Last time we discussed the distinction between politics and ethics, and there was some disagreement about the extent to which they could and should be separated. Here are two different contemporary opinions:
[T]he difference between ethics and politics seems to me artificial, if there is a significant difference at all. Sometimes the distinction is a matter of scale. If one guy robs you, it's ethics, but when 435 people rob you, it's politics-or the House of Representatives is in session. But surely the deliberations of that body are subject to ethical analysis. What's more, politics can be a necessary expression of ethics. Often the only way to achieve an individual ethical goal is through group endeavor-i.e., politics. Randy Cohen, "The Politics of Ethics: By Identifying Ethics with Civic Virtue, We Create an Ethics of the Left," The Nation April 8, 2002.
The difference between ethics and politics is that ethics develops the concepts and vocabulary useful to the individual in the management of his/her individual life, while politics develops the concepts and vocabulary useful to the citizen as citizen, i.e., to the individual whose actions must be governed by the common good or the achievement of happiness by all members of the community. Because politics is concerned with the achievement of happiness by the community as a whole, politics has a certain priority over ethics in the field of practical philosophy. Tom Bridges, "Lectures on Aristotle," at http://www.msu.org/intro/content_intro/lecture_notes/aristotle/lecture_notes7.htm, February 18, 2001
Are you in agreement with either or both of these views? Can you imagine a situation in which someone who agreed with both views would find political and ethical considerations in conflict with one another? Cohen and Bridges seem to disagree about how such conflicts should be resolved. How do you think they should be resolved?
We'll begin with a discussion of our answers to the questions raised by Bernard Williams' "George" and "Jim" examples. Although it will be useful to hear the range of opinions concerning the basic questions of "Should George accept the job?" and "Should Jim shoot the Indian?", clearly the more interesting discussion, from our point of view, is how different members of the Seminar explain the reasoning behind their answers. Indeed, courses in ethics often use scenarios or case studies to motivate issues of justification rather than to find definitive solutions to problems we consider ethical (rather than mathematical, legal, etc.). Thus in his "Overview of Ethical Theory," Richard Field writes:
Ethics is therefore reflective and critical: it does not simply attempt to codify beliefs concerning moral questions, but attempts to find the grounds for reasonable moral beliefs. Because of this, ethics should be distinguished from what we commonly call "morality," which is simply a set of beliefs accepted by a given culture concerning what we ought or ought not to do in moral situations, whether these beliefs are a product of critical reflection or not. Although many people do at times consider the cogency of their moral beliefs in a critical manner, the philosophical ethicist attempts to do this in a manner that is broader in scope and more systematic in methodology than is typical in common moral reflection." ("An Overview of Ethical Theory," http://www.nwmissouri.edu/~rfield/274overview.html)
In the final part of CS009, we'll be concerned with questions, problems and issues of justification raised by the widespread introduction (some would say permeation) of information and computer technologies in contemporary life. Two questions we'll consider throughout this part of the course are:
Do you think the works by Moravec, Arendt, Hayles, Cherny, Lippman, and/or Sunstein offer affirmative answers to either of these questions?
Spinello's Case Studies, "The Acquisition of Information"
Considering the five cases presented in this section:
For Monday:: Read Part II, Sections 4 and 5, of Spinello's Case Studies in Information and Computer Ethics.