Post by mentalguru on Nov 10, 2010 5:21:59 GMT -5
Yesterday I had a lecture on eithics in Biology and also three main forms of ethics formation as a result: mainly Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue.
It was pretty interesting and went into a bit more detail than my undergraduate course had from what I remember.
I actually got side-tracked yesterday and was discussing Jet from A:TLA, who could apply to the first form. (Who is also racist against the Fire Nation- basically you're that nation and he thinks you deserve to die, based on his own experiences with the FN, who killed his parents and village.)
Basically Utilitarianism is the viewpoint that the aims ALWAYS justify the means. Basically, if the outcome benefits a larger amount of people than those hurt, it is a justifiable action. Or if you deem the outcome as a larger benefit. A major consequence of this can be (and I more or less quote but not precisely) viewing people as INSTRUMENTS and TOOLS rather than actual individuals.
In a way, Ulitarianism can also be taken as a fall back possibly for certain religious extremists. What is a few lives if you can save more people from everlasting torment? Etc.
While the big picture should be considered at times to do so all the time and not consider anything else can result in major problems.
Deontology is when the motivations you have must also be considered, and that you cannot view people as simply tools but also individuals- Confuscius was the first to be recordered saying something along the lines of doing onto others as you would have them do onto you, though it also forms certain christian ethics, or supposed to any way- but really it's the major fall back of most people in modern society anyway regardless. The aims does not necessarily justify the means all the time and you can't view people as mere tools.
Virtue is achieving happiness through 'being good'- of course even those who are by definition moral are not necessarily happy, but we can feel good after we've helped someone out right? 'Course we can. We usually do get some sort of 'high' from it.
I'm sure there are probably more forms or sub-forms, but those were the ones discussed.
So basically I kind of feel this first form of ethics is a good word for the CDA- while they also want power they also of course, they view that keeping the Monster World secret from humans and underwraps is what's best for everyone involved. What's a little public fear and a lot of wrong information from allowing the lie on human children being toxic to go on if they don't have to deal with humans attacking their world? Probably discovered through some monster getting too curious? Tell them if they spent too long in the human world they'd die from 'toxicity' or something over time.
What's an individual lost if a secret can be kept and they can avoid having to arrest a top scarer probably causing outcry? (I mean you've lost the second, are unlikely to get them back.)
Why risk sending a team in after Randall to save him at all? You are putting multiple people at risk for one individual's safety, someone who might be dead anyway, and a criminal at that who risked blowing the whole humans are toxic thing in some respects. Forget it.
Personally, I feel the CDA are probably not delibrately malicious- they won't laugh as they tortured you or take joy in doing so to some random member of the public. But if it's in their best interests to do so or fits their aims- they wouldn't hesitate to do so. They're not technically sadists. But they are potential extremists.
It's probably also in their best interests that Sulley remains CEO if he does become one as he did- having someone under their thumb who has access to many doors to the human world is a great benefit to their cause in controlling access even further. Of course, they'd have to keep an eye on things all the same. Plus, if the idea of humans not being toxic comes out- they'd need a back-up plan. And they possibly do have- or at least whoever is higher than Roz does.
True they also want to keep power and influence in their actions, but also in their form of ethical argument, they could argue back and say it's in the monster world's 'best interests' they retain a certain amount of power. They 'know' what's best. In a way they also treat the people as clueless children.
I know some of this is repeating some stuff here too, but what other characters do you think can apply to this?
Perhaps it's controversial, but both Waternoose and Randall do subscribe a little to the idea it seems. Of course they have their own more personal stakes and gains not related to 'ethics' which muddy the waters too- and Waternoose more fits the 'tools' and 'instruments' viewpoint than Randall ever could, but I wondered what you guys thought.
It was pretty interesting and went into a bit more detail than my undergraduate course had from what I remember.
I actually got side-tracked yesterday and was discussing Jet from A:TLA, who could apply to the first form. (Who is also racist against the Fire Nation- basically you're that nation and he thinks you deserve to die, based on his own experiences with the FN, who killed his parents and village.)
Basically Utilitarianism is the viewpoint that the aims ALWAYS justify the means. Basically, if the outcome benefits a larger amount of people than those hurt, it is a justifiable action. Or if you deem the outcome as a larger benefit. A major consequence of this can be (and I more or less quote but not precisely) viewing people as INSTRUMENTS and TOOLS rather than actual individuals.
In a way, Ulitarianism can also be taken as a fall back possibly for certain religious extremists. What is a few lives if you can save more people from everlasting torment? Etc.
While the big picture should be considered at times to do so all the time and not consider anything else can result in major problems.
Deontology is when the motivations you have must also be considered, and that you cannot view people as simply tools but also individuals- Confuscius was the first to be recordered saying something along the lines of doing onto others as you would have them do onto you, though it also forms certain christian ethics, or supposed to any way- but really it's the major fall back of most people in modern society anyway regardless. The aims does not necessarily justify the means all the time and you can't view people as mere tools.
Virtue is achieving happiness through 'being good'- of course even those who are by definition moral are not necessarily happy, but we can feel good after we've helped someone out right? 'Course we can. We usually do get some sort of 'high' from it.
I'm sure there are probably more forms or sub-forms, but those were the ones discussed.
So basically I kind of feel this first form of ethics is a good word for the CDA- while they also want power they also of course, they view that keeping the Monster World secret from humans and underwraps is what's best for everyone involved. What's a little public fear and a lot of wrong information from allowing the lie on human children being toxic to go on if they don't have to deal with humans attacking their world? Probably discovered through some monster getting too curious? Tell them if they spent too long in the human world they'd die from 'toxicity' or something over time.
What's an individual lost if a secret can be kept and they can avoid having to arrest a top scarer probably causing outcry? (I mean you've lost the second, are unlikely to get them back.)
Why risk sending a team in after Randall to save him at all? You are putting multiple people at risk for one individual's safety, someone who might be dead anyway, and a criminal at that who risked blowing the whole humans are toxic thing in some respects. Forget it.
Personally, I feel the CDA are probably not delibrately malicious- they won't laugh as they tortured you or take joy in doing so to some random member of the public. But if it's in their best interests to do so or fits their aims- they wouldn't hesitate to do so. They're not technically sadists. But they are potential extremists.
It's probably also in their best interests that Sulley remains CEO if he does become one as he did- having someone under their thumb who has access to many doors to the human world is a great benefit to their cause in controlling access even further. Of course, they'd have to keep an eye on things all the same. Plus, if the idea of humans not being toxic comes out- they'd need a back-up plan. And they possibly do have- or at least whoever is higher than Roz does.
True they also want to keep power and influence in their actions, but also in their form of ethical argument, they could argue back and say it's in the monster world's 'best interests' they retain a certain amount of power. They 'know' what's best. In a way they also treat the people as clueless children.
I know some of this is repeating some stuff here too, but what other characters do you think can apply to this?
Perhaps it's controversial, but both Waternoose and Randall do subscribe a little to the idea it seems. Of course they have their own more personal stakes and gains not related to 'ethics' which muddy the waters too- and Waternoose more fits the 'tools' and 'instruments' viewpoint than Randall ever could, but I wondered what you guys thought.