In the *mash* example, she really needs to differentiate between ethics and morals. Hawkeye clearly followed his own sense of morality, which is (by definition) internally generated. At the same time, he violated the standards for ethical conduct which are imposed on him by the group of which he is part - in this case as a doctor bound by the hippocratic oath. Conflicts between ethics and morality occur all the time, so which one should be prioritized? Morality (by definition) must be based on moral reasoning which considers the interests of others: assuming this reasoning is sound, morality based decisions are likely to be good. In contrast, ethical conduct is based on a social consensus (convention) which does not necessarily relate to any rational arguments regarding goodness - indeed, it may not even represent the beliefs of any of the society's constituents. In its day, slavery was considered immoral by many, yet it was clearly regarded as ethical in those societies which featured it - it was the convention and was condoned by the majority. Most modern societies would now consider slavery unethical; supporting the view that moral judgements can be superior to ethical standards.
Great video series. I had a look down the olde comments. One thing ive noticed, say, in facebook philosophy groups, is how QUICK others in there are to tell you "you are wrong!" But offer no correction. Wonderful philosophy(!) Likewise, the comments on "dead white guys" - is it possible that we could interpret this statement in a positive way and assume the lecturer has good intentions behind that statement. I dont know her at all. I feel though, if i were to judge her and condemn her before actually trying to understand BOTH sides (or all implications) of what she said, i might be "un-ethically" judging her.
I'm afraid it really took me out of the discussion every time she brought it up. If it bothers you that much in your own presentation then I feel you should not use those examples. If you still want to use those men, don't bring up irrelevant facts like "they're dead white men."
Why do you say that? In what way does she not have a good base in philosophy. I actually think that she is excellent because she can explain very clearly to "some Community College" graduates unlike some professors who try to make themselves so highly intellectual that no one can understand what they are saying. Her simplicity is a sign of an excellent base in philosophy.
In the *mash* example, she really needs to differentiate between ethics and morals. Hawkeye clearly followed his own sense of morality, which is (by definition) internally generated. At the same time, he violated the standards for ethical conduct which are imposed on him by the group of which he is part - in this case as a doctor bound by the hippocratic oath. Conflicts between ethics and morality occur all the time, so which one should be prioritized? Morality (by definition) must be based on moral reasoning which considers the interests of others: assuming this reasoning is sound, morality based decisions are likely to be good. In contrast, ethical conduct is based on a social consensus (convention) which does not necessarily relate to any rational arguments regarding goodness - indeed, it may not even represent the beliefs of any of the society's constituents. In its day, slavery was considered immoral by many, yet it was clearly regarded as ethical in those societies which featured it - it was the convention and was condoned by the majority. Most modern societies would now consider slavery unethical; supporting the view that moral judgements can be superior to ethical standards.
I like presentation , keep going 🤠 greeting from Morocco*
Great video series. I had a look down the olde comments. One thing ive noticed, say, in facebook philosophy groups, is how QUICK others in there are to tell you "you are wrong!" But offer no correction. Wonderful philosophy(!) Likewise, the comments on "dead white guys" - is it possible that we could interpret this statement in a positive way and assume the lecturer has good intentions behind that statement. I dont know her at all. I feel though, if i were to judge her and condemn her before actually trying to understand BOTH sides (or all implications) of what she said, i might be "un-ethically" judging her.
Great presentation!!! Love the speaker
Our Seven Core Army Values: LDRSHIP.
US Army Retired.
Thx Dr French X-L-End !!
(ever u come 2 #cyprus let me know)
The dead white guy references are really disgusting and unprofessional.
indeed.........element of racism
I'm totally agree with you Barb !!!!
+Nari'ed E. But why should the fact that the majority of influental philosophers were white males be considered bad?
I'm afraid it really took me out of the discussion every time she brought it up. If it bothers you that much in your own presentation then I feel you should not use those examples. If you still want to use those men, don't bring up irrelevant facts like "they're dead white men."
PC is rampant in Higher Education.
I understand she might be giving this lecture to some Community College, but clearly she doesn't have a good base in philosophy.
+LiberApolion is there a better video out there that lays out and explains good ethical principles? I'd like a link.
Why do you say that? In what way does she not have a good base in philosophy. I actually think that she is excellent because she can explain very clearly to "some Community College" graduates unlike some professors who try to make themselves so highly intellectual that no one can understand what they are saying. Her simplicity is a sign of an excellent base in philosophy.