Post by Dja Majista on Jun 4, 2008 12:48:15 GMT -5
For those who don't know, Situational Ethics refer to the analysis of hypothetical, yet realistic situations in which the line between right and wrong becomes blurred and grayed. They are meant to challenge our beliefs, and call into question what we do and do not know. Questions such as "Does the 'right thing' exist?" "What are human rights? Are they real?" and "Do the ends justify the means?" are some common reoccurring ones. In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to tap into one's philosophical side, the rational capacity. So I'm trying to make this open to everyone.
Now, constructing a situation is challenging mostly because it needs to be fairly realistic, or else it's open to criticism. So while sometimes we might talk about zombies to illustrate a philosophical view every now and then, zombies have no place in situational ethics, because we don't see those very often.
As for inquiry, I'm going to actually suggest we keep the person-to-person debating to a minimum. Why? Mostly because, I think it's much more effective to have an intellectual conversation with oneself, rather than with another person, simply because your mind is so much more malleable that way.
As for you experts and to all those who think I'm just spewing out false wisdom and sophistry nonsense, just tune me out. For us who ain't too experienced with this whole philosophizing schtick, I'm going to try to give some fairly universal tips:
First of all, never think there is not an answer. There may not be a conclusive answer to the question at hand. But there is always something to be learned, a response to be given.
Second, have confidence in your ability to formulate the best possible response based on what you know (which often means saying we can't know for certain, and you might shift to questioning what seems probable or more likely). Intelligence is not a measure of philosophical proficiency. A rational capacity, which everyone has, is all you need to be philosophically proficient. In other words don't give up.
Thirdly, don't plan on discussing with anyone your response. Plan on keeping it bottled up inside. Sound arbitrary? This is actually a very useful step to take when philosophizing, because this way, your response is developed with raw reason. And the rhetoric and politics of communication will come in later if they come at all. That and breaking free of your opinions is often best and safest done just between you and yourself.
Fourthly... okay enough with the negatives (Don't do this. Don't do that.). In order to philosophize, start with a question, and keep questioning. Think about what you want to know and just start questioning. That simple. You may not find out what you want to know, but chances are you'll figure out something important. And another thing. No, it doesn't have to start with why; it can be a what or when question too, and on rare occasions we do use which and who. Thanks for asking by the way.
Happy philosophizing. ;D
And I almost forgot. Since I suck at making these, I'm going to use someone else's. And that someone else happens to be the founder of this system. Joseph Fletcher. This is one of his four famous situations:
I was reading Gardner’s ‘Biblical Faith and Social Ethics’ on a shuttle plane to New York. Next to me sat a young woman of about twenty-eight or so, attractive and well turned out in expensive clothes of good taste. She showed some interest in my book, and I asked if she’d like to look at it. “No,” she said, “I’d rather talk.” What about? “Me.” That was a surprise, and I knew it meant good-bye to the reading I needed to get done. “I have a problem I can’t get unconfused about. You might help me to decide,” she explained…There was a war going on that her government believed could be stopped by some clever use of espionage and blackmail. However, this meant she had to seduce and sleep with an enemy spy in order to lure him into blackmail. Now this went against her morals, but if it brought the war to an end, saving thousands of lives, would it be worth breaking those moral standards?
Thus speaketh wikipedia. I didn't even know who Fletcher was until now.
Now, constructing a situation is challenging mostly because it needs to be fairly realistic, or else it's open to criticism. So while sometimes we might talk about zombies to illustrate a philosophical view every now and then, zombies have no place in situational ethics, because we don't see those very often.
As for inquiry, I'm going to actually suggest we keep the person-to-person debating to a minimum. Why? Mostly because, I think it's much more effective to have an intellectual conversation with oneself, rather than with another person, simply because your mind is so much more malleable that way.
As for you experts and to all those who think I'm just spewing out false wisdom and sophistry nonsense, just tune me out. For us who ain't too experienced with this whole philosophizing schtick, I'm going to try to give some fairly universal tips:
First of all, never think there is not an answer. There may not be a conclusive answer to the question at hand. But there is always something to be learned, a response to be given.
Second, have confidence in your ability to formulate the best possible response based on what you know (which often means saying we can't know for certain, and you might shift to questioning what seems probable or more likely). Intelligence is not a measure of philosophical proficiency. A rational capacity, which everyone has, is all you need to be philosophically proficient. In other words don't give up.
Thirdly, don't plan on discussing with anyone your response. Plan on keeping it bottled up inside. Sound arbitrary? This is actually a very useful step to take when philosophizing, because this way, your response is developed with raw reason. And the rhetoric and politics of communication will come in later if they come at all. That and breaking free of your opinions is often best and safest done just between you and yourself.
Fourthly... okay enough with the negatives (Don't do this. Don't do that.). In order to philosophize, start with a question, and keep questioning. Think about what you want to know and just start questioning. That simple. You may not find out what you want to know, but chances are you'll figure out something important. And another thing. No, it doesn't have to start with why; it can be a what or when question too, and on rare occasions we do use which and who. Thanks for asking by the way.
Happy philosophizing. ;D
And I almost forgot. Since I suck at making these, I'm going to use someone else's. And that someone else happens to be the founder of this system. Joseph Fletcher. This is one of his four famous situations:
I was reading Gardner’s ‘Biblical Faith and Social Ethics’ on a shuttle plane to New York. Next to me sat a young woman of about twenty-eight or so, attractive and well turned out in expensive clothes of good taste. She showed some interest in my book, and I asked if she’d like to look at it. “No,” she said, “I’d rather talk.” What about? “Me.” That was a surprise, and I knew it meant good-bye to the reading I needed to get done. “I have a problem I can’t get unconfused about. You might help me to decide,” she explained…There was a war going on that her government believed could be stopped by some clever use of espionage and blackmail. However, this meant she had to seduce and sleep with an enemy spy in order to lure him into blackmail. Now this went against her morals, but if it brought the war to an end, saving thousands of lives, would it be worth breaking those moral standards?
Thus speaketh wikipedia. I didn't even know who Fletcher was until now.
