PHI 208 Ashford Ethical Concerns Behind the Use of Biometric Security Discussion “Ethics in the Community” Discussion: This discussion will hinge upon maki

PHI 208 Ashford Ethical Concerns Behind the Use of Biometric Security Discussion “Ethics in the Community” Discussion: This discussion will hinge upon making a final application of our ethical theories to a real-world context that is specific to you. Notice that the prompt asks you to find an ethical issue from your “local or regional community.” Don’t stress about this—try to simply pick an issue that is relevant to you, and make sure that it is something that has impact beyond your personal sphere. I will make an example post to give you an idea about how you might structure your own.

Discussion: Ethics in the Community

In Chapter 1 of your text, you saw how moral reasoning involves moving back and forth between general, abstract ideas like principles and values and particular concrete judgments about what is good or right, and seeking to find a kind of agreement or equilibrium between those.

In Chapters 3, 4, and 5, you were introduced to utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Each of these ethical theories represents different ways of reasoning about ethical questions, based in different account of the principles, values, and other conceptions that inform the “abstract” side of the dialectic.

In this course, and in much of life, the “concrete” ethical issues that receive the most attention are frequently those that elicit passionate responses and widespread debate, affect large numbers of people, involve matters of deep significance like life and death or fundamental rights, and so on. However, as important as these issues are, there is often a limit to how much impact most individuals can have on such matters; instead, the place where ethics and moral reasoning have their greatest impact is in one’s local community. Thus, in this final discussion board, you will demonstrate your grasp of the relation between the abstract ideas in one of these theories and a concrete ethical issue or social problem in your local community.

Engage the community: My Community is a tri-city which are Fort Benning GA, Columbus GA and Phenix City AL. If you can’t find something to write about in my community then please feel free to use yours
Begin by finding an ethical issue or social problem that currently impacts or has recently impacted your local or regional community (such as your neighborhood, town or city, county, school district, religious community, or something of similar scope to any of these).
Briefly summarize the issue or problem, and provide a link to a news article, video, or some other resource that documents the issue or problem so that your fellow students can learn more about it when formulating their responses to you.
Apply the theory:
Next, choose one of the ethical theories and discuss how the moral reasoning of the theory might be used to address or resolve the issue or problem.
Evaluate the reasoning:
In evaluating the application of the moral theory you may, for example, consider one or more questions like:
Does this differ from the way this issue is currently being addressed?
Does it present a better response than another ethical approach would?
Does the theory present an adequate response to the issue, or does it leave significant aspects of the issue unresolved?
Does applying the theory to this issue raise other problems or concerns?
In light of this issue, are there ways the principles or values of the theory might need to be modified from the form that we studied in class?

Below is the example my professor provided.

This week, I would again like to make the initial post for our final discussion forum! For me, the issue of surveillance presents an ethical problem. Thinking through some of these challenges is James Bridle’s objective in his book New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future (Links to an external site.). In the chapter titled “Complicity,” he writes that “Thinking about mass surveillance spoils phone calls, emails, cameras, and pillow talk…its implications stretch so deep into our everyday lives that it’s easier to add it to the long list of things we simply agree not to think.”

One of the reasons for this “agreement” is simply due to the fact that surveillance is invisible and ubiquitous—this is its “everydayness.” Usually when people become aware of being watched or tracked, a typical response of acceptance is to say “I have nothing to hide.” For me, one of the primary moral problems with this point of view (and with hidden mechanisms of surveillance more generally) is the idea that surveillance technology itself can “give” you something to hide.

What do I mean by this? As some may know, twice each week I am sent a spreadsheet that is generated by an automated program which gives me a breakdown of everyone’s efforts in the course. This spreadsheet shows me some data that might surprise you—such as the number of times course material has been accessed by a student, how much time has been spent logged into the classroom, and so forth. Personally, I accept these bi-weekly reports into my inbox, but I do not find them helpful, and therefore I choose not look at them. Why are these reports not helpful to me?

The main reason for this has to do with the possibility that the spreadsheet generated by the program “gives someone something to hide.” My job (as I see it) is to evaluate student work as it is. This means that I am primarily interested in what you have to say—not how long you took to say it.In this sense, knowing how long a person is logged-in to the course on a daily basis is a distraction, and at a deeper level, it represents an ethical problem.

For example, imagine that I were to look at the spreadsheet, and then grade the assignments and discussions. Even if I am not using the spreadsheet as a “grading tool,” it is possible that its very existence would color my perception of your work, and, if students became aware of this point, then suddenly your good post which took you 10 minutes to type up may cause anxious concern that this “did not take long enough, maybe he thinks I just copied it.” While that may sound funny, perhaps you can nevertheless see what I mean when I say that the surveillance tool itself may inadvertently “give” you something to hide.

To me, this represents a virtue ethics problem. In deference to Aristotle, simply grading the coursework as it stands without comparing it to this other available data is my “middle way” or my golden mean. As we know, Aristotle sees virtue as a golden mean between the two extremes of excess and deficiency—each virtue has two opposites, rather than one. In this case, based on my experience as a professor, I see the application of this tool as excessive—it is an excess of student evaluation. The other vice, deficiency, would be to have no evaluative measures at all. You can see, though, how this would make it impossible to have a course, haha~ 6/16/2020
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
1/69
6/16/2020
1
Print
Introduction
1.1 Socrates’s
1.2 Ethical
(http://content.thuzelearnin (http://content.thuzelearnin
Question
Reasoning
g.com/books/Thames.5057.1 g.com/books/Thames.5057.1
8.1/sections/ch01sec1.1#ch0 8.1/sections/ch01sec1.2#ch0
1sec1.1)
1sec1.2)
Conclusion &
Summary
(http://content.thuzelearni
ng.com/books/Thames.505
7.18.1/sections/ch01summ
ary#ch01summary)
Primary Sources
1.3 The Landscape
(http://content.thuzelearnin
of Moral Philosophy
g.com/books/Thames.5057.1
8.1/sections/ch01sec1.3#ch0
1sec1.3)
(http://content.thuzelearni
ng.com/books/Thames.505
7.18.1/sections/ch01pshea
ding#ch01psHeading)
Going Deeper
(http://content.thuzelearni
ng.com/books/Thames.505
7.18.1/sections/ch01gdhea
ding#ch01gdHeading)
Zerbor/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Discuss why it is important to study ethics.
Give examples of ethical questions.
Explain what it means to describe ethical reasoning as dialectical.
Describe what practical reasoning is and how ethical reasoning is a form of practical
reasoning.
Identify the basic distinctions between utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
2/69
6/16/2020
Print
It is not a trivial question, Socrates said: what we are talking about is how one should live.
—Bernard Williams
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
3/69
6/16/2020
Print
1.1 Socrates’s Question
In 399 BC, more than 2,400 years ago, a Greek philosopher
named Socrates is reported to have said that ethics concerns no
less than how one should live. The philosopher Bernard Williams
(1985) called this “Socrates’s question.” This might seem to be an
odd way of de ining ethics for a number of reasons.
First, the question is quite broad: “How one should live” seems to
concern the whole of one’s life. Yet many of us think of ethics as
limited to a set of standards or rules, such as those we are taught
by our parents or in Sunday school. Second, “how one should
live” seems to mean “how anyone and everyone ought to live.” How
can anyone make claims about how others should live? Moreover,
if Socrates and his followers were seeking answers to these types
of questions thousands of years ago, why have we not settled on
any answers? Does this mean that there are no answers or that
the answers to such questions are best left up to individuals to
determine on their own?
These are important concerns that we will examine in the pages
ahead. But before getting into those details, it is worth
considering whether the task of seeking general answers about
how one should live is a useful endeavor. After all, we raise our
children according to the presumption that certain ways of life
are better than others. When politicians create laws, they do so
because they think certain ways to live are better than others.
Likewise, when we vote on such laws, we do so because we agree
sedmak/iStock/Thinkstock
The Ancient Greek philosopher
Socrates raised the question of
how one should live, which
became the central ethical
question for all that followed.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
4/69
6/16/2020
Print
that certain ideas about how people should live are worth becoming part of the established code of our
community or nation.
When we express outrage over certain situations—for example, when a politician takes bribes, a
corporation hides illegal activities in order to pad the pockets of its leaders, a terrorist group beheads an
innocent aid worker, or a friend lies to us—we presume that something has gone wrong in the choices
these people have made regarding how to live their lives. Similarly, when we praise the bystander who
risks his or her life to protect others from a gunman; admire the work of the nun who devotes her life to
caring for the poor, outcast, and diseased; honor the soldier who sacri ices his or her life to save a
wounded comrade; or express gratitude to the family member who has cared for us unsel ishly, we
re lect the deep conviction that such actions embody something good and right.
In doing so, we af irm through our attitudes and responses that there are some things good and right
and other things that are bad and wrong. This is true whether we are referring to particular actions or
choices; general policies, rules, or laws; or values and character. We may acknowledge that there is
widespread disagreement over many views concerning how one should live. However, it would be
extremely dif icult to live our lives without supposing that these questions are worth thinking about and
that at least some answers are better than others.
Here is another way to think about it: Through
each conscious, deliberate choice we make, we
are living out an answer to Socrates’s question.
With every decision, each time we say “This
would be better than that,” we take a stand on
what matters to us, whether we realize we are
doing so or not. However, since our choices to
do (or not do) certain things also impact other
people and the world around us, we cannot
avoid taking a stand on what matters in a more
general sense. When we act sel ishly, we imply
that what matters most are our own needs or
interests. When we act generously, we show
that the needs and interests of others matter.
Most of the time, we are not thinking about our
choices from this perspective; we are just
making the decisions that seem best to us. But
as we will see in more detail later, we have the
remarkable capacity to question our own or
others’ assumptions about how one should live.
This questioning, and the pursuit of answers, is
what “ethics” (or “moral philosophy”) is all
about.
Why Study Ethics?
To sum up, ethics considers how one should
live. The question of how one should live plays
into our everyday choices; the general beliefs
Going Deeper: Ethics Versus
Morality
Can one de ine ethics or morality, and is
there a difference between these terms? In
this book, we will not provide a strict
de inition of either of these ideas, and we will
use the terms interchangeably. Some
philosophers have, however, drawn
distinctions between them, and it can be
illuminating to consider them. See Going
Deeper: Ethics Versus Morality
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thame
s.5057.18.1/sections/ch01gdheading#_idTextAnc
hor002) at the end of the chapter for more.
An Inescapable Question
Whether we realize it or not, our lives are
driven by various ideas, values, and
assumptions about what matters in life. We
cannot escape Socrates’s question. This text
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
5/69
6/16/2020
Print
we hold about how people ought to live, think,
gives us a chance to consider it more deeply
and act; and the speci ic judgments that we
than we ever have before.
make on the basis of such beliefs. Examining
this broad question and more speci ic
questions at a re lective and systematic level is
what we mean by philosophical ethics or moral philosophy.
Pursuing answers to such questions can be confusing, tedious, and even distressing (see Going Deeper:
Socrates
and
the
Philosophical
Life
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thames.5057.18.1/sections/ch01gdheading#_idTextAnchor003)
).
However, persisting in the task—and taking its challenges seriously—is a way to live out those
distinctively human possibilities of thinking, questioning, and inquiring. As such, it can help us live with
more integrity, consistency, and candor, and it can be surprisingly enriching.
We are continually confronted with ethical
questions, whether we are, like Socrates,
itinerant eccentrics wandering in togas around
the marketplace of Athens, or students, parents,
spouses, soldiers, mechanics, caregivers,
billionaires, minimum-wage workers, food
eaters, or technology users. Everything we do
—from how we spend our money and relate to
our friends to how we raise and teach children
and the profession we choose—is ethically
signi icant. We are confronted with issues,
dilemmas, and debates that range from the
very personal to the global, during which we
encounter a seemingly endless number of
opinions and claims.
Studying ethics can give us the resources to
evaluate these opinions and claims. It can help
us recognize the kind of argument
Going Deeper: Socrates and the
Philosophical Life
According to Socrates and many others
inspired by his example, philosophical ethics
—and philosophy in general—is more than
just an academic or intellectual exercise.
Rather, in its most fundamental sense, it is a
way of life open to all people. See Going
Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical
Life
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thame
s.5057.18.1/sections/ch01gdheading#_idTextAnc
hor003) at the end of the chapter for more.
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thames.5
057.18.1/sections/ch01sec1.1#tip1-1)
offered
when someone makes an ethical claim. It can
also help us discern the values that are being
appealed to or the assumptions made about the
nature and signi icance of human life. Perhaps
most of all, we can learn how to reason about
all of these matters and intelligently evaluate
the relative merits of different views.
Going Deeper: Ethics and Religion
Many readers have religious commitments
that inform their ethical views. Is there a
con lict between such religious commitments
and the philosophical study of ethics? See
Going Deeper: Ethics and Religion
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thame
s.5057.18.1/sections/ch01gdheading#_idTextAnc
hor004) at the end of this chapter for more.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
6/69
6/16/2020
Print
Ethics FYI
Argument
In philosophy, an argument is a set of claims. Some of these claims, called the premises, serve as
support for another claim, called the conclusion. This is different than the ordinary meaning of an
argument as a verbal quarrel or disagreement, often characterized by raised voices and laring
emotions. One can think of an argument in the philosophical sense as the methodical and wellresearched defense of a position or point of view advanced in relation to a disputed issue.
In some cases we may ind that certain claims are well supported, while others seem much less so, even
if we are far from absolute certainty. In other cases we may ind ourselves more perplexed than when
we started, which calls us to keep the question open and continue to re lect and search. Either way, we
will be less subject to the whims of popular opinion, the power of persuasion, and attractive
personalities and be more capable of forming and defending our own answers to the question of how
one should live.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
7/69
6/16/2020
Print
1.2 Ethical Reasoning
What is ethical reasoning? There are many con licting answers to this question that re lect different
ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We will examine each of these
theories closely in the chapters to come. However, some features of ethical reasoning are common to all
of the major theories.
The “Dialectic” Between the Abstract and Concrete
Ethical enquiry involves a dialectic. This term refers to the process of moving back and forth between
abstract judgments—general considerations about values, rules, the purpose of things, and so on—and
concrete judgments—those having to do with particular questions and problems, such as what’s right to
do here and how. This process is undertaken in an attempt to ind what philosopher John Rawls (1971)
called “re lective equilibrium” (p. 18).
For example, we might start with a concrete ethical judgment with which most people would agree, such
as that it is wrong to exploit a child to satisfy one’s sexual urges—a form of what we call child abuse. We
would then consider why this act is wrong. Is it because it causes great suffering for the child, both at the
time of the abuse and later in life? Is it because it violates a rule not to treat innocent children as objects
of grati ication? Is it because it is a corruption of the role we have of nurturing and caring for the next
generation?
Our answer would then have implications for other, more disputed situations, such as whether it is right
to spank a child or to use modern science to change a child’s genetic code. In other words, on these
more disputed questions we are looking for reasons why certain behaviors or choices might be right or
wrong or better or worse. We can sometimes try to ind them by considering the reasons we have for
other more commonly accepted judgments of right, wrong, better, or worse. These reasons are the
abstract part of the dialectic, while the speci ic judgments are the concrete part.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
8/69
6/16/2020
Print
Similarly, we might start with commonly accepted abstract ideas such as “be honest” or “thou shalt not
kill.” We then consider whether and how “thou shalt not kill” applies to the concrete situation of soldiers
in combat or when one person is threatening another’s life. Or we might consider whether those we are
obliged not to kill include nonhuman animals, human fetuses, or the terminally ill. Similarly, does “be
honest” mean that we must give Aunt Gertrude our honest opinion when she asks if we like her new
dress (and we think it is hideous)? Or that we must honestly answer a psychopath’s question of where
our friend is hiding when doing so will likely lead to our friend’s murder?
Such considerations of the concrete application of an abstract value, rule, or principle might compel us to
revise or even reject it in favor of a more re ined principle. On the other hand, if we are convinced that
something is wrong and this is explained by some general principle, we may ind that applying the same
principle to a case we are less sure about ends up entailing that it, too, must also be wrong.
Why is this important? If we simply stick with abstract values, rules, and principles (such as be honest or
thou shalt not kill) without looking carefully at how they apply to a variety of concrete cases, we can
become lost in a sea of ideas that leave us confused with respect to particular questions and choices; or
we might be unable to appreciate the challenging implications these ideas can have for our choices and
judgments. On the other hand, if we simply consider concrete cases and rely on our gut instincts or what
we have been accustomed to believe about them, we will be unable to adequately consider more abstract
questions. Such questions include the following:
Why do people disagree, and can their disagreements be resolved?
What assumptions are people making when they express moral beliefs, and are they legitimate?
What is valuable and worthwhile, and are there any objective answers to that question?
Moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics deal largely with the abstract side of this
dialectic. They consider questions such as the following:
What is the nature of morality?
What principles should guide moral reasoning?
What rights or obligations should we respect?
What kind of life is most worth living, and what would be the characteristics of such a life?
Defending and justifying these abstract ideas will require a person to consider the concrete implications
of one abstract theory compared to another. In other words, while we will examine the general claims a
theory makes about how one should live, and the values and assumptions that underlie these claims, we
will also consider what that means for our speci ic lives and choices.
We might ind that while a theory seems plausible in the abstract and helps us make sense of certain
concrete judgments that seem right, on further re lection we might decide that it also supports other
concrete judgments that are questionable or seem wrong. When confronted with such concrete
judgments, we must therefore back up and reexamine the theory’s abstract ideas. If those ideas still
seem right, then we might have to reconsider our concrete judgments. However, if we think there are
problems with the theory itself, our task is then to examine what those might be and whether a different
set of principles and values would better guide us.
This process should not be regarded as a matter of merely picking and choosing which theory to follow
when confronted with a moral problem. For instance, after reading Chapters 3 (on utilitarianism) and 4
(on deontology), one might say, “The utilitarian would say that thus-and-such is morally right, while a
Kantian would say that thus-and-such is morally wrong.” It may be tempting to add, “One must simply
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Thames.5057.18.1?sections=title,ch01,ch01sec1.1,ch01sec1.2,ch01sec1.3,ch01summary,ch01psheading,ch01gdhe…
9/69
6/16/2020
Print
choose which theory to follow when considering a particular problem and form one’s beliefs and
decisions accordingly.”
This
will
not
do,
however,
because
these
theories
aim
for
consistency
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Thames.5057.18.1/sections/ch01sec1.2#tip1-2) between the abstract
values, principles, and rules that de ine the theory and the plausibility of the concrete judgments that the
theory entails. If utilitarianism, for instance, seems the best way to reason about one particular case, then
it should likewise be the best way to reason about any other case. If utilitarianism seems to lead to a
problem when applied to another case, it suggests there may be a problem with utilitarianism itself, and
it becomes no longer clear that it was the best way to reason about the irst case.
Ethics FYI
Consistency
When the general rules, principles, and values of an ethical theory seem right, and they support
and explain judgments about particular cases that also seem right, there is consistency between
the general and the particular (or the abstract and the concrete, to use other terms).
Inconsistency arises when the general or abstract does not cohere with the particular or
concrete.
For example, someone might hold to the general rule that killing is always wrong, but he or she
may also support the death penalty. This would appear inconsistent because the death penalty
involves killing, and so if one supports it, then one is denying the principle that killing is always
wrong. Therefore, to be consistent, one would either need to reject the death penalty or revise
the principle in such a way so that killing is justi ied in the case of those convicted of certain
crimes.
If there is an inconsistency or disconnect between the theory and the conclusions it supports, then
further explanation, revision, or rejection is in order. We may need to explain how the values, rules, and
principles of the theory support the concrete judgment that seems most plausible; we may revise the
theory’s principles so they are more consistently applicable to a range of cases; or we may need to
either reject the theory or reject the concrete judgments that called the theory into question.
The bottom line is that no one who a…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment