For a few weeks now we have been dwelling upon Ethics. Perhaps more than any other unit of TOK, Ethics is taught from the inside out. To avoid a purely academic exercise, one devoid of personal import, one treating ethical systems as if they were maps of purely abstract concepts, we must first become aware of our personal convictions and instinctive reactions, whatever these may be, however contradictory they may be. Once aware of these personal convictions, we can begin to examine them in the light of different ethical doctrines.
We have investigated the implications of using religion as a basis for Ethics, and we have had several conversations upon issues raised by specific ethical dilemmas in which we must make a judgment, select a course of action, and articulate a justification for our judgment and action. In discussing the cases we have looked at Egoist (self-interested), Utilitarian, Christian, and Kantian codes of Ethics.
Is it not interesting that there is no Authoritarian School of Ethics? In Ethics one must be actively thinking, not following. Obedience for the purposes of economic survival perhaps can be treated under Egoism. Recently it has caught the interest of experts concerned with ethics in the workplace. Improper business practice, always for the cause of greater profit, can have a forceful negative impact on society, leading to great economic duress or a terrible poisoning of the environment. In the wake of numerous recent scandals many are now demanding the study of business ethics at university. There is a desire that people be more conscious of their larger ethical responsibilities. The workplace can take on a factory-like ethos: do your work, don't speak up, don't contradict, don't think: you are an indian, not a chief. What is the right thing to do (besides read Dilbert)?
In examining the dilemmas our classroom discussion actually became quite heated at times, providing an opportunity to learn that meaningful human discussion requires restraint, a blast of emotion will usually and unsurprisingly summon an opposing blast. Rather than circumventing discussion, we have learned to exercise more self-restraint in order to share passionate ideas and feelings. All the conversations, I think, have been memorable learning experiences.
Most student responses to the dilemmas (and I hasten to say the responses were a little varied, but speaking generally) would probably find echoes from most adults placed in analogous situations. In fact the continuity with the world of adults made it clear that conventional ethical norms have been well observed and assimilated. At times there was generosity towards a friend, perplexity and inertia at the dilemma of a stranger, indifference at an action that was unethical but had no personal impact. Comparing and contrasting our responses, and looking at them in the light of different ethical codes, is one genuine way for learning to take place, although complex and urgent experience is the better teacher. Our best learning is life.
Besides conventional ethical dilemmas, we have looked at new issues in Bioethics as well, stimulated by a remarkable and memorable talk given by Paul Root Wolpe to an audience at TED. We have also watched an instructive session at TED with Michael Sandel, the most popular teacher at Harvard. Sandel teaches by the case method, first telling a brief story presenting an ethical dilemma and then asking students for their responses. He guides a soft collision of opinions by asking students to respond to each other and to give the reasons for their judgements, and then he seeks to clarify the ethical principles that underlie the collision of judgements. One can see his entire course on the internet (two students in our class have watched all the episodes!).
How do we arrive at our values? How do we justify them? The IB Mission Statement is marked by carefully selected values:
The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.
To this end the organization works with schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment.
These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.
Let's look at that last paragraph again: it says other people can be right and not other people are right. What distinction is being made? Is the door open to an ethical relativism? If it were, would this be fine? If the door is closed, should it be opened?
Due: January 10, 2012
