Mike and Pericles

Ok... I’ve been watching the Frasier marathon this weekend.. when I’m feeling like a break, zip into the lounge and aaaarrrrr feel that warm rush of intelligent comedy surging though my humor veins...

Frasier’s humor is developed over a long time, based on ones knowledge of the characters. This way, just a glance, a word.. a gesture.. is enough in context to bring the house down.

The interaction between you 2 is a bit like that :) .. “PROPELLOR HEAD” ? .. my my.. when I saw that, after all the serious stuff and persuasive combative banter, I shrieked in a kind of ‘ROFL’ kind of way.. and felt for a moment Frasiers writers had some serious competition :)

MIke, what I cannot quite get here, is why you seem to be making it much more complex than it appears to be (to me).

You mention GM foods,as an ‘ethical’ issue but surely this is more of a ‘research’ issue ?
All ethics boil down to the application of the golden rule “Do for others....”
Now surely this has to be the criteria to determine if GM foods are ‘ok’ or not ? They are either ‘harmful’ in some tangible way or they arn’t. If they are, then the ethics is clear “NO”. It matters not whether developing them will mean squillions for some company like Monsanto. On the other hand, if they are not harmful, then its a ‘YES’.

When it comes to business ethics, it becomes interesting.

-Price wars ? (the goal is not to sell more but to destroy ?)
-Should I ‘manufacture’ a superior version of something already made ? where, if I’m successful, it could result in the demise of a competitor and loss of jobs and severe hardship for his former employees ?
Perhaps the problem is the ethics of ‘Capitalism’ itself ?

hmmm... * wanders off in a reflective mood * I guess I expect them to do the same for me, so I try harder, or make something else

MikeM - relieved to hear you're not blind, but still the topic meanders....

You stated: "Steven Schwartz (does not) think that ethics should be taught at university to the exclusion of ethical teaching by parents and in schools."

Well one would like to think so, but that's not exactly how I interpreted the article. In fact if you could lead me to the place where he made a point of how vital this aspect of education is - I would really appreciate it.

In fact very little discussion is given to the teaching of ethics in primary and secondary schools - along with a lot of other topics under the heading of 'life skills'. Religion is taught in many schools and yet there is no balance with teaching ethics. No one here seems to be interested in the fact that ethics are important and vital to the development of our young people. This is why we end up with questionable organisations like Microsoft and somewhat topically - AWB.

What should have been an interesting debate has bogged down into turgid point scoring.

Yawn.

>>Pericles, You are still off-topic<<

Sadly true. I have allowed myself to be led astray.

The article devotes itself to the proposition that ethics is a study topic for adults, as in "make a university subject in ethics both mandatory and rigorous."

I suggested that ethics is not teachable in the sense that a language, or mathematics, is teachable, and that if you have to wait until university, it is far too late.

All the garbage in between has been largely the result of you making unwarranted ad hominem attacks on me, instead of engaging with the argument.

MikeM, you still fail to explain why additional instruction in the subject at university level will have the slightest impact on what is, at base, an emotional issue.

The subject “Ethics”, I will state again, is not teachable in the traditional sense. Providing illustrations of ethical dilemmas and hypothetical examples for people to work through will not make anyone more - or for that matter, less - ethical in their behaviour. Understanding ethics does not itself make an impact on the tendency of an individual to act, or not act, ethically.

Boaz muses about GM foods. Ultimately the question has to be asked "what is the right thing to do?". And if it can be shown that "the right thing" is to save a million children from starvation, that's the problem solved, isn't it? If on the other hand it is merely a device to increase Monsanto profits with no other benefit, that's also clear.

And if the issue sits half way between - as it inevitably will - the answer will also sit half way between, won't it?

Where does a university education in codes of ethics add to the discussion?

If you spent more time addressing the question instead of thinking up new insults, we might make some progress.

The rest of your observations on the information technology industry only serve to highlight the fact that you are in unknown territory. As with your suppositions on my Myer-Briggs profile, which are so far off track as to be laughable.

*looks around*.... is MikeM analyzing me.... nope.. ok.. we may begin.

Pericles.

the point you make about Uni being way too late to inculcate a sense of ethical behavior and attitude in young people is very true. The corollary of it being the raising of children in the way they 'should' go is probably the closest to an effective method of sharpening "concience". (unfortunately they come to an age where they ask 'why should I' specially when confronted by this worlds carnal delights)

The idea that a mature concsience (Mike) can be awoken at Uni as a result of a course of instruction is kinda lame to put it mildly. Pericles is absolutely right saying "Its way too late".

I think both of you have underlined the correctness of my own position, in that we have to 'want' to do right, not just know about it. Our desire to do it will depend on our sense of benefit/shame/outcomes if we don't.

I maintain that an ethics framework must exist in a community, where those on the 'throne' must demonstrate and promote right values to we in the 'marketplace'. But this is just simple social theory, it won't make Mr Machievelli into Mother Theresa.

We cannot legislate morality, or ethics beyond a certain point. So it comes back to people.

I think we need a balance between a legal/social framework, along with a continual appeal to the heart, based on revealed truth. Yessss I know.. that is the point where your (Mike, Pericles and Scout) sympathy with my reasoning evaporates right ?

Mike is campaigning for Ethics courses at Uni.. (err worried about a dodgy tenure Mike ? :) Pericles is campaigning for 'bring em up right' and here I am... thumping you all with the ol Good Book.

On GM foods, as long as research demonstrates no ill for people or the environment, I'm supportive, irrespective of profits to Monsanto.
But then, I might have issues with the idea that a company can 'patent' something crucial for survival of humanity. "Do for others" ...because the Almighty says we should.

1. For the record: A person who says that ethics should be taught at University is NOT saying that ethics should not be taught in primary or high school any more than a man who orders fish for dinner is not saying that fish should not be eaten for lunch. Fish should be eaten for lunch and ethics should be taught in primary and high school.

2. I believe that anybody who sits down and thinks hard about ethics will be more ethical. That is the way the brain works. I don't think it is a panacea for turning Macchiavelli into Mother Theresa, but I think it helps at any age. I'd agree that like almost anything learned, it is better to learn it young.

3. I also think that anybody who sits down and thinks hard about ethics will be a better thinker and that is important for business and civilisation and is, I hope, one of the goals of a University course.

Boaz - Although I think the golden rule is a good idea it is not everything you need to know about ethics. For example, when flipping the channels with my wife in the lounge room if the cricket is on, the Golden Rule says it is time to settle in and keep watching. My soulmate on the other hand views it as a form of unfathomable torture (especially when Tony Grieg does the commentary). Ditto when Led Zepplin comes on the radio. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, does not work if our tastes differ. This is trivial, but there are more serious examples.

I assume that you believe that someone should respect your religion and according to the Golden Rule, you should respect theirs. But if that other religion says that people should be killed because they are not true believers or some other reason, then the Golden Rule does not work.

I think the Golden Rule should be taught at University, primary and high school along with all the other aspects of ethics.

BOAZ wrote GM foods "are either ‘harmful’ in some tangible way or they arn’t. If they are, then the ethics is clear 'NO'.”

Genetic modification techniques apply to a wide variety of life forms besides food plants. It is not that simple.

Only a firm with a death wish would market 'harmful' food.

But how much testing is needed to know whether something is harmful or not? A month with 10 people? A year with 100? A decade with 1000? Have you still filtered out a disaster like thalidomide?

What is 'harmful' anyway? Can you transfer a peanut gene into strawberries, and simply label them, MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUTS? Are hamburgers harmful to health?

Can companies patent plant genes so that anyone using a plant containing that gene must pay a royalty? Animal gene? Human gene - for example a gene that predisposes women to breast cancer, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5016 ?

Should substances be tested on animals? If so, what would justify that?

Should Monsanto have been allowed to commercialise its 'terminator gene', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/465222.stm ?

Scientists through genetic engineering have created living polio virus from common chemicals. Should they have done the experiment? Should they have published a paper describing it?

Should human embryos be tested for inherited diseases? And if positive, what?

There are many ethical issues that arise as we learn more about manipulating the genome.

This ethical training has little in common with studying the works of Plato, the Bible or later philosophers.

It involves learning through practice to:

* Determine facts
* Identify issues
* Identify stakeholders and their interests
* Determine possible courses of action
* Consider implications
* Assess the according to society's accepted ethical and legal principles
* Choose a course of action that 'best' balances stakeholder interests with ethical considerations.

Solving ethical problems in a professional field is often a group process and may require negotiating a solution.

Negotiation, whether of trade treaty, ethical dispute, commercial contract or fall-out from a marriage breakdown, is a skill that is teachable and improves with practice.

What possible objection is there to teaching this?