Knowledge I gained from the readings:
---------------------------------------------------
Whistle-Blowing is reporting a wrong doing or corruption to general public. When a person makes a public disclosure of a wrong doing, then that is considered whistle blowing. In this ethics class we discussed a scenario of a team of programmers who developed a software product which was not yet fully tested and there were known bugs. The product was developed for a local transportation agency and lot of general public uses public transportation. The case studio also described that the management of both parties decided to deploy the product with the bug which might put public at harm’s way. In this case after bringing the issue to upper management first and not getting any satisfactory resolution to the issue, if the programmers go to general public and disclose the issue out in the open then that would be considered whistle blowing. Whistle-blowing usually happens when a harmful product coming into the market due to the negligence of the involved parties. We also saw a video about an FBI agent, Colleen Rowley, who came forward after critical information linked to the September 11 attacks, was ignored. Even though Whistle-blowing in encouraged and can save us from unnecessary harms, most of the times employees are not willing to come forward and bring the issue out in the open in fear of lose their jobs or facing other issues.
Every individual has moral and ethical responsibilities towards the people of the society. As an employee of an organization, it is a person’s moral responsibility to be loyal to their employer as long as they don’t feel that there is any wrong doing on their employer’s part. Likewise an employer should be also loyal to its employees.
There are many school of thoughts on the topic of employer-employee relationship in terms of loyalty. Ronald Duska (1991) argues that in employment contexts, loyalty only arises in special relationships based on a notion that he calls "mutual enrichment”. Duska believes that employer-employee relationships – at least where corporations are concerned – are based on self-interest and not on mutual enrichment. He concludes that employees should not necessarily feel any sense of obligation of loyalty to corporate employers. Ladd also believes that a corporation can not be as loyal to its employees as the employees would be to its employer. I personally do not agree with Duska. I think employee and employer should have mutual respect and loyalty to each other. I however somewhat agree with Ladd because there are many examples in the job market where we see employees who worked for a company for many years with loyalty, are often losing their jobs due to downsizing and outsourcing for the greater good for the business. Loyalty is not something that an employee must give exclusively or blindly to one’s employer. A professional as an individual, must also have loyalty and an obligation to the society as a whole, especially where safety, life and health issues are at stake.
However, sometime the wrong doing or misconduct of an employer can put a loyal employee in a situation where for the greater good of the society, the employee must bring the issue to public to get the public’s attention and blow the whistle to alert the public to a potentially unsafe product.
According to Michael Martin (2003) blowing the whistle is a “tragedy to be avoided, though it may sometimes be a necessary evil”. Not blowing the whistle when it is necessary can cause a great deal of damage to the society.
Richard De George (1999) says that one is permitted and obligated to blow the whistle when the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable, engineers (or employees) have made their concerns known to their superiors and engineers (or employees) have received no satisfaction from their immediate supervisors and they have exhausted the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors. The engineers (or employees) have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his/her view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong. And there is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm. Other scholars also have similar thoughts.
Almost always, Whistle-blowers have been looked at as being disloyal to their companies, or as trouble makers when they are really only attempting to keep the general public safe. Sometimes their relationship with their employer or even with the public is tainted after the act. Because of this many are afraid to blow the whistle. From the utilitarian point of view one must do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In most cases, whistle-blowers are attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Whistle-blowers are often responsible peoples who notice wrong doing and from greater good of the community and public they attempt to do something to prevent the wrong doing and harmful acts. They often blow whistle not because they have any bad intention towards the employer they work for but out of honesty, courage and good ethical values. And taking a step alone against a greater entity is more often than not terrifying however, if someone shows the courage to stand up for the greater good of the community, often times they alone can make a huge difference in people’s lives.
Whistle-Blowers are protected by law that can protect the Whistle-blowers from employer retaliation. There is also punishment if there are false claims. Although the law protects from employer retaliation, the law cannot protect someone from future termination, suspension, demotions and even mistreatment. So, many are worried about stepping up to make a claim. There is protection, but it is not enough.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whistle blowing is an act of bravery. It is also an act of showing responsibility towards the society. Whistle blowers may not get treated by many rightfully, but they get the satisfaction of doing the right thing and saving people from pain, suffering and harm. Sometimes we may not have the courage to do the right thing because of different reasons. But doing right thing is the most important thing and people ultimately realize the services the whistle blowers provide to the society.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I also learned that whistle blowers are not as protected as they were once because of changes in laws. If this is the case and whistle blowers do not come forward because they feel that by blowing whistle they will be on their own and they are not protected they lot of businesses might not follow the law and rules of ethics and do unethical things. How do we solve this situation?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As, I think that blowing whistle is an act of bravery and is the right thing to do to benefit the society, I will blow whistle if needed even if it may not protect me. However, I will do my best to avoid the situation by bringing the issue to upper management first and trying to resolve the issue.
Reference:
---------------
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). Ethics & Technology – Chapter-4.
2. IT550 Class Note – Chapter – 4 (Blackboard). Marymount University.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Reading - What Makes Right Acts Right
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
Sir William David Ross disagrees with many other moral theorists that there is a single moral principle that can be used to derive more specific moral obligations. He supports the theory that there are moral rules that are basic in moral thought. According to Ross, we should fulfill our moral duties and use moral judgments in times when these duties conflict in specific circumstances.
When a person performs a task or fulfills a promise just because it is morally the right thing to do and because he fulfills his promise regardless of the outcome or consequences in his favor or not, then that person is doing the right thing. On the other hand, sometime it is necessary to break a promise for a greater good and use the moral judgment and when we break the promise in this kind of situation then that is the right thing to do. For example, if I promised to meet a friend for dinner and then found out that another friend is sick and does not have a way to get to a doctor, then in this case the right act for me would be to break my promise for dinner and instead take the sick friend to a doctor.
In general, by keeping promises or implicit promises, taking care of a previous wrongful act or duties of reparation, returning services or duties of gratitude, doing the right thing or duties of justice, trying to improve other’s conditions or duties of beneficence, improving our own condition or duties of self-improvement and not injuring others or causing others harm we can make an act right.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that by using common sense and better judgments we can choose to do right and avoid doing wrong. We should fulfill our moral obligations to the society and others and not cause harm to others. If we think that we previously have engaged ourselves in any wrongful act then it is our moral duty and obligation to fix the issue.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question in my mind that, doing good and avoiding bad is our moral responsibility. We should always be ready to help each other and use best judgment if we run into any conflict when we perform our duties.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will use better judgment and always do what is ethically right and perform my moral responsibilities to the society in general.
References:
-----------------------
W. D. Ross. (1930). The Right and the Good.
---------------------------------------------------
Sir William David Ross disagrees with many other moral theorists that there is a single moral principle that can be used to derive more specific moral obligations. He supports the theory that there are moral rules that are basic in moral thought. According to Ross, we should fulfill our moral duties and use moral judgments in times when these duties conflict in specific circumstances.
When a person performs a task or fulfills a promise just because it is morally the right thing to do and because he fulfills his promise regardless of the outcome or consequences in his favor or not, then that person is doing the right thing. On the other hand, sometime it is necessary to break a promise for a greater good and use the moral judgment and when we break the promise in this kind of situation then that is the right thing to do. For example, if I promised to meet a friend for dinner and then found out that another friend is sick and does not have a way to get to a doctor, then in this case the right act for me would be to break my promise for dinner and instead take the sick friend to a doctor.
In general, by keeping promises or implicit promises, taking care of a previous wrongful act or duties of reparation, returning services or duties of gratitude, doing the right thing or duties of justice, trying to improve other’s conditions or duties of beneficence, improving our own condition or duties of self-improvement and not injuring others or causing others harm we can make an act right.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that by using common sense and better judgments we can choose to do right and avoid doing wrong. We should fulfill our moral obligations to the society and others and not cause harm to others. If we think that we previously have engaged ourselves in any wrongful act then it is our moral duty and obligation to fix the issue.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question in my mind that, doing good and avoiding bad is our moral responsibility. We should always be ready to help each other and use best judgment if we run into any conflict when we perform our duties.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will use better judgment and always do what is ethically right and perform my moral responsibilities to the society in general.
References:
-----------------------
W. D. Ross. (1930). The Right and the Good.
Reading - What Makes Someone’s Life Go Right?
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
In his article “WHAT MAKES SOMEONE’S LIFE GO BEST” the author Derek Parfit describes his theories about self-interest. Parfit explains his theories by asking a very fundamental question, what is best for a person in his or her life which would make the person’s life go as well as possible. He categorizes people in three different types and put them in three different buckets of theories.
1. Hedonistic Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what would make his life happiest. These kinds of individuals believe that, pleasure and pain are two distinctive kinds of experiences. To them pleasure is to satisfy an intense thirst or lust such as listening to music, solving an intellectual problem, knowing that someone special is happy, etc. Pleasures are wanted by people but on the other hand pain is considered unwanted. More the pain less it is wanted and likewise, pleasures are more desirable or wanted when it is better or greater. Their relations to our desire are what pain and pleasure have in common. Preference – Hedonism claims that, between two experiences, the one that is preferred is more pleasant. When comparing between two experiences, a pain does not always literally mean pain, rather it means less desirable. For example, if I have a choice to go to a movie or listen to music and I prefer to go to movie, then it means that going to movie is more desirable to me and gives me more pleasure. In no way it means that listening to music would give me pain rather it means that at that moment it is less desirable to me. It is not only pleasure that we consider when deciding which is more desirable but also two states of pains can be compared to figure out what is more desirable than the other. For example, if a patient is in pain but the medication would also have a painful side affect then the patient would more often than not choose a pain that would do the most good. In this case both experiences would be considered pain but one would be less desirable than the other.
Author also describes another theory which he calls the Success theory that is much similar to Preference – Hedonism theory and appeals only to someone's desires about his own life. According to Parfit, this theory differs from Preference-Hedonism in only one way, The Success Theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives. The following example illustrates the differences between these two theories. Suppose that I strongly want not to be deceived by other people, On Preference - Hedonism it would be better for me if I believe that I am not being deceived. It would be irrelevant if my belief is false, since this makes no difference to my state of mind. On the Success theory, it would be worse for me if my belief is false. In general, in Success theory, it is bad for one if one’s desire is not fulfilled.
2. Desire – Fulfillment Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what, throughout his life, would best fulfill his desires. Desire-Fulfillment Theories is also considered as the unrestricted theory. In this theory it is said that, what is best for someone is what would best fulfill all of his desires, throughout his life. To describe this theory, the author gives an example of two strangers meeting where one person has a fatal disease. The other person’s sympathy is aroused and he strongly wants this stranger to be cured. Later on, when they have forgotten each other, the stranger is cured. According to Unrestricted Desire – Fulfillment theory, this event is good for the person who was wishing the other person to be cured, and makes that person’s life goes better. According to Parfit, this is an unrealistic theory and we should reject this theory.
3. Objective List Theories: This theory says that, certain things are good or bad for us, whether or not we want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things. The good things in this case might include moral goodness, rational activity, having children and being a good parent, knowledge and the awareness of true beauty. The bad things might include being betrayed, manipulated, slandered, deceived, being deprived of liberty or dignity, and enjoying either sadistic pleasure or aesthetic pleasure in what is in fact ugly. According to this theory, what would make my life go best depends on what I would prefer now and in the various alternatives knowing all of the relevant facts about these alternatives. An Objective List Theorist says that the most relevant facts are what would in fact be good or bad for us and anyone who knew these facts would want what is truly good for him, and want to avoid what would be bad for him.
There is one fundamental difference between Preference-Hedonism and the Success theory with the Objective List theory. The first two kinds of theories give an account of self-interest and appeals to what a person does and would prefer. In contrast, the Objective List theory appeals directly to facts about value.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that what is best for people is not just their being in the conscious states that they want to be in. Nor is it just their having knowledge, engaging in rational activity, being aware of true beauty. By choosing only one theory and living our lives by those principals is not good for us. What is good for someone is to take best from all Hedonists claim, Objective List theorists and all other theories. What also makes someone’s life go right or best is what is good for someone, to be engaged in good activities, and to strongly want to be so engaged.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the theories sounded good. However, Success theory sounded a bit unrealistic to me because it said that if someone’s belief turns out to be false whether he knows about it or not is going to be bad for him. I could not relate to this concept and found it to be challenging to understand.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will choose right from wrong more carefully and find pleasure in doing small but valuable things that will put positive impact in society. In turn I will get pleasure and this will be better for my own life.
Reference:
---------------
Derek Parfit. (1984). From Parfit, Reasons and Persons.
---------------------------------------------------
In his article “WHAT MAKES SOMEONE’S LIFE GO BEST” the author Derek Parfit describes his theories about self-interest. Parfit explains his theories by asking a very fundamental question, what is best for a person in his or her life which would make the person’s life go as well as possible. He categorizes people in three different types and put them in three different buckets of theories.
1. Hedonistic Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what would make his life happiest. These kinds of individuals believe that, pleasure and pain are two distinctive kinds of experiences. To them pleasure is to satisfy an intense thirst or lust such as listening to music, solving an intellectual problem, knowing that someone special is happy, etc. Pleasures are wanted by people but on the other hand pain is considered unwanted. More the pain less it is wanted and likewise, pleasures are more desirable or wanted when it is better or greater. Their relations to our desire are what pain and pleasure have in common. Preference – Hedonism claims that, between two experiences, the one that is preferred is more pleasant. When comparing between two experiences, a pain does not always literally mean pain, rather it means less desirable. For example, if I have a choice to go to a movie or listen to music and I prefer to go to movie, then it means that going to movie is more desirable to me and gives me more pleasure. In no way it means that listening to music would give me pain rather it means that at that moment it is less desirable to me. It is not only pleasure that we consider when deciding which is more desirable but also two states of pains can be compared to figure out what is more desirable than the other. For example, if a patient is in pain but the medication would also have a painful side affect then the patient would more often than not choose a pain that would do the most good. In this case both experiences would be considered pain but one would be less desirable than the other.
Author also describes another theory which he calls the Success theory that is much similar to Preference – Hedonism theory and appeals only to someone's desires about his own life. According to Parfit, this theory differs from Preference-Hedonism in only one way, The Success Theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives. The following example illustrates the differences between these two theories. Suppose that I strongly want not to be deceived by other people, On Preference - Hedonism it would be better for me if I believe that I am not being deceived. It would be irrelevant if my belief is false, since this makes no difference to my state of mind. On the Success theory, it would be worse for me if my belief is false. In general, in Success theory, it is bad for one if one’s desire is not fulfilled.
2. Desire – Fulfillment Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what, throughout his life, would best fulfill his desires. Desire-Fulfillment Theories is also considered as the unrestricted theory. In this theory it is said that, what is best for someone is what would best fulfill all of his desires, throughout his life. To describe this theory, the author gives an example of two strangers meeting where one person has a fatal disease. The other person’s sympathy is aroused and he strongly wants this stranger to be cured. Later on, when they have forgotten each other, the stranger is cured. According to Unrestricted Desire – Fulfillment theory, this event is good for the person who was wishing the other person to be cured, and makes that person’s life goes better. According to Parfit, this is an unrealistic theory and we should reject this theory.
3. Objective List Theories: This theory says that, certain things are good or bad for us, whether or not we want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things. The good things in this case might include moral goodness, rational activity, having children and being a good parent, knowledge and the awareness of true beauty. The bad things might include being betrayed, manipulated, slandered, deceived, being deprived of liberty or dignity, and enjoying either sadistic pleasure or aesthetic pleasure in what is in fact ugly. According to this theory, what would make my life go best depends on what I would prefer now and in the various alternatives knowing all of the relevant facts about these alternatives. An Objective List Theorist says that the most relevant facts are what would in fact be good or bad for us and anyone who knew these facts would want what is truly good for him, and want to avoid what would be bad for him.
There is one fundamental difference between Preference-Hedonism and the Success theory with the Objective List theory. The first two kinds of theories give an account of self-interest and appeals to what a person does and would prefer. In contrast, the Objective List theory appeals directly to facts about value.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that what is best for people is not just their being in the conscious states that they want to be in. Nor is it just their having knowledge, engaging in rational activity, being aware of true beauty. By choosing only one theory and living our lives by those principals is not good for us. What is good for someone is to take best from all Hedonists claim, Objective List theorists and all other theories. What also makes someone’s life go right or best is what is good for someone, to be engaged in good activities, and to strongly want to be so engaged.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the theories sounded good. However, Success theory sounded a bit unrealistic to me because it said that if someone’s belief turns out to be false whether he knows about it or not is going to be bad for him. I could not relate to this concept and found it to be challenging to understand.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will choose right from wrong more carefully and find pleasure in doing small but valuable things that will put positive impact in society. In turn I will get pleasure and this will be better for my own life.
Reference:
---------------
Derek Parfit. (1984). From Parfit, Reasons and Persons.
Reading - Utilitarianism by Mill
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is the idea that says that, the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all conscious beings. It means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. In ethical concept happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. So, Utilitarianism is the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing the most happiness to all those are affected by it. An action is right if it tends to maximize happiness of everyone affected.
The most influential contributors to this ideology were Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and legal and social reformer, and John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political theorist and political economist.
Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" [1], and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility or the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure. Preference utilitarian theorists define it as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics, which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth.
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham [2]. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” [1] From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
In his famous work, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote in his book was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". [5] This shows Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures." [5] John Stuart Mill also made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure made it clear that what one desires and what is good is not always the same thing.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article I learned that utilitarianism pays more importance on doing the most good for the most number of people. I personally think that, if we are in a situation where not following utilitarian ideology may cause a great deal of pain and suffering or harm to many people then we might consider following utilitarian way of thinking and concentrate on doing most good for a greater number of people. However, if doing greater good to greater number of people causes significant pain and suffering for even a few people then we should reconsider the situation and try to do good for everybody if we have a choice, given that we can still do good for most people but that good may not be a greater good. What I mean here is that, our first choice should be to try to do good for everybody.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the society where we live it is not always easy to decide what will do most good to the most number of people. We sometimes are in situations where doing most good to greater number of people might cause harm to someone dear to us. How do we handle this kind of situations?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is a great ideology. However every situation is different and unique. So, I will use my best judgment and first try to do as much good for all the people and if that is absolutely not possible then do most good for greater number of people.
References:
1. Jeremy Bentham. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
2. Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28.
3. John Stuart Mill. (1863). Utilitarianism
---------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is the idea that says that, the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all conscious beings. It means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. In ethical concept happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. So, Utilitarianism is the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing the most happiness to all those are affected by it. An action is right if it tends to maximize happiness of everyone affected.
The most influential contributors to this ideology were Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and legal and social reformer, and John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political theorist and political economist.
Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" [1], and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility or the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure. Preference utilitarian theorists define it as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics, which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth.
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham [2]. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” [1] From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
In his famous work, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote in his book was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". [5] This shows Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures." [5] John Stuart Mill also made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure made it clear that what one desires and what is good is not always the same thing.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article I learned that utilitarianism pays more importance on doing the most good for the most number of people. I personally think that, if we are in a situation where not following utilitarian ideology may cause a great deal of pain and suffering or harm to many people then we might consider following utilitarian way of thinking and concentrate on doing most good for a greater number of people. However, if doing greater good to greater number of people causes significant pain and suffering for even a few people then we should reconsider the situation and try to do good for everybody if we have a choice, given that we can still do good for most people but that good may not be a greater good. What I mean here is that, our first choice should be to try to do good for everybody.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the society where we live it is not always easy to decide what will do most good to the most number of people. We sometimes are in situations where doing most good to greater number of people might cause harm to someone dear to us. How do we handle this kind of situations?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is a great ideology. However every situation is different and unique. So, I will use my best judgment and first try to do as much good for all the people and if that is absolutely not possible then do most good for greater number of people.
References:
1. Jeremy Bentham. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
2. Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28.
3. John Stuart Mill. (1863). Utilitarianism
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Reading - A Historian For Our Time
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------
By reading A Historian For Our Time I learned that Herodotus, the fifth-century B.C. Greek Traveler was way ahead of his time in terms of thinking and observing the culture and customs of different society of that time. He was not only a traveler but his philosophical observations and quotes are still valued a great deal in this modern age. Herodotus, observed and came into conclusion that, it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Herodotus also observed that it is hard for people to change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently. I have also learned that, Herodotus had his own unique style in which he described his observations and comparing with other historians, Herodotus's style of describing an observation of his seems to be more enjoyable and easy to follow.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From this reading, I have learned that, specialization in anything can have both a good and a bad impact in people’s life and culture. I have also learned that expertise could be viewed as the inverse of wisdom in some cases. It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society we would have to work very hard against trends. People usually get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. We should be open-minded to try out new things in life. I have also learned that too much of anything is bad and nothing is worse than excess. We should also not only look at things that are in surface but look beyond it to find the real meaning and purpose of things in life.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story again leaves me with thoughts or questions, in personal and professional lives we have learned that being good in one thing is admirable. Such as, a good cook is appreciated for his good cooking and not other things but in this article at one point it was said that, too much narrow expertise is the inverse of wisdom. So, should we ignore what we have learned for all these years? Again am I resisting the opportunity of changes in my thoughts and what I have been learning and believing over the years? How much effort one would have to put to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society including individual’s life style? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, change is good and we should be open to take positive suggestions and adopt to changes. We should try to learn as much as possible and gather wisdom rather than gaining too much of a narrow expertise in one area. To bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process. I will also take the teaching with me that too much of anything is bad.
Reference:
---------------
Robert D. Kaplan. (2007, January-February). A Historian For Our Time. The Atlantic.
URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/kaplan-herodotus
-----------------------------------------------
By reading A Historian For Our Time I learned that Herodotus, the fifth-century B.C. Greek Traveler was way ahead of his time in terms of thinking and observing the culture and customs of different society of that time. He was not only a traveler but his philosophical observations and quotes are still valued a great deal in this modern age. Herodotus, observed and came into conclusion that, it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Herodotus also observed that it is hard for people to change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently. I have also learned that, Herodotus had his own unique style in which he described his observations and comparing with other historians, Herodotus's style of describing an observation of his seems to be more enjoyable and easy to follow.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From this reading, I have learned that, specialization in anything can have both a good and a bad impact in people’s life and culture. I have also learned that expertise could be viewed as the inverse of wisdom in some cases. It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society we would have to work very hard against trends. People usually get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. We should be open-minded to try out new things in life. I have also learned that too much of anything is bad and nothing is worse than excess. We should also not only look at things that are in surface but look beyond it to find the real meaning and purpose of things in life.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story again leaves me with thoughts or questions, in personal and professional lives we have learned that being good in one thing is admirable. Such as, a good cook is appreciated for his good cooking and not other things but in this article at one point it was said that, too much narrow expertise is the inverse of wisdom. So, should we ignore what we have learned for all these years? Again am I resisting the opportunity of changes in my thoughts and what I have been learning and believing over the years? How much effort one would have to put to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society including individual’s life style? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, change is good and we should be open to take positive suggestions and adopt to changes. We should try to learn as much as possible and gather wisdom rather than gaining too much of a narrow expertise in one area. To bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process. I will also take the teaching with me that too much of anything is bad.
Reference:
---------------
Robert D. Kaplan. (2007, January-February). A Historian For Our Time. The Atlantic.
URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/kaplan-herodotus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)