READING #1: “What This Book is About” Chapter One from The Ethics of Teaching

CASE # 1: Plagiarism Cynthia > English instructor Henry > College basketball player in Cynthia’s Introd. Lit. and Composition course Ethical Issues: (a)Honesty >student >teacher (b) Obligations to institution >student >teacher

(c.) concern for student well-being (d.) recognition of students as persons (outside lives, influence on future, etc.) Consequentialist ethical thinking focuses more on the consequences of one's action's than on one's obligations. Such ethical theories “hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of” (p.11) its negative and positive results for all those affected. Non-Consequentialist ethical thinking is when “duty, obligation, and principle” (p. 3) are considered more important than any consequences of one's action.

Two major themes developed in this text: 1. To see how major ethical theories can shed some light on deciding what is right or wrong – the nature of ethical thinking. 2. Considering whether ethical behavior can be settled 'objectively'. “We believe that a kind of rational ethical thinking that goes beyond personal beliefs and values is essential both to professional ethics and to the moral education of all members of society. Ethics is a public as well as a personal matter. If … correct, … teachers have a special obligation to help their students see and share the potential objectivity and rationality of ethical thinking so that we can all lead morally responsible lives together.” (p. 5)

The Nature of Ethical Inquiry Consider the ethical statement/claim: “The educator … shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter relevant to the student's progress” What makes this an ethical claim, and what makes it true? Ethical claims distinguished: “Ethics concerns what kinds of actions are right or wrong, what kind of life is a good life, or what kind of person is a good person.” (p. 5) Factual claims 'describe' something about the world. They are true when their description matches the way the world actually is.

While ethical claims do not describe how the world actually is, they rather tell us how the world should be - inherently prescriptive Not all value judgments are ethical: Appraisal: ex. “He is a 'good' skier” vs. “...a good person”. Preference/taste: ex. We would prefer not to pay our taxes, while we feel morally compelled to do so. Many believe all value judgments to be “subjective” - matters of free choice. When ethical judgments are confused with, for example, preferences, there is a danger that they may be thought to be about arbitrary choice – no right or wrong about them. (p. 7)

David Hume's “Is to ought fallacy” - Valid arguments have the property of telling us what follows from our premises. In fact, “all the terms that occur in the conclusion … are contained in the premises of that argument.” (p. 7-8) Further,,“it is impossible for any argument containing only factual premises to lead validly to a conclusion about what we ought to do. For any such argument has a new idea in the conclusion that was not in the premises – the idea of obligation. 'Ought' conclusions... cannot follow from 'is' premises … [Thus] ethical knowledge cannot be entirely based on factual knowledge.” (p. 8) - Some philosophers believe that we start with some initial ethical premises/assumptions and use facts to reason to ethical conclusions.

Ethical Skepticism Following from Hume's fallacy, if our ethical conclusions are no better than our initial assumptions, then our conclusions seem as arbitrary as our assumptions. This problematic leads to the position of ethical skepticism: “We cannot really know anything in ethics. We can only deliberate with others about what is right or wrong if we already agree with them about our basic assumptions.” (p. 8-9) Skepticism: - the doctrine that nothing can be certainly known – the refusal to grant that there is any knowledge or justification. (can be: partial or total, practical or theoretical, moderate or radical, of knowledge or of justification) Relativism: - Any theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that all judgments or criteria of value are relative, varying with individuals, circumstances, cultures, etc. -- no universally valid moral principles.

Objectivism: - certain truths and principles can be certainly known; such principles stand or hold true for all people, cultures, times, etc. - although cultures may differ in their moral principles, some moral principles have universal validity.

Consequentialist theories – recall: they hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of its consequences Principle of Benefit Maximization – When “faced with a choice, the best and most just decision is the one that results in the most good or the greatest benefit for the most people. Thus the principle … judges the morality of our actions by their consequences … the best action is the one with the best overall results” (p. 11) - 'the good' implies those “things that are intrinsically valuable … intrinsic goods … valued for their own sake” (p ) - Utilitarianism, a social policy and form of consequentialism, is based upon a hedonism principle (maximizing pleasure).

- within utilitarianism, a person's utility can be theoretically quantified: * utility = total pleasure – total pain * average utility = society's member's collective utilities divided by population size *average utility is a measure of general social welfare - According to the theory of utilitarianism, decisions on social policy are made by examining the effects on average utility. (Highest average utility = just social policy) - However, it is necessary that all consequences for everyone's well-being be considered. Problems with Conseq.'m: 1. Required info may be difficult or impossible to get 2. Results may seem morally unacceptable

Non-Consequentialist theories 1. Principle of Universalization Kant's “Categorical Imperative”: “So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law.” (p. 15 – orig. from Critique of Practical Reason) “If you are about to apply some moral principle to someone else, are you willing that it be applied to you in the same way … willing that the principle that guides your behavior be treated as a universal rule of human conduct[?]” (p. 15)

2. Principle of Equal Respect for Persons (PERP) (a.) treat people as ends rather than means (b.) regard all persons as free, rational, and responsible moral agents (c.) regardless of differences between persons, all are of equal moral value or intrinsic worth Problems with Non-Conseq.'m: 1. If such a theorist is “unwilling altogether to consider the consequences of actions as relevant to [his/her] moral appraisal, it becomes hard to see how [he/she] could ever decide whether or not some moral principles could be universally willed.” (p. 17) For ex., lying cannot be accepted as a universal rule precisely because it has undesirable consequences. “If, however, [Non- Consequentialists] are willing to talk about consequences, they will have to explain how they are different from any other consequentialist theory.” (p. 17)

Problems with Non-Conseq.'m: 2. How generally or specifically should the moral principle underlying some action be expressed? ■ very generally ► behavior unresponsive to real differences in the circumstances ■ very specifically ► choices become vague, contradicting the purpose of universalization principle - undermines rationality of judgments (p. 17)