses the importance of categorical imperative and the duty we have to not lie as it would degrade society. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Immanuel Kant, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals"

5. How could it be argued that pleasure or happiness is our ultimate goal?

It can be argued that pleasure or happiness is our ultimate goal with three steps. *First*, that happiness is the ultimate aim of human action. Everyone wants to be happy. *Second*, it is natural. If something is a good thing, then usually it is better. *Third*, it is that we strive to make other people happy not just for them but to also make us feel happy.

Which piece of literature? Addresses the ideas of pleasure quantity vs quality. It also talks about individual's feelings and how that affects their view of happiness. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

John Stuart Mill, "Utilitarianism"

Which writer wrote about: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. The ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. To those who have neither public nor private affections, the excitements of life are much curtailed, and in any case dwindle in value as the time approaches when all selfish interests must be terminated by death: while those who leave after them objects of personal affection, and especially those who have also cultivated a fellow-feeling with the collective interests of mankind, retain as lively an interest in life on the eve of death as in the vigour of youth and health. Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental cultivation. This it is which makes any mind, of well-developed feelings, work with, and not against, the outward motives to care for others, afforded by what I have called the external sanctions; and when those sanctions are wanting, or act in an opposite direction, constitutes in itself a powerful internal binding force, in proportion to the sensitiveness and thoughtfulness of the character; since few but those whose mind is a moral blank, could bear to lay out their course of life on the plan of paying no regard to others except so far as their own private interest compels. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Which writer wrote about: This engagement is not possible when a student plagiarizes, and . . . one of the fundamental and distinguishing features of higher education is the interpersonal engagement it affords, then plagiarism thwarts or defeats that purpose. Viewing the conflict as a black or white contest to see which "side" will "win," the only alternative they can envision is the creation of some shade of gray in which their values and concerns are diluted and diminished. For some, the idea of any conversation with "Them" is dismissed as an act of betrayal. The practice of dialogue lies at the heart of the common ground approach. Dialogue is different from debate. Debate is about persuading others that your views are "right" and that the views of others are "wrong." Debate tends to create winners and losers and often leads to pain and divisiveness when the subject is sensitive and people's views are as heart-felt as they tend to be on the issue of abortion. The idea of common ground can be illustrated by two interlocking circles. Each circle represents a point of view about abortion (one circle, pro-life; the other, pro-choice). A common ground process recognizes the integrity of each circle as a complete set of concerns, beliefs, and values around this issue. A common ground process primarily focuses attention on and explores the area of intersection. Through the search for concerns, beliefs, and values that are shared, a platform of understanding is built. Searching for common ground is not about compromising to reach a middle position but about focusing on areas of genuinely shared values and concerns. When people identify themselves as "pro-choice" or "pro-life," they are only placing themselves somewhere on the continuum other than the exact center. Dialogue encourages connective thinking that focuses attention on the strengths of the speaker and encourages a search for the gems of wisdom, or pieces of truth, in what is said. A common ground dialogue usually begins with the sharing of personal experiences. Life has been experienced by each person in a unique way. Personal experiences cannot be argued about nor agreed or disagreed with. They are. Sharing life stories invites understanding responses from those who hear them. They are a constructive place to begin. Genuine questions are questions asked in a spirit of real curiosity and a sincere interest in hearing the answers. Rhetorical or leading questions are not genuine questions. People have become involved in common ground activities for a variety of reasons. Prominent among those reasons are desires to promote a civil democratic society, effective problem-solving on important social issues, and peace. More specific motives frequently offered include: • A belief that the level of confrontation over abortion is "out of hand" and destructive. • A perception that the conflict is getting in the way of needed social change and is not helping the powerless and disadvantaged. • The sense that the tone of the conflict is uncomfortably "out of sync" with personal systems of beliefs. • A painful experience of division—division between people of faith, between women, between family members, between community members—and a belief in reconciliation, reconnection, and the need for people to learn to live in community despite serious differences. WHAT FRAME OF MIND DOES IT TAKE TO "SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND"? Not everyone is willing or able to join in the search for common ground at the moment they are invited to do so. Ideally, a person participating in common ground brings: • A willingness to respect a human being who disagrees with you on the abortion issue and pledges to respect you in turn. • An ability to listen to statements and views with which you strongly disagree without trying to convert those on the "other side" to your way of thinking and without feeling compromised by the act of listening. • A belief in the importance of finding out what each person knows and understands about an issue. • A desire to meet the human beings behind the stereotypes and media images. • An openness to the unexpected, to the potential of "connecting" with an "adversary." • A belief that conflict can be a positive opportunity for growth and understanding. • An ability to handle skepticism and criticism from people on one's "own side" who view common ground as compromise and a dangerous way of conferring legitimacy on the "enemy." WHAT SORT OF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN COMMON GROUND? • Women and men, of different ages and different backgrounds, in widely separate parts of the country. • Catholic and Protestant Christians, Jews, people of all faiths and those who have no religious orientation. • Committed and active advocates on the abortion issue. • People who have a position on abortion but are not activists, and people who feel "in the middle" on this issue. Around the country, pro-life and pro-choice people in local communities are coming together in a number of different ways—in small informal groups, in workshops, in structured dialogues with facilitators, in retreats, in joint endeavors to solve real problems. To date, efforts to find common ground on abortion have been happening primarily at the grassroots level where people are trying to create community at a face-to-face level. This is a "bottom-up" change in the dynamics of the conflict. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann, "Common Ground Rules

Which piece of literature? Discusses the difference between logical ethics and care ethics. Elaborates on the concepts of care and how it shapes ethics. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Nel Noddings, "Caring"

Which writer wrote about: Ethics, the philosophical study of morality, has concentrated for the most part on moral reasoning. Much current work, for example, focuses on the status of moral predicates and, in education, the dominant model presents a hierarchical picture of moral reasoning. This emphasis gives ethics a contemporary, mathematical appearance, but it also moves discussion beyond the sphere of actual human activity and the feeling that pervades such activity. Even though careful philosophers have recognized the difference between "pure" or logical reason and "practical" or moral reason, ethical argumentation has frequently proceeded as if it were governed by the logical necessity characteristic of geometry. It has concentrated on the establishment of principles and that which can be logically derived from them. One might say that ethics has been discussed largely in the language of the father: in principles and propositions, in terms such as justification, fairness, justice. The mother's voice has been silent. Human caring and the memory of caring and being cared for, which I shall argue form the foundation of ethical response, have not received attention except as outcomes of ethical behavior. Women . . . enter the practical domain of moral action through a different door, so to speak. It is not the case, certainly, that women cannot arrange principles hierarchically and derive conclusions logically. It is more likely that we see this process as peripheral to, or even alien to, many problems of moral action. Faced with a hypothetical moral dilemma, women often ask for more information. We want to know more, I think, in order to form a picture more nearly resembling real moral situations. Taking relation as ontologically basic simply means that we recognize human encounter and affective response as a basic fact of human existence. As we examine what it means to care and to be cared for, we shall see that both parties contribute to the relation; my caring must be somehow completed in the other if the relation is to be described as caring. Ethical caring, the relation in which we do meet the other morally, will be described as arising out of natural caring—that relation in which we respond as one-caring out of love or natural inclination. The relation of natural caring will be identified as the human condition that we, consciously or unconsciously, perceive as "good." It is that condition toward which we long and strive, and it is our longing for caring—to be in that special relation—that provides the motivation for us to be moral. We want to be moral in order to remain in the caring relation and to enhance the ideal of ourselves as one-caring. I shall claim that we are dependent on each other even in the quest for personal goodness. How good I can be is partly a function of how you—the other—receive and respond to me. Whatever virtue I exercise is completed, fulfilled, in you. The primary aim of all education must be nurturance of the ethical ideal. I shall strike many contrasts between masculine and feminine approaches to ethics and education and, indeed, to living. An important difference between an ethic of caring and other ethics that give subjectivity its proper place is its foundation in relation. When I look at my child—even one of my grown children—and recognize the fundamental relation in which we are each defined, I often experience a deep and overwhelming joy. It is the recognition of and longing for relatedness that form the foundation of our ethic, and the joy that accompanies fulfillment of our caring enhances our commitment to the ethical ideal that sustains us as one-caring. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Nel Noddings, From Caring

Which writer wrote about: If cruelty is one of the main evils of human history, why is the opposite of cruelty not one of the key goods of human history? Freedom from the cruel relationship, either by escaping it or by re- dressing the imbalance of power, was not essential to what western philosophers and theologians have thought of as goodness. Escape is a negative affair. Goodness has something positive in it, some- thing triumphantly affirmative. Hoping for a hint of goodness in the very center of evil, I started looking closely at the so-called "medical experiments" of the Nazis upon children, usually Jewish and Gypsy children, in the death camps. Here were the weakest of the weak. But for me as an ethicist the heart of the matter was not only their special power. What interested me was that they obeyed both the negative and the positive injunctions of ethics; they were good not only in the sense of trying to be their brothers' keepers, protecting the victim, "defending the fatherless," to use the language of Isaiah; they were also good in the sense that they obeyed the negative injunctions against killing and betraying. Once long after the war, while he was lectur- ing on the main project of his life, the promotion of the idea of nonviolence in international relations, one of the members of his audience started to whisper a few words to his neighbor. Trocmé let this go on for a few moments, then interrupted his speech, walked up to the astonished whisperer, raised his massive arm, pointed toward the door, and yelled, "Out! Out! Get out!" And the lecture was on nonviolence. The center of his thought was the belief that God showed how important man was by becoming Himself a human being, and by becoming a particular sort of human being who was the embodiment of sacrificially generous love. For Trocmé, every human being was like Jesus, had God in him or her, and was just as precious as God Himself. And when Trocmé with the help of the Quakers and others organized his village into the most efficient rescue machine in Europe, he did so not only to save the Jews, but also to save the Nazis and their collaborators. He wanted to keep them from blackening their souls with more evil—he wanted to save them, the victimizers, from evil. One of the reasons he was successful was that the Huguenots had been themselves persecuted for hundreds of years by the kings of France, and they knew what persecution was. I told them that I thought they were "good people." They saw no alternative to their actions and to the way they acted, and therefore they saw what they did as necessary, not something to be picked out for praise. Helping these guests was for them as natural as breathing or eating—one does not think of alternatives to these functions; they did not think of alternatives to sheltering people who were endangering not only the lives of their hosts but the lives of all the people of the village *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Philip Hallie, "Le Chambon"

13. What does Spoma Jovanovic mean when she writes that "Speech is a move to extend ourselves to another human being"?

She means that people typically think of speech as something that is used to translate our thoughts into words. It is more than this, speech directed at another person is inherently value-laden. Speech directed to another person is a form of acknowledging that we live among others deserving of our attention and care and vice versa. It is a way for us to share our values, feelings, thoughts, and passions.

Which writer wrote about: Speech is a move to extend ourselves to another human being, and in doing so our talk becomes a way to put a voice to ethics. Put another way, we often think of speech as just an individual behavior that translates our thoughts into words. But upon closer reflection, it becomes clear that because our speech is directed at another person, it is inherently value-laden. In fact, even to speak to another person at all is an important form of acknowledgment that we live among others who are deserving of our attention and care—as we are of theirs. Acknowledgment is powerful. When it is offered in positive ways, a more caring relationship between people develops. When it is offered with negative intent in some forms as sarcasm, insults, or disrespect, it has the effect of making people feel bad, unloved, and unworthy. Speech is ethical when it appreciates the value of another, is spoken in a way to create new meaning, and is genuine in its expression. This special form of speech is what philosophers and communication experts refer to as dialogue. Have you ever been in a classroom, for instance, when someone started talking about a difficult subject from a very personal perspective in an attempt to educate and inform others? When this happens, dialogue can follow. Euthanasia, for instance, is a topic on which many people have a predetermined position either for or against. In a classroom discussion years ago, a student revealed that her family chose "passive euthanasia" for a loved one by not administering any more life-saving drugs. Classroom discussion in no way guarantees dialogue, however. Have you ever been in a situation when someone started talking about abortion, for instance, and soon the talking turned into heated conversation and then forceful argument? What typically follows when the topic of abortion becomes a depersonalized yet heated monologue is that many of the other students simply tune out what the speaker is saying. This kind of polarized communication is best recognized as the "I am right, you are wrong" form of talk The corrective to polarized communication is to encourage dialogue, often with the first move involving a question or a proposition that is open-ended. For example, someone who wanted to honestly confront the complexities of abortion might offer this opening to the conversation. "I have never known anyone who had an abortion and I know that those on both sides of the issue hold strong views. I, myself, am against it because I love children. One of the most widely witnessed case of euthanasia involved the 41-year-old Terri Schiavo of St. Petersburg, Florida. When Amish children in a one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania were taken hostage and killed by a gunman, Charles Roberts, who then committed suicide, grief-stricken Amish families also reached out to console Roberts's wife and children. In Greensboro, North Carolina, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in 2004 to examine the context, causes, sequence, and consequence of the events of November 3, 1979, when five anti-Klan demonstrators were killed and ten wounded by Ku Klux Klan and Nazi party members. A third, civil trial eventually found members of the Greensboro Police Department jointly liable with Klan and Nazi members for the wrongful death of one of the victims. Hope for a better future resides in episodes of talk and displays of action infused with an ethical sensibility to care for and understand others. This work, of taking the time to sit with another, engaging in conversation, being mindful of our speech, and sometimes even working through difficult dialogues, is not always pleasant. It is work, however, that is important and necessary to reach understanding, appreciation, and respect in a world we occupy with diverse others. *Philip Hallie*, "Le Chambon" *Immanuel Kant*, Grounding Metaphysics of Morals *Barbara Frederickson*, From Positivity *John Stuart Mill*, Utilitarianism *Esperanza Guisán*, "An Ethic of Liberty and Solidarity" *Nel Noddings*, From Caring *Aldo Leopold*, From "The Land Ethic" *Brook J. Sadler*, "What's Wrong with Plagiarism?" *Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann*, "Common Ground Rules" *Spoma Jovanovic*, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

Spoma Jovanovic, "Deepening Ethical Dialogue"

12. What is the Common Ground approach to dialogue? Why is the Common Ground approach not the same as compromise?

The Common Ground approach is the search for what is genuinely shared. It recognizes the complete set of concerns, beliefs, and values on a given issue. The Common Ground approach is not about reaching a compromise. It is about focusing on areas of genuinely shared values and concerns. It is not about finding a middle position; it's about focusing on areas of genuinely shared values and concerns. They look to understand each other, they don't look to change their views and seek a pretend agreement when it doesn't exist.

3. Contrast Kohlberg and Gilligan's views of moral development by referring to a case. Do you agree with Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's account of moral development? Why or why not? Be sure to provide example(s).

The main difference between Kohlberg's and Gilligan's views of moral development is that males and females define morality in different ways. Kohlberg mostly used boys in his study and found that they focused mainly on justice. When he tested girls using the boy's standards, they scored lower in moral development. In her book, "In A Different Voice," Gilligan argued that girls have different ways of thinking about morality than boys do. Gilligan found that girls focus on caring and relationship needs. Girls developed in a way that focused on connections among people and with an ethic of care for those people rather than an ethic of justice. She said that girls should not be tested using the boy's standards. She found that boys in moral decisions emphasize mutual respect whereas girls tend to emphasize mutual care. She suggested that Kohlberg's theories were biased against women. A case study that shows this is the "Heinz dilemma." In this dilemma, a man named Heinz has to choose whether or not to steal a drug that he can't afford to save his wife's life. In Kohlberg's studies, boys believed that Heinz should take the drug because the right to life is more important than the right to property. Gilligan states that girls do not feel that Heinz should take the medicine because he would go to jail for stealing. This would leave his wife alone when she needs him the most. For girls its more about their relationship and an ethics of care versus justice. I do agree with Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's account of moral development for the time period in which she developed her theory, the 1980's. However, not all girls and boys will always follow these stereotypes today. Two examples that show this include the ways in which our society has changed and the fact that other cultures may be different from ours. In today's society, the way that we are raised is very different. We now have many blended families which may affect our moral development. For example, a boy raised by two mothers and no father influence may follow a female moral development. The opposite may be true for a girl raised by two fathers. Matriarchal cultures are another example where moral development may not always follow Gilligan's theory.

6. Who were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill?

They were the founders of utilitarianism and advanced it to where it is now. Both - Maximized utility and believed that pleasures were qualitatively different. Bentham: 1. He popularized the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number." He called it the principle of utility. 2. He wanted us to avoid pain and be happy. 3. He tried to eliminate laws that did not maximize pleasure. 4. To him, good equaled pleasure. 5. He believed that pleasures differed in duration, purity, intensity, and fecundity. Mill: 1. He said that the actions that promote happiness are the right ones and the ones that do not are the wrong ones. 2. Mill said that not all pleasures are equal. 3. He believed that quality was more important than quantity when it came to pleasure 4. He refocused on long term consequences. 5. He shifted away on our own happiness. 6. Mills believed that pleasure and no pain were the only good things in the world.