Greetings Mentees!
This week’s discussion will be based on the results of a critical and ethical thinking assignment through the Virtual Philosopher; the questions and results are pretty fascinating. Now, let me first say, I was inconsistent twice according to the Virtual Philosopher; I have good reasons, though! After you have taken the Virtual Philosopher test, I will go into more detail about my responses, my critical and ethical thinking behind those choices and why I believe I had good reason to be inconsistent. To begin with this assignment, go to the link http://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/vp/vp.html and take the short scenario quiz. Then, tell me a little about why you chose those particular answers, and then comment on your critical thinking reasoning that led to your decisions for all three scenarios: the friend’s problem, the lifeboat problem and the live problem. Were you scored as consistent or inconsistent?Next, have you ever been in a position where you had to make a decision similar to those provided by the Virtual Philosopher? Looking back, did you answer the way you thought you would have originally?I can’t wait to hear back from you! As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. We want this to be as helpful and open as possible. Thanks!
Kadie
Hello again Mentees,
Well this assignment seems to be quite interesting. I enjoyed taking this quiz of the morally challenging. It is interesting how you say one thing and then when it is truly put to the test given real life situations your answers seem to change. I really hope you enjoy this quiz and can’t wait to talk about it soon! Have fun!P.S. My answers were inconsistent as well!
~Rebe
Hey Mentees,
This week’s topic is about critical thinking, and this is one topic that is very interesting to me. Through the virtual philosopher analyzing critical thinking has made me realize that decisions can be changed and based on many circumstances. For example they asked about beliefs and values and I can clearly state my beliefs in a general sense. Yet when asked about making a decision about my friends my decision was not consistent with my previous beliefs. This is why I believe critical thinking cannot be based on a one sided reasoning because decisions are evaluated differently for every situation. As Kadie stated you can reach the website via the link provided, so enjoy this adventure of discovering your critical thinking skills, the results will be surprising!!!
-Kathleen
Hello!
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting assignment! So I was consistent with the first two issues, but the liver transplant got me! I was completely swayed by the fact that it was a child and that he was the sickest of them all. After listening to the reasoning of why I was said to be inconsistent, medically speaking, I agree that Chris would probably not survive the transplant. Yet, something inside of me makes it hard to take my choice back and say give it to the alcoholic who purposefully destroyed his liver.
-dora
Hi guys,
ReplyDeleteThis was hard! I was only consistent with the lifeboat problem, I could not bare the idea of telling someone to get off! Can everybody take turns in the water? Second, I was inconsistent with the friend problem because I believe that sometimes white lies are beneficial (but in extreme situations) and I choose to tell she was odd. I believe that unless it it's an extreme situation that honesty is always better. Yes, she will cry, but if I'm her friend there is nothing bad in being odd, maybe I am odd too. The third one was REALLY hard! I was inconsistent and I perfectly understand why. I chose, that all lives are worth saving at first, but there was only one liver. First I chose lottery because it seem easier, leaving the dirty job to fate, but then it seem irresponsible. So I choose elimination, although I believe in most cases first serve basis it's the right thing to do, I could not give the liver to an alcoholic who was going to ruin a wonderful gift! I feel bad about it, but I thought the other patients would have a bigger chance of life taking care of the liver more!
Paloma Peraza
Dora,
ReplyDeleteI believe most people would choose to save the child. When I first read the prompt or story, I was drawn to save the boy, I think as adults we value so much the life a a child that it would seem irresponsible and almost sin like to not choose him. This was definetly the hardest of the questions. I also agree with you that giving the first guy the liver was not the best idea, not because he was less worth it (criminal, homeless) but because he had another condition that would have spoil his new liver and then really no one could have been saved.
Paloma Peraza
Hello! It was interesting to read your results from the Virtual Philosopher and see how you responded. Here's a question, and I believe it may have been mentioned during the quiz, but we all were so concerned about the child receiving the heart, why didn't we choose the single mother of the multiple kids? What are your thoughts on that?
ReplyDeleteI look forward to your thoughts!
Kadie
By now, you have taken the Virtual Philosopher, answered the questions and have determined (or been told) you were either consistent or not so much. Let me state my case a little now and why I chose and believed what I did when answering the questions. The first three questions asked provided the philosopher a basis to use for scenario questions. I don’t believe that killing all innocent people is wrong, otherwise we wouldn’t ever go to war and our poor soldiers would have a heavy, heavy conscious; war is probably the only time I would condone “murder,” as the question was put. So, when the scenario about the overloaded boat came around, I couldn’t bring myself to throw anyone overboard, therefore my answer was inconsistent. My critical thinking and ethical reasoning were contradictory in this because I couldn’t come up with a better plan, but I knew morally that I couldn’t kill an innocent person in that type of situation. Irritably, one of my initial thoughts were about the carelessness of the captain/owner/whoever was in charge to allow so many people on the boat without proper safety equipment. Titanic strikes again!
ReplyDeleteI also believe that lying is ok in some circumstances. “Little white lies,” as I call them, are ok in appropriate situations. For example, I’m not going to outright tell a friend or stranger that what they’re wearing or their haircut is hideous, although I may make little suggestions, it still is a lie. Things of that nature I think there are acceptable times to avoid the truth. However, when the question regarding the friend’s breakup presented itself, I did feel it was ok to tell her she was odd because, I for one, think uniqueness is a great asset. I would have agreed she was odd, but in a really great way and the person wasn’t right for her if they couldn’t understand her. So, again, I was inconsistent. Ethically, in my relationships, I never think it’s appropriate to flat out lie. I want there to be trust without doubt, but sometimes in life, especially outside of committed relationships, not everyone needs to know the truth. If there’s a possibility that there could be layoffs, but it’s certainty is unknown, why tell everyone ahead of time? There would be a crisis because people would freak out, become less productive because of their concerns or get the “short-timer” syndrome. You have to take every situation separately and evaluate it in its own, individual way.
Read the next post for the rest...
Now, for the controversial question, I don’t believe that everyone’s life should be judged equally. I would throw a pedophile, cold-blooded and evil killer and those who are not productive at all to society overboard before I would condemn a Nobel Prize winner, a teacher, etc., basically someone contributing positively to society. I don’t want to be the one to judge, I’m not God, so I hope I never have to be in a situation where I truly have to decide who’s life is worth saving and who’s isn’t. Regardless, I was consistent with that question as I did not think the drunk that was first on the list should receive the transplant. (For the record, it wasn’t that he was a homeless drunk that I didn’t choose him. It was the fact that if he received the transplant, unless his lifestyle changed, primarily the drinking part, he would have ruined the whole purpose of the transplant and been back in the same position. It seemed counterproductive.) I can’t remember, but I think I chose either the Nobel Prize winner (since they were close to a breakthrough on another disease) or the child (not because it was a child, but because he was who needed it the most). I also had contemplated using the lottery as a way to decide, but decided against because there were a couple of the people who I felt strongly against for one reason or another. Ethically, it bothered me to think seriously about this question because I really don’t want to be the judge of another person’s life. Who am I to say one person is better than another? But, I do think some lives are more important than others.
ReplyDeleteNow, I don’t believe everything is black and white; there are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of gray areas in life. This exercise is a great example of how many gray areas there are in making, what you would think, simple decisions. Initially you may answer one question a certain way, like maybe throw the overweight guy overboard to save yourself (and everyone else), but in thinking about it, do you want to be that person responsible for killing another person without real cause? It wasn’t his fault the captain let too many people/weight on the boat. My point is, life has these situations everyday and the answers are not always straight forward.
Kadie
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteThe results were VERY intersting. Paloma and Dora, the liver question was the most difficult for me as well. Being a health major Paloma, I'm all about giving everyone an equal opportunity to recieve an organ and as it should be the first on the list should be the receipient. Yet I myself couldnt come to giving it to an alchoholic. I actually chose the mother. Although I do understand that a childs life is important and they have many years to experience, I felt that those children needed a mother as well. I think what we need to understand is nothing will ever be the "right choice". In life we are faced with many situations that will require us to make critical decisions and for us to do that we have to be able to look at every angle and think critically to get the better result not the "right" result, because I honestly feel like in these questions no answer was the right one.
Kathleen and Kadie,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why I did not pick the mother of 6 kids. I believe it was the face value of the suffering child. I looked at it that the mom probably had family to help her to begin with so she could stay on the list a little longer and hopefully get another one. Kathleen, I agree that sometimes there is no right answer and we might have to put our "feelings" aside and do what is best. Maybe that alcoholic will change and go around saving other alcoholics who are on the brink of death themselves. Who knows? Only God does and therefore I pray like Kadie that I am never in a situation to decide something like this. We cant put worth on someone else's life, we can however look at how they have chosen to use their life.
-dora
Hey everyone!
ReplyDeleteHa, I too thought this was a pretty interesting assignment, and I got consistent on the first two issues, but inconsistent on the third, which I believe to be a catch-22.
So, on the friend problem, I determined that you should straight up tell the truth to the person. So they're odd, so what? You're their friend. If they cant take the fact that you are their friend even though you think they are a little odd, then thats their problem. You never tried to stop being their friend, but if they do, its because they have a problem.
The lifeboat problem...I decided to push the guy out of the boat. Before I get jumped on for being a monster, think about this. This 400 pound guy weighs as much as 2 reasonably sized men. 3 normal sized women. He's throwing off the equilibrium of the boat! Plus, with all the fat on his body, he'll survive for a while for sure. He's insulated for goodness sake! Plus there's nothing stopping us from pulling him back into the boat for a second and perhaps others getting in the water for a while and then putting him back in the water.
On the last problem, I think it's a catch-22. I put down that all human life is worth saving. However, no matter what, you're choosing one human life over another in that situation. I'm not even sure if it's possible to get consistent on that question. No matter what, the guy who was first on the transplant list is definitely out. He's an extreme alcoholic and a criminal. The alcoholism automatically forfeits his right to the liver, and he wouldn't even be considered on a list in real life anyway. The rich guy was last on the list. Just because he was willing to donate 100million dollars to the hospital, all of a sudden he should get the liver? No. Thats supporting the idea that money can buy anything, and that should definitely not be the case. The Older lady who worked on AIDS research, certainly she would not be opposed to the liver going to a child. Plus, she's lived a long full life. Giving her the liver banking on the fact that he'll complete her research is ethically wrong in itself. The 26 year old mother has also lived her life. She has 6 kids. Not only that, but she has family, for sure, that will be good to her children for sure. She would be second in line for the liver. The child is the main priority. Sure he's the sickest, and there is that risk that he may not survive the transplant, but out goal should be to allow the child a fighting chance to live a life as full as any of the other candidates.
-Totiro N. Clark II
Kathleen,
ReplyDeleteI totally understand what you're saying. There is no right choice to any of these questions really. They were probably designed that way, considering it was a philosophically based program. I totally agree with you on one point though. The alcoholic/criminal should not receive the liver. The fact that he's an alcoholic automatically voids his #1 status. I also agree with you on your other point as well. In life, you'll have to make tough decisions, and you'll have to live with the choices you make in those decisions...there are no re-starts or re-do's in life. I also chose the child because we should be trying to give him as much time to live his life as possible.
Kadie,
ReplyDeleteI didn't choose the mother with the 6 kids because I'm sure the mother has parents who could care for the child. The quiz said nothing about the mother's parents being dead, only that she had no husband. Her parents, I would assume, are alive and well, and would be happy to take their grandkids in, that way the kids could stay together and grow up together. Naturally we dont want the kids to be split up in the foster care system. If that were to happen, who knows how they'd turn out?
Everyone,
ReplyDeleteIt's been really interesting reading everyones point of view, specially on the liver problem. I think everyone had strong feelings towards that one. I think we all agreed on the fact that giving the alcoholic a liver would have been a waste. I think it's pretty interesting how the debate has been between choosing the child or the mother. i think the reason for this is because the mother has children too and that brings out the fact that we all feel very strongly about a child's live, not only the sick one but also the others in case they became orphans. Nice assignments, it had me thinking for a couple of days!
Paloma Peraza
Hello!
ReplyDeleteWow...I meant to post this way back at the beginning and my computer wasnt allowing me to post. BUT...
Yes, Dora, me too. I completely agree! I was all off because it says "he will not live the rest of the week" or something like that. I also had a hard time wanting to give the liver to someone who purposefully destroyed it knowing what he/she was doing is not helping their bodies. I was swayed as well. I agree the third question was quite tricky.
~Rebe
Hello Everyone,
ReplyDeleteAfter taking the test, I learned that I was consistent with two of the scenarios and inconsistent with one. I was consistent with the friend’s problem and the lifeboat problem, and inconsistent with the liver problem. As for the friend, what is wrong with her knowing the truth about herself that she is odd so long as she knows that one day the right person will admire and appreciate her for that very oddness? In the lifeboat problem, I definitely saw the 400lb man needing to go in order to save the everyone else, however there is no way I could push him or any human being overboard. Last, in the case of the liver problem, I chose the eight year old to receive the liver. There was no critical thinking behind my decision; I simple picked her because she was the youngest in need.
I feel personally I relate to the virtue theory of ethics the most. An example would be in the case of the friend’s problem where I did not even see a need to lie. If you believe in the truth than how can it be wrong? I guess that is why I see her oddness as a positive rather than a negative. I know there is a difference in ethical and critical reasoning, but I believe my ethical beliefs overshadow the critical side and therefore did not cause a problem in my choices.
I thought I did very well to get two out of three correct. I can see why the virtual philosopher scored my answer regarding the liver problem incorrect. I thought I valued all humans equally, but I found out that I really do not. Maybe this is an area I need to reflect on and think about because I would hate to think of myself as telling a lie.
I think through this assignment we all learned something about ourselves we did not know before!
Pam
I took the test and learned that the Virtual Philosopher believes me to be inconsistent with 2 of the moral dilemmas and consistent with only one. First of all, who does he think he is calling people inconsistent, basically labeling them liars and then lecturing them at the end? These are hard choices for anyone to make and no one should have to go through being lectured about the decisions they made. I had to choose between life and death for innocent people and this guy had the nerve to tell me my answers were inconsistent? Where does he get off anyway?
ReplyDelete~Galen Michael Macpherson I~
The first question was too vague for the Virtual Philosopher to be naming people inconsistent. I, myself, chose that lying is sometimes okay when it’s for good reason but then went on to tell the truth to my friend. The situation presented to me had 2 situations. 1: Lie to my friend. Tell him he’s normal. Let him continue living up to the expectation that people believe he’s normal. Let him further himself from being himself and possibly ruin the chance of someone finding and liking him for who he really is instead of someone who he thinks he is. 2: Tell him the truth. He is odd. However, that’s who he is. Lying is not going to solve anything. Telling him the truth could possibly make him come to the realization that he is odd and needs to learn how to live with it. He needs to be able to pick up girls by being himself, not some definition of what society deems as odd and normal.
ReplyDelete~Galen Michael Macpherson I~
The second question of which I was deemed inconsistent was totally bogus. I had answered the question that the killing of innocent people is never justifiable. However, when the situation arose I took no time to select the answer for pushing the fat man overboard. This is a clear cut case. Should one stand idly by whilst a boat full of 10 able bodied, normal weight individuals sinks due to a 300 pound man’s selfishness? No, the 300 pound man has eaten himself into an “at risk” stage; at risk to himself and to others around him. And after all this 300 pound man has committed one of the seven deadly sins: gluttony. So he’s not entirely innocent after all, according to good ol’ Catholicism. The selfishness of this man alone brings him from innocence to inevitable condemnation.
ReplyDelete~Galen Michael Macpherson I~
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteThis assignment was very interesting!
I was consitent for the liver and life boat scenario but not with the friend in need scenario. I do think that the friend in need scenario was not the case where I would lie. Like someone else said, I also do not consider being odd as necessarily a bad thing. The other two situations are a little more complicated because you are dealing with people's lives.
~Ana Zuniga
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to situations like the lifeboat and the liver transplant I think you really have to be consistent with your moral and ethic values. They are hard decisions to make no matter what you decide but if you do not follow what you believe then you can really suffer psychologically from internal turmoil. Personally, I think the lifeboat situation is a matter of how you feel about death yourself. I put that killing innocent people is always wrong and then I decided not to push the obese person off. So, I was consistent. I think in that situation you can either save yourself and live with the guilt of murder for the rest of your life, or simply face death. Of course, unless you're in that situation you can't really decide but it is probably the thing to consider most. The other ten people can make this same decision on their own.
ReplyDeleteIn the end you have to know that you can live or die peacefully with whatever decision you make in a given situation.
~Ana Zuniga
I am very fortunate to have never been in either the lifeboat or the liver situation nor anything similar to either! But I think we have all been in the friend situation in one way or another. I said lying is justifiable, but I also think that truth is the best policy. When it comes to the scenario described I think it does the friend more harm to lie to them. She really should not think she's "normal" she should take pride in being "odd" .. whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think it is justifiable to lie when it serves a greater moral good. For example, if I was a guard in a concentration camp in Nazi times and I saw a prisoner do something wrong I would for sure lie to save them!
Looking at my answers the only one that kind of surprised me was the liver problem. Only because that test really tries to dissuade you out of choosing that person to die. I chose to give the liver to the kid simply because he had lived the least. Let me note that not because he had the most left to live because a kid that young with a failing liver is probably going to die young anyways. But, he really should get the chance to live as much as possible. The other people got to make decisions in their life already whether they be good or bad, and they had their chance. I think this is why we have a soft spot for kids!
~Ana Zuniga
I think its so intriguing that most of us had issues with the liver problem. I didnt even think about the lying one though. Some people say lying is justifiable if its serves a greater good. How can we rationalize that though? It might be good to the friend to lie to them but then in the long run, they never change and are never in another meaningful relationship because no one can put up with them. If you say a lie enough times, it begins to sound like the truth. That phrase has always helped to reconsider when I am in a bind. Lying now might be easier, but 10 years from now? What is its consequence? As much as it might hurt, i think truth is always the best way to go. Then we can learn to adapt and grow with the new knowledge.
ReplyDelete-dora
I was consistent with all three situations.
ReplyDeleteI chose not to lie to my friend. If my friend is odd they probably already know that. There's really no reason to lie to him/her and tell them anything different. Being odd isn't necessarily a bad thing but if a significant other cannot cope with that fact then they need to go. Lying is never justifiable in my book of ethics. Lying only compiles existing problems.
In the lifeboat situation I chose to push the 400lb man off. I know it really sounds wrong but there are other lives to think about in this situation. If he stays on everyone else dies. I would not have risked the lives of all the others for one person. I believe that if a horrible deed needs to be committed for the greater good then do that horrible act. I know I sound really insensitive to many of you but that's the way I feel things should work.
The liver problem gave me more to think about. But I knew I was going to choose the eight year old child from the beginning. I did not want to choose him because he is a child it's because he needed it the most. During the selection process I almost changed my mind. I automatically eliminated the homeless man. He apparently did not make the right choices in life and I feel he was not going to cherish his new liver. He would have probably went to the liquor store right after being signed out of the hospital. The next on my list was the businessman who wanted to pay for the liver. I do not believe that just because you have money you should get something above another person. He could probably offer that money to any other Dr. and he'd get exactly what he wanted but I do not want to be bribed into doing something good for someone, so I eliminated him. Next was the 60 year old Nobel piece prize winner. She was harder to eliminate. She had accomplished so much in her life and she was one the verge of another breakthrough, but it came down to the fact the she did not need it more than the eight year child. That was my reasoning for eliminating the twenty six year single mother of six too. I thought the one who was in the worst condition should have had the chance to receive the transplant operation.
I think this assignment helped most people realize how hard it would be to make a decision with someone's lives in your hands. I did not freak out because of the hard decisions I faced. Making split decision is a part of my job. And when I make wrong ones I justify my actions with reasoning as to why I did what I did. If their are consequences related to me making a bad call I will accept those while continuing to back up my reasoning.
- Lawatha L. CherRenfro