This week we discussed Kant's key contributions to ethics: to follow the categorical imperative that requires us to ask if we would want an action to be a universal moral law; to consider all people equal and worthy of respect, treating them as ends in themselves rather than a means to an end; and to judge actions based on a person's intentions or principles. This is in contrast to Mill's utilitarianism, which aims for the greatest happiness for the largest number of people; here we look at outcomes or consequences and work backwards.
Connecting Kant's approach to religion and politics, we see that the individual is free from following any higher authority's decree, free to follow the moral law, but at the same time, responsible for his or her actions. This has had a major impact on our concept of moral order, the demand that people learn to think for themselves, and the necessity of recognizing human rights. It follows that teachers are deeply involved in facilitating this growing understanding in their students.
The questions on the handout we considered also helped us to understand that particular ethical systems are often simultaneously at play in a teacher's decision-making process in the classroom. Where one falls short, another steps in to fill out the whole picture. Consciously or unconsciously, we draw on many systems in the work we do. Our goal is to be more aware of our practices and understand them better.
If you haven't sent me a description of your paper topic, please do. Also, be thinking about the film you will analyze through the lens of ethics.
Have a great weekend.
A few years ago I taught at a private school for performing and visual arts. In the first session of the new term, a 9-year-old student in my digital animation class caught my attention and that of my teaching assistant; something about the child’s behavior had us concerned.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the following class this same student handed in a visual storyboard that showed graphic scenes of extreme violence, including a young girl cutting herself with a knife. The story was told through the perspective of her younger brother. After a discussion with my teaching assistant I made a decision to report this incident to the Ministry, but I wanted to inform the Administration of the school before taking action. Since this was an evening class I sent an e-mail to the Programming Director, briefly outlined the situation and requested a meeting for the following morning.
When I arrived the next day the Program Director told me that she had already met with the Executive Director and that they had determined not to take any action on this matter, even though they had not fully discussed the situation with me or seen the storyboards before making their decision. The Programming Director said that making a report to the Ministry was unnecessary because we had no evidence of abuse. She told me that a previous incident of suspected child abuse had been reported the year before, that the parents of the child were very upset by the accusation and she didn’t want to have to go through that again.
I was told that this particular child had been granted a tuition subsidy through a new initiative designed to increase access to the Arts for low-income families. The school was expecting another 300 tuition subsidies in the year ahead and we didn’t want to risk discouraging other families from sending their children to the school. The Administration’s position was that the child probably got these ideas from television or a book and that the school had decided a report would not be made, and so the discussion was over.
There was never any question in my mind that a report would be made to the Ministry, I was only wanting to inform my employer of my intention to report (and hopefully receive some support) but suddenly I found myself in this awful position of having to explain my “Duty to Report” to my employer. The threshold for reporting is concern for the welfare of a child. As an ordinary citizen I have a duty to report, but as a Teacher I am held to a higher standard in this regard.
The perspective of Deontology depends on a careful evaluation of the duties or responsibilities as they relate to the situation at hand. I had concern for the welfare of a child, my motives are about protecting vulnerable persons, I am aware of the law, I am aware of my duty as a Teacher, I am aware that my duty is not diminished by any decision made by an Administrator (Principal, Dept. Head, etc.) and therefore I was compelled to make a report.
I would like to speak about the deontological ethics that we learned in class. If the intentions of the actions are considered greater than the outcome then what if the outcome concerned loss of life. Consider the young boy who was struck by a truck and later succumbed to his injuries on monday last week. if he could have stayed at home and been home schooled then he never would have been in the position he was that morning. His parents think that it will be better for him to mix with other kids his age and get an education that way. They where thinking deontolgically on his behalf wich is a role of parents. Could he have been thinking more this way and taken the overpass? Possibly it is the schools fault for not enforcing more access to the overpass which was built specifcally to avoid this type of accident.
ReplyDeleteSecondly I would like to relate Kant's first proposition of morality: 1. A person is morally good if her intention is good p.67 (J.A. McLachlan). To the idea of the golden rule which is do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I think it was my grade three teacher who had that statement framed over his chalkboard and referred it to me many times. The motives you have for your actions when you are still developing your personality can be confusing. Elementary school children need to be constantly reminded of how their behaviors affect other people. Whether it be a facial expression, a joke or a random act of kindness kids need constant guidance when it comes to how to act morally. This is likely a reason why teachers cannot have any question to their moral makeup when they are interacting with kids who are still developing their own moral standards.
I had never truly thought about the philosophies behind what I do in my classroom before Thursday's class but when I arrived at school on Friday I found that I had the ideas of Kant and Mill in the back of my head before I made decisions in the class. I think that I have generally made decisions with the assumption that I am doing them for the greater good of the students. There are times when I will extend concepts even thought I know that I few people are fully understanding it while the rest of the class isn't and vice versa. I realize however upon further reflection that I also make decisions based only on the individual. In some cases I think that this is important, for instance when allowing students with special needs to do less work or different assignments. It was very interesting for me to realize this because it was not what I thought I did as a teacher.
ReplyDeleteThe instance that stands out the most for me took place during first semester this year. I had a boy in my Planning 10 class who, although not diagnosed with any sort of learning disability, had difficulty concentrating and putting his thoughts to paper. Furthermore, when he did write things down his printing, grammar, and spelling together made it almost impossible to understand. He was however very skilled at raping and could put almost anything into a song. I decided early on therefore to allow him to create a rap and present it to me in that form. In this case, I was making a decision that was best for him and not taking the needs of the entire group into consideration.
I believe that as a teacher it is important to keep both the ideas of Teleology and Utilitarianism in mind when facing our classes.
Last class we compared deontology and teleology while discussing Kant’s universal imperative and Mill’s utilitarianism. While both of these ethical theories offer valuable insight, they are ultimately in conflict. It is my opinion that the deontological view is superior to utilitarianism as a theory for evaluating moral behaviour largely due to Kant’s focus on intent as compared to Mill’s consideration of consequences.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, let’s say I cheat on my philosophy exam. The consequences from this action might include a sense of guilt, so I go to a bar and get drunk, then I drink and drive, then I kill a pedestrian, then this person’s kids have no mother, then they become criminals, and so on and so on forever and ever. There is really no end to the consequences of this, or any, action. Therefore, we can’t possibly attempt to measure the consequences of our actions as Mill would like us to do, and this inability to quantify consequences makes utilitarianism simply an impractical ethical theory.
On the other hand, Kant focuses on the intent in any ethical behaviour to evaluate the morality of the action. Besides his influential notion of the categorical imperative, Kant argues that if our intention is good, then we have acted morally. Even if a certain situation does not work out the way we had hoped (ie: you tried to help an injured person but they still died) at least you honestly acted with the intention of doing your duty and that is better than standing by and not doing anything. In this case you acted morally and we can know this based upon the intent which is a ‘contained’ entity rather than a never-ending series of events.
Besides the practical differences in one theory being quantifiable and one not, deontology treats people equally and fairly and avoids the biased relativism that can come with utilitarianism. According to Kant, moral behviours are always moral, and unlike utilitarianism, can’t change depending on a given situation. For these reasons I find myself largely agreeing with Kant’s ethical theory.
One of the questions on last class’s handout was “Can the majority of people live without a system of rewards and punishments to guide their moral behaviour?” I am of the opinion that they cannot.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s readings on social contracts, Thomas Hobbes expresses the view that people are essentially greedy and self-serving. I agree with Hobbes that most people would seek to gratify their own selfish desires at the expense of others if they could do so without a punishment or other cost. We live in a society in which a person will go to jail if they rob a bank; even though they would like this extra money, the threat of punishment helps to control such actions. If there was no punishment for stealing (or other crimes), such behaviour would be rampant and would likely result in complete anarchy.
Similarly, rewards help to increase people’s moral behaviour. In many cases an external reward will occur, such as if I returned a lost dog to its owner who offered monetary compensation. This would increase the likelihood that someone would act in the ethical manner and return Rover to his loving owner.
Besides external compensation in the form of money or respect or opportunity, internal rewards also help to encourage ethical behaviour. If I were to return the dog to his owner even when no reward was offered, I still would be compensated in terms of an emotional reward. I would feel good that I had done the right thing and acted in a selfless way to help another person. As Plato believed, being good is indeed its own reward, and humans are designed so that we are rewarded from selfless acts and ethical behaviours by the good feelings that ensue. Therefore, whether it is internal or external, some form of reward occurs, and along with the threat of punishment these help to guide our moral behaviour.
Last class I was very pleased to hear mention of people switching from one ethical system to another. The idea that a person should choose a single ethical system to live by sounds ideal but not realistic. And although we never discussed this exact issue, it certainly it seems that the great philosophers felt that people should live by a single ethical system. Even if a person resonates with one particular ethical system, what are the real advantages of sticking with it through thick and thin? Choosing an ethical system is kind of like choosing a religion – a person needs to make a choice to follow something of which its true nature is impossible to be certain of.
ReplyDeleteThe text makes reference about the success of rule utilitarianism in the workplace and I think this is no coincidence. By claiming the effectiveness of rule utilitarianism in the workplace, the implication is that the people are using a different ethical system in their private lives. So perhaps this is a strong argument for people to adhere to multiple ethical systems. I suppose that following multiple ethical systems will result in hypocrisy, but I’m not sure if hypocrisy itself is unethical.
June 17th 2010
ReplyDeleteSean I am glad to hear that you followed through with you duty to report behavior that alarmed you. Every situation we face as teachers is unique but the goal remains the same care for our children. In that instance I would have filed a complaint against the administration as well for citing financial reasons for not reporting what in your professional opinion were signs of abuse. To me failure to report signs of abuse is the same thing as abusing, you are allowing a child to suffer and that is unacceptable. You could argue that you took a Kantian view of your ethical duty, you decided that to not report suspected abuse would not be an acceptable universal law therefore you were obligated to report the issue.
When thinking of the profession of teaching one must recognize a big portion of the job is to build relationships with your students. In light of this feminist ethics become a very interesting topic especially the ethic of care. Despite this form of ethics needing to differentiate the ways in which men and women form their moral development as teachers we need to put aside such definitions and think about the implications of our moral development as teachers. The article argues that women’s “moral development involved increasing their understanding of how their decisions affect others, and in particular how they affect the relationships in their lives,” such is the duty of teachers to understand such things. Without these tenants woven into your pedagogy your classroom will not do any of things that a caring and democratic classroom ought to. So I am arguing that as a teacher it’s important to take this form of ethics in part when establishing your pedagogy.
In Kantian terms, is it a teacher's duty to be moral?
ReplyDeleteAs individuals, we develop our morality to extend into the life of a community similar to Kant's idea. As an educator, morality is essentially dependent upon individuals and community (school). In the school my morality is to perform my duties in a certain law frame which is the professional motivation to be a moral. If I practice my education without morality, my students will simply do as they please and they do not have a reason to follow me. Whatever I tell my students of rules to follow and the right way to conduct in school for schooling purposes or in their communities, they will follow those when I am with them only. As example when people driving their vehicles, they do not follow the speed limit but only when the law enforcement authority is there and as soon as the authority leaves the area, people go back to their speed which is not in the legal limit, and so for students. Here it comes to be moral only to keep my professionalism as a teacher, but as a teacher to act morally only on external side and I have different values and beliefs inside, I will lose my students because they realize why to follow a teacher who does not believe in that and we have to follow?. As a teacher to be moral, I have to give up some desire and interests for the security of my professionalism, but it is great to gain my students right reactions with me, so I can educate them efficiently, so I can get that and help my students to succeed and be leaders in the society, which it is my reward for being moral. As a teacher for being moral, I will have my students in the classroom practiced their good social interactions, social justice, and proper functioning. To be a moral teacher is to protect student's goodness and develop it to the extent to make them ready to live in the society efficiently. This will affect teacher's own personal satisfaction and when he achieves that, he will be happy that he guided the students in a right way and being moral did not lose but gained student's right development which is the mission of all good teachers. As a teacher, if I do not accept to be moral and focus on my students greater good in the term of outcomes and consequence, yes my students will reach that but through many obstacles and they will lack some social interactions because in this idea it will be a work with individuals who do not like to give up their interests and desire to adapt community life.
Sean, I’m really interested in what happened next. How did the administration react when you followed through with reporting the incident?
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to wonder how people would behave without a system of rewards or punishments. I’m particularly interested in how this idea applies in the classroom. I have to say that with my experience with adult ESL education I have never really implemented a system of rewards or punishments. (I’m fully aware how different this may need to be with children though since they are at a very different stage of moral development according to Kohlberg). The classes I’ve worked with are to a large degree based on relationships and connections with each other. When people care about one another because they know each other and spend time together each day, empathy and care become part of the fabric of the class. Naturally disputes and problems arise from time to time, but usually we have the social skills to cope with just about anything that comes up....and over the years some very problematic situations have come up.
Until now I have never thought about ethical systems because for one I have never formally studied ethics. I have to agree with Doug that surely we take from each system what works for us at least I think I do. When I try to analyze which system I employ, I’d have to say it shifts and is in flux much of the time. This is especially true in teaching. Some decisions focus on intention, others the greater good or maybe a particular virtue.
I am attracted to three of the central notions in Kant’s philosophy: 1.) the notion of seeing people as ends rather than means; 2.) the idea of the categorical imperative; 3.) the concept of the sublime.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I like the notion of seeing people as ends rather than means. This is a particularly important concept for educators as it allows us to see our students as individuals—rather than mere collections of learners—divorced from personalities and feelings. Seeing students as ends rather than means engenders the possibility of empathizing with our students—making their education, and our jobs, more fulfilling and productive. Second, seeing people as ends rather than means is a good argument against slavery and various forms of oppression. Integrating Kant’s notion of ends rather than means into our teaching practice has the potential to encourage students to act in ways that are fair and equitable—and possibly, to awaken a sense of human rights and what it means to be humane.
Second, I like the idea of the categorical imperative. When faced with an ethical dilemma it helps me to think—“What would be the result if everybody did this?” The idea seems even more useful at the macro-level. For example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may have partially been caused by the severe cost-cutting policies of the previous CEO of British Petroleum (BP). That individual probably felt that he was acting in the ethical interests of BP and BP shareholders. However, if the CEO had taken a Kantian perspective he may have been more resolute about the need to stick to safety measures (despite the costs) and to think of the consequences of his (and BP’s) actions in terms of other human beings (outside the corporation/shareholders).
Third, I am fascinated by Kant’s concept of “the sublime”. Although I find the idea quite hard to understand, my basic understanding, is that the sublime represents a high-order aesthetic encounter with great works of art. When we understand the magnitude of various artistic achievements (for example: Shakespeare’s plays, Friedrich Hölderlin’s poetry or Bob Dylan’s music) we are in the presence of the sublime. As educators, we should occasionally encourage our students to reflect on sublime aesthetic experiences—in so doing, I feel they will have a greater appreciation for art—and life itself.
There are so many contrasting views on how to decide the right thing to do that it is easy to become overwhelmed. Especially in cases with “the right thing to do” is far from clear. While Bentham clears up some issues with Mill’s view, in that Bentham takes the potential opposition into consideration, but his view is still very open to interpretation. Thus, while these men were striving for the special formula of morality and ethical decision-making, it is apparent that two people in the exact same situation could apply the same system of evaluation and still come out with different decisions. Kant’s view of deontology has always left me feeling somewhat cold. Is the “right” thing to do always right? I find myself thinking of that movie, Gone, Baby, Gone. The decision that Ben Affleck’s brother makes in the end has never sat well with me. Although many would say that he did the right thing, the conviction is lacking.
ReplyDeleteWhile we may believe that we already know what is right and what is wrong in any situation, a simple probing of these values will reveal a multitude of case-by-case stipulations, many of which reflect conflicted values. An old prof of mine used to say that we should find ourselves in “philosophical chaos” for the majority of our lives; our ideas will change, certain situations require a different set of rules, or a blurring of the lines is occasionally required in order for us to feel somewhat consistent but still fair in our views. This chaos, according to she, is a necessary part of our moral development and, although frustrating to really not understand where we stand on anything, should be respected part of the process, which will hopefully end with us as collections of beliefs, grounded in experience and rational, thought. Something to aim for anyway ☺
~b
Because this is my first philosophy class of my university degree, I sometimes find myself feeling a little behind people in the class who have spent time considering where they stand and what philosophies work or don't work for them, or that people are now subscribing to multiple philosophies. Meghann also touched on the idea that despite not knowing the reason or philosophy behind our decisions as teachers, we make many decisions. I find it interesting that throughout PDP we are to work on, create, and modify our teaching 'philosophy' without ever touching on what various philosophies these are based on. I have spend the past 10 months revising a philosophy, but it is now that I feel I am gaining knowledge that will really inform my philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI really like how Greg found the relevance of the categorical imperative for decision making in today's society. I think the question "what would be the result if everyone did this?" is such a useful one when looking at Canadian's environmental impact. I consider myself to be fairly environmental, yet when I did carbon footprint test, I learned it would require 3 1/2 earths for everyone to live like me... Having students ask themselves this is such a good teaching tool.
For fun: http://tinyurl.com/3xcjten A TED piece on democratic debate based on Aristotle's idea of Justice
ReplyDeleteOur group got into talking about the ethics of teachers using illegally downloaded materials in class which plays right into question of how we can convince kids that “with freedom comes responsibility”.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is changing the way we operate in the classroom and in life. Never before have we had this kind of access to information, knowledge or creative property. Never have so many had the opportunity to have such an impact on so many others – using the global stage of Youtube to perform or rant, praise or lie, hacking big business and government, circumventing National bans on communications, or making the decision as to just how happy or miserable you’re going to make a classmate changes lives daily. And while we try and get used to being more exposed than ever before, we also have to wrestle with how (and if) to use new super powers like invisibility, anonymity.
Teachers need to be aware – more than aware, on the cutting edge - of what’s happening with technology. I don’t know if there are sessions on tech advances included in Pro-D days, but threshold be. If we use the tools or see the opportunities and the dangers of each stage of technical evolution, how can we have any credibility with kids who are born into it?
I’d like to include a quote from Wired magazine founder Kevin Kelly’s article, “We Are The Web,”:
We are living through a major technological transition, one which will go down as a pivotal, transformational period in history. And as we live through this time, I think it is important that we not only open our eyes to the technological changes taking place, but that we examine these changes from a place of ethical and philosophical inquiry. The type of wisdom necessary to guide us through these changes is not inherent in the creation and proliferation of technology, but must be called upon through reflection and dialogue.
Full article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html
Can we be good without God? I would say morality is not dependant on religion. So far in our readings there has been no mention of a higher power that judges or punishes. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Mill all point out that there is an innate human need and/or ability to know what right behaviour is and to want to act accordingly. This inner part of us could be what we call the conscious, and although culture can influence it the essential nature of the conscious can’t be changed. But what if a person never had one to begin with?
ReplyDeleteIn the Vancouver Sun today (Saturday, June 12th, Section C) Ian Mulgrew has a piece on Charles Kembo, a convicted murderer and psychopath. As Mulgrew points out, psychopaths are all very similar in their “monumental hubris”, total lack of empathy, callousness and lack of remorse due to organic brain impairment. Their minds process information differently, to them there is no emotional difference between the word “rape” and the word “tree”. The idea that our sense of morality is biologically based - that genetics, or a combination of genetics and experience, are all that stand between a moral or immoral being – is very disturbing. Especially considering all the studies that show how our brain chemistry is changing due to the chemicals we pump into our bodies every day.
Can we maintain our ethical standards when those around us don’t?
ReplyDeleteI work in a community agency that assists unemployed persons to find work. Our continued funding is based on achieving a successful outcome for 80% of our clients within a 3-month period following their counselling intervention.
As our economy was shedding jobs and struggling to recover, employment agencies across BC were obviously under a great deal of pressure to meet targets. Many agencies started denying service to clients with significant barriers to employment (mental health, illiteracy, language barriers, and alcohol/drug issues) in order to reach their targets. Like tumbling dominos, each agency has become more and more restrictive in their intake process in order to survive.
The unethical behaviour of “cherry picking” clients ignores the categorical imperative to provide good quality service to everyone in need. What started as a survival strategy with a few agencies has become a strategy this is now universally applied; our most vulnerable citizens are essentially being denied access to service. Can our agency afford to maintain our high standards of ethical behaviour, by continuing to serve these difficult clients, when the natural consequence means that we are not meeting our targets and 12 talented and caring counsellors could lose their jobs? Kant would argue that we must continue to do our duty, regardless of consequence, and not be swayed by the distortion of fear.
Utilitarianism states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. This perspective give us room to be more prudent with our limited resources to the extent that we can continue to operate as an agency. Our continued survival would contribute to the greater good of our community more so than if we ceased to exist and were no longer in a position to help anyone. About half of our staff is Kantian in their ethical orientation while the other half is Utilitarian; we’ve been having some interesting staff meetings lately.
I particularly like Kant's theory based on the fact that he stresses the motive not the outcome. It reminded me of a case that recently happened where a teenager left her dogs, two huskies, in the house with her infant. The babies mother and grandmother stepped outside to have a smoke and while they were gone the one dog mauled the three week old baby to death.The mother, who is only seventeen,is currently charged with manslaughter (The deliberate killing of a person without premeditation(or the other circumstances of murder)).
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's just me but it seems as though the law is a little too focused on the outcome not the motive. It would make more sense to follow Kant's philosophy and approach this case by the motive. There is a big difference between manslaughter and negligence causing death. However, when it comes to babies emotions are often stirred up a bit more. I highly doubt the seventeen year old thought she was putting her child in harms way especially when you look at the way people treat their dogs. They think of them as people and forget they are still predators. It seems odd to throw someone in jail for a lack of understanding, especially when they are so young. Negligence causing death seems far more appropriate as does not charging her at all. This story has definitely helped me appreciate Kant's philosophy. Many of the students I taught in my practicum were 17 and two of my students were pregnant.
Manslaughter puts this young adult in the same category as street racers and drunk drivers with the major difference is the fact that she was not breaking any laws. There have been many similar cases with adult parents losing children through accidental drowning, leaving children in hot cars, etc. where no charges were laid.
The other ethical controversy in this case is that she was charged the day after of the death of her baby. From what I have learned in my brief experience working with teens is that kids at this age are very emotional and she should have been given some time to deal with the death of her child. I would have expected a more ethical approach in Canada, especially when working with minors.
Imagination
ReplyDeleteKant’s belief regarding the way our minds are structured to allow external sensory stimuli to be attached to existing concepts made me think closely about recent interactions I have had with staff and students. Two experiences come to mind.
1. While visiting a Grade 5 class, I heard a noise that sounded like running or gurgling water. I mentioned to the teacher that is was soothing. He said that it was a rock tumbler and it wasn’t as soothing when it was going for a month or so.
2. At one time, our school had two special needs students who had inappropriate and sometimes violent behaviours. One student would bite and scratch. The other would spit and laugh. I found the way staff interacted with these two students to be quite interesting. The student who was doing more damage (biting and scratching), was actually held in higher esteem than the student who spit and laughed. Perhaps, the connotations of being spat upon played a part in staff response to this child.
Reflecting on these situations through an ethical lens makes me question whether being more aware of our existing concepts or schema would allow us to assimilate sensory data differently or whether we attach meaning to sensory data so quickly and unconsciously that we cannot change.
Kant’s Real Knowledge through Experience
As a vice principal of a school with a very high ESL population, I am constantly struggling with the real life effects of Kant’s belief that we cannot have real knowledge about things we have not experienced. The students at my school live in a fairly isolated community. Many have travelled to India, but have not seen the other side of town. For them, a trip to the Old Spaghetti Factory in Vancouver is an otherworldly experience (they are especially appreciative of the non-stop pop). This lack of exposure impacts learning in all areas of the curriculum for these students. The lack of real-life experience makes deep understanding of curriculum difficult.
Residential Schools
ReplyDeleteI was watching the news tonight and they had a piece on the work that is being done now to rectify the damage done by residential schools. It made me think that if we had applied Kant’s beliefs about motives and whether or not something should be a universal law, we might have acted differently with regards to residential schools.
Caroline wrote:
ReplyDeleteJune 16, 2010
1) As the teaching year draws to close, stress amongst teachers is once again high. In May and June, assignments in school are re-assessed in light of changing demographics. This is always a difficult time, particularly in those districts with declining enrolment. Last week I realized that a course in Ethics should be mandatory for all teachers but especially so for those wishing to go into Administration. Perhaps then when jobs are assigned within a school the people in Administration might reflect on their own philosophy while making decisions.
Some years ago, the term Personnel was in use as a general term for people working in any business, corporation etc. While I have no particular affection for this word (which I find rather ugly), I am still affronted by the term Human Resources that replaced it. To me the reasoning behind this change was that people are replaceable units like spare parts for a machine.
If one were applying deontology, then all teachers would be treated as ends not as means, and efforts would be made to accord each person equal dignity and standing. Too often I think there is a rather warped application of Utilitarianism that is cloaked in the statement that decisions are being made “for the greater good” and for “the needs of the board”. These decisions are often made for the benefit of one person rather than another and are not really conducive to promoting the social good and increasing the general happiness of all as in the following example.
A few years ago a teacher I know was in a position as a librarian at a school. The VP decided that she wanted this position as it would allow her to devote more time (taken from the library job) to her job as a VP. The librarian, who had been in the position for a number of years, was forced out of the school. This has become a recurring theme. The end result has been many unhappy people and a very unsettled feeling amongst the librarians in the District who feel their training is being devalued and whose jobs are increasingly threatened.
A course in Ethics – with refreshers! – might give some members of the Administration cause to think how they go about ensuring the best for all.
2) In light of school closures and subsequent layoffs in various School Districts, I was also thinking about the teaching union and various clauses in our contract that govern the access to available jobs. Each time we close a school, there is exhaustive debate on the fairness of teachers in the closed school having to compete with everyone else for available jobs rather than being accorded special treatment. Each time the result is the same. I see this might be considered as an example of two of Ross’s seven prima facie duties competing (p.73 of our book) where distributive justice takes precedence over beneficence.
I was watching a program the other night that was centred around the conflict between Ireland and Great Britain and was specifically concerned with the actions of the British intelligence against the IRA. This has nothing to do with teaching, but I was struck by the arguments propounded by the British side that in order to use undercover agents, they might have to resort to killing British subjects to prove their worthiness to the IRA. This despite the fact that the aim was to save British lives. Clearly this would not pass muster under Kant’s teleology. It struck me that here was another case of Utilitarianism gone wrong and that a slippery slope was inevitable.
I enjoyed the small group discussion I was involved in during the last class, particularly how we can convince the kids we work with that, “with freedom comes responsibility”. I think the only way kids can learn this concept is through natural consequences. As youth enter into high school they should be allowed to learn the natural consequences that result from their choices. One example of this is being assigned a project or paper with a firm due date. Youth have the freedom to set their own pace to complete the project on time. One can decide to finish early, or pace oneself in order to finish without undue panic. The student could alternatively decide to complete their project at the last minute, late, or not hand it in at all. During my time at high school, marks were taken off for every day an assignment was late. One teacher in our small group said that she is not permitted to penalize students for late assignments, and in fact that students are able to hand in items that are many months late. I believe that this directly contradicts the concept, “with freedom comes responsibility” and reinforces, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Students have no incentive to accept responsibility for their lack of time management and this system would seem to foster a cynical “why bother” attitude in students who are proactive.
ReplyDeleteHello again! I am down in California and have limited internet access, so I am blogging two times in a row.
ReplyDeleteI have been considering the statement, “the morally good person cannot be harmed” in relation to a specific experience in my former career. I supported children, youth and adults who are developmentally delayed as well as offering support and resource information to their families. One day I had to call the Ministry of Children and Families and report an incident of corporal punishment that I witnessed a parent inflict on their child. I felt quite conflicted in doing what I felt was right and necessary under the laws of child protection, my professional guidelines, and my own moral views. I was conflicted because while I was doing what was right, I also recognized that this parent was a new immigrant with vastly different cultural views; a parent stressed with the challenge of raising a child with severe behavioural outbursts as well as simultaneously dealing with the adjustment of moving to a different country and learning a new language. Was I unduly harmed? No, but I was certainly conflicted by the ethical dilemma, and still wonder if I could have handled the situation differently. Acting morally doesn’t always ensure one to remain unharmed as I discovered in this situation.
I reflected alot upon the idea of treating everyone as ends in themselves rather than a means to an end and this is what I think education should be all about. Teachers and early childcare educators should be deeply invovled in facilitating ethics and understanding in their students. This idea can be further elaborated into the manner in which teachers and adults speak to children in education. I it is ethical for teachers and educators to use and create a positive verbal environment. Since language directly contributes to children's sense of self, current and future self-esteem, and their overall social competence. By using Kant's theory, the educators are obligated to carry out duties such as reparation, gratitude, and nonmaleficence to students and make sure they are not in any way to cause harm to them. For example, by behaving and using nagative verbal replies, teachers would intterupts child's conversations with other children, insists child respond immediately to requests and neglects social niceties such as please, thank you, and excuse me. The teacher doing the action is not being ethical in thinking about the child and he/she is only looking for short-term fix, not thinking about the long-term impact on the child. This will result in negative child's reaction and interpretation as things he/she have to say is not important and not worth time to discuss. The child may further think that he/she have no control and no worth in the world and grow up with negative self-esteem.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting and engaging to relate many of the thinkers ideas to real-life situations and cases in education and workplace. The utilitarianism present the idea of happiness and requires a moral commitment to the happiness of all people. The problem is that it is hard to identify and measure happiness. Therefore i think in ethics, especially in educational ethics, we should not just be concerned about doing the right thing. Not all decisions are about ethical delimmas and hard choices. Education ethics to me, should be first of all concern with happiness and living a good life, enlightening students and allowing them to get the mostout of their school years, and forging the most staisfying relationships with their family, friends, and community. What makes a teacher happy is just as much as a focus of educational ethics as telling the truth and building trust and passion with students and parents.
There is one thing that Doug said that I've been thinking about a lot this week, and I will quote him now to keep myself on track and to comment on the separate thoughts I've had.
ReplyDelete"Even if a person resonates with one particular ethical system, what are the real advantages of sticking with it through thick and thin? Choosing an ethical system is kind of like choosing a religion – a person needs to make a choice to follow something of which its true nature is impossible to be certain of."
This comment doesn't sit right with me. The latter half of the comment was what stuck with me initially, and I've been trying to think more about the former over the week.
So perhaps, for me, it's better for me to accept that I cannot be completely moral at all times than to chose whichever ethical system fits my beliefs at different moments. If sometimes you choose to follow Kant and sometimes choose to follow Mill, aren't you really just following yourself anyway? Why must we prescribe to one system or the other?
I just had the most interesting conversation with my best friend. She's been wanting to know more about post-modernism because she wants to know what the thinks or what she is. Recently she's noticed she's losing faith in institutions (schools, the Catholic Church she was raised with, marriage, etc) and feels as though she's facing a sort of identity crisis. What I've been trying to get her to help me understand is why she needs to be anything--why modern or post-modern, why some sort of religion instead of none (she said she wants to believe in something, but she doesn't know what)?
I really don't know if what I've been thinking even makes sense to me, so I'm sure I'm not articulating it well. Perhaps it will help now for me explain my thoughts on the second half of Doug's comment (i.e. "a person needs to make a choice to follow something of which its true nature is impossible to be certain of"). Is this really the way people ought to think? Because this is absolutely not what I want to encourage in my students. I do not want them to believe everything they read or see or everything I say; I want to encourage my students to question everything and to make their choices based on sound reasoning not because of "faith" or blind acceptance. I think for the continuation of democracy and the kind or society I wish to grow old in, our students need to be absolutely certain of what they are following.
PS. Doug, I hope you don't see my response as some sort of personal attack! It was just your comment that got me thinking, and I thank you for that.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2 from our work in small groups got me thinking: “Can the majority of people live without a system of rewards and punishments to guide their moral behaviour?”
Our school system is heavily dependent on rewards and punishments. On one level there are letter grades. Those who don’t do enough work or who are not smart enough must retake the course. Some students can achieves “A’s” through hard work while others’ best efforts only earn them “C’s”. Some students can put in very little effort and still score “A’s”. Some teachers question the purpose of letter grades. Does having letter grades make students behave morally? For some, striving for grades teaches them a strong work ethic. Other students are willing to cheat in order to get a better letter grade.
On another level, classroom teachers have rewards and punishments for classroom behaviour. This may be connected to report cards in the form of teacher comments. Generally, however, these rewards and punishments are handed out by the teacher each class. A student who shows behaviour the teacher likes may be praised. A student who disrupts the class may have to stay in his/her own time or may be removed from the social context. Without classroom management in this form, the group would suffer because nothing could get done.
The second part of question 2 was “What has to happen during a student’s education to advance to the higher level?” The student has to be empowered to be intrinsically motivated. A few students may achieve the level of loving all learning for the sake of learning. They are rare. Others may have a teacher spark a passion for a particular subject. Some people argue that our institutional-style school system kills any chance of getting students intrinsically motivated because it forces everyone into the same mould.
Reading Kant's ethical system brought two ideas to mind. This idea does seem to be a outworking or extension of the golden rule. Where as the golden rule had a very intimate context, the categorical imperative seems more universal.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why it appeals to me so much is because I think it can be easily taught to children. I imagine a father trying to teach his toddler right from wrong using saying the same thing but using different language. "What if everyone did the same thing? Would you want that to happen?" or "Put yourself in that person's shoes."
The second idea is there seems to be a tension between what are good ideas of an ethical system and what is the practicality of that system. We desire high ideals but don't want to measure ourselves against that. I think that tension is released when we no longer have ourselves as the standard for ethical behavior. We compromise because it it convenient, or the outcome is desirable. As a teacher, if I mess up in this area, the better example is me admitting it and trying to model what forgiveness looks like.
Doug said he wasn't sure if hypocrisy was unethical. I guess it depends if you subscribe to a system where hypocrisy was allowed. I think hypocrisy is neither a good ideal nor is it practical. But perhaps I'm someone who finds comfort in consistency.
We are the one who make rules and laws and whatever regulate our behaviors towarding what seems good to outselves and anyone else. The real world is full of complexity and uncertainty, what was critical and useful in the past might be meaningless in the present as we're continiously evolving and progressing. This is what I was inspired from Darwinism: we strike for the best to suvive.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's useful to make ethical desicions based on rules and laws, we shouldn't be bound as long as we're noting doing things to poison people around us and the society. What if the principles are good, actions are good, but the consequences are undesiable? What if what we want to happen is not ethical? Do these premises violate Kant and Mill's theories?
The life cycle is dinamic, but ethics issues are dilemmas, it really depends...
I do not think that “the majority of people [can] live without a system of rewards and punishments to guide their moral behaviour” (class handout, June, 10, 2010). I agree with Kohlberg that “most people do not get beyond this” “[first] level…in moral development” (class handout). I believe the latter because society is structured around rewards and punishment: everything that we do is either met by a reward or a punishment. Thus, these two concepts motivate us to act in certain ways. Utilitarianism seems to support this structure; “pleasure and pain must be the prime consideration when we are determining what we ought or ought not to do” (McLachlan, 2010, p.76). Pleasure can be synonymous with rewards while pain can be compared with punishment. At the same time, though, I think that Kohlberg’s third stage of moral development, where “the motivating force for decisions is gaining the approval of others” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 25), can also be categorized as a type of reward and thus, I think, can be considered part of the second stage, where “the motivation for moral decisions is one’s own best interests” (p. 25). McLachalan (2010) states that the latter does not just pertain to avoiding punishment, causing one to assume that stage two probably deals with acting in order to receive a reward (p. 25). Having worked with young children for many years, I know that “gaining the approval of others” (McLachlan, 2010, p.25), especially from adults, is extremely important for them. For example, when I ask children to clean up their play area, there are always children that ask me to come and look at their play area; after I tell them that they have done a good job cleaning up, they smile and feel proud.
ReplyDeleteStage six is the highest stage in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Stage six “is oriented toward universal principles and is motivated by the demands of the individual’s conscience” (McLachlan, 2010, p.25), where one “mak[es] more independent, objective and rational responses in situations which involve ethical considerations” (p. 25). I think that education plays a big role in helping students climb up the ladder of moral development because children spend most of their time in school. Thus, in order for students to get to stage six, the education system has to put less emphasis on grades and competition. The latter are forms of extrinsic motivation which prevent students from being intrinsically motivated and finding intrinsic value in the work that they do and what they learn. If students do not have to worry about the mark that they will receive on a given assignment, for example, then they will be able to take the time to develop an appreciation for or interest in what they are learning and appreciate what they are learning. Students will also be able to take the time to understand why they are actually doing the given assignment or learning the material; students often think that they have to learn something because it will be on a test. Being intrinsically motivated at school and finding an intrinsic value in what one is learning parallels the idea that one should act based on the inherent nature of the action, what one feels is the right thing to do rather than what they will get as a result of their actions. The fifth stage in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is also part of the highest level and it is centered around the idea of the social contract, where we have “an understanding of our social interdependency and a concern for the welfare of others” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 25). However, considering Thomas Hobbes’s interpretation of the social contract, I do not think that the idea of the social contract should be in the highest level of Kohlberg’s moral development theory. According to Hobbes, the social contract is “enlightened self-interest because, although we are agreeing to consider others and avoid doing any harm to them even when our interests are in conflict with theirs, we are still acting out of self-interest” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 104). To me, the term self-interest reminds me of the term egoism, which is at the center of the second stage of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (McLachlan, 2010, p. 25).
ReplyDeleteEthics and morality are not the only standards to judge the others and make your own desicions. I believe life is much more than "right" or "wrong".
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, I was away last class and needed a bit of catching up before I posted on here.I looked over the notes from last class from my classmate and one question in particular from the worksheet stood out to me. It was asked if a majority of people are able to live without a system of rewards and punishment to guide their moral behaviour. It is in my opinion that it would be difficult for students to focus without a system of rewards and punishments. I teach piano and tutor and the majority of students I work cooperate solely on a reward and punishment system. Most of the boys I teach piano to are unwilling to cooperate during their lesson unless a reward is promised to them by their parents or a punishment is threatened if they do not behave. With the system of reward and punishment in place, the student instantly changes their behaviour and willingly cooperates throughout the class. I also give all of my students stickers at the end of each class and the fact that they know they receive stickers if they behave motivates them to do well during the class.
ReplyDeleteI find that older students I tutor in high school also live on a system of reward and punishment. Reward is generally based on the outcome of their report card and punishments are often given if one of my students receive low grades. The system of reward and punishment clearly exist in schools based on the system of how one is graded. I believe that many students work harder due to the handout of letter grades. For example, when my students are given worksheets by their teachers that they will not be graded on, I instantly notice that their level of interest in completing the work greatly decreases. The upside of having a grading system would be that it motivates students to keep trying and working harder. However, the downside would be that students do not have the opportunity to develop intrinsic motivation because their work is based on a reward and punishment system.
I apologize for contributing this late, but I was ill last week and my laptop “died” and needed to go to the repair shop.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kant that we are free to think (and choose) independently and that simultaneously we have the responsibility to act in accordance with our duties. But sometimes the context you find yourself in and a certain position that you occupy can complicate that equation. For example, if a student were to disclose to me, a student-teacher, that he can no longer participate in reading our class material because of something that happened to his friend at the school and that also takes place within the readings, my first instinct would be to notify the MCFD, even though the student’s friend is unknown to me. However, as a student-teacher, I might first consult with my school associate about this disclosure and seek advice and support. If it would be decided by the school associate to pass the issue on to the school counsellor and that it was not necessary to call MCFD, I would be caught in the dilemma of either having to choose to follow the principles of the school associate – who after all seemingly knows more than I, the novice, would, in this situation – or to follow my independent convictions that it’s necessary to notify the ministry. If Kant advises that we judge others’ actions based on the person’s intentions or principles, we should also have sufficient knowledge of things that we have had experience with – but what happens when we don’t have knowledge of things we have no or very little experience with? Clearly Kant suggests that, whatever action you were to take, you would be responsible for it, which I agree with, and within the hypothetical scenario I presented, it would be up to me to base my decision on my own belief system and principles, irrespective of another potential decision-maker’s own set of principles. This is important because, although Kant was not concerned with outcomes, consequences would inevitably catch up with us.
To expand on the idea of consequences, I feel that human mentality is predominantly ruled by the concept of reward and punishment, or, pleasure and pain. We are good in order to experience pleasure and happiness, as well as to avoid punishments and pain. Even if no one rewards us for an action, we are likely looking to reward ourselves for it: for instance, I’m one of those people who take up extra classes even if this won’t be met with a material reward (higher pay or extra credits), though it will be met with an internal reward – feeling good about expanding my mind – which is equally valuable. Like Aristotle but unlike Kant, Mill focused on right actions as those that produce the outcome of happiness, especially happiness for the collectives. Sometimes, a teacher’s moral action requires administering “tough love” or even a small degree of punishment in the classroom when convinced that this action will create happiness in the long run for the punished person or group – the student or students may learn to rely on themselves more, or work more cooperatively, or acquire a new perspective, or treat others with greater respect, and so on, depending on the issue. As teachers, oftentimes we must, like Mill, foresee the end-result and work backwards as we always have our students’ best interests in mind. Though ideally we would like all our students to like us, some of them will not because, out of our love for them, we will take actions that we know will ultimately serve them best (which they may initially disagree with) – so in some cases, it is possible to produce long-term happiness out of short-term pain.