BOAZ,

I wouldn't want psychoanalyse you. Pericles of course is another matter.

When we talk of universities teaching ethics in engineering, law, medicine or other professional fields, we are not talking about teaching amoral people that it is wrong to kill, steal, or covet thy neighbour's wife. They are supposed to already know the basics when they get to university. (I know there are no separate ethics courses in Australian schools, but there don't need to be. The principles are supposed to be integrated into whatever is taught.)

Even so, vehicle design engineers and their executives make trade-offs every day between the design of a new vehicle and its cost, and the possibility of people being killed. Few go as seriously wrong as the infamous GM sidesaddle gas tank case, http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=504&scid=94

Stealing is wrong. Kids are supposed to know that. But what got into Wall Street in 1999-00 that allowed a former high school basketball coach to take shareholders to the cleaners, resulting in a $1.4 billion settlement against 10 Wall Street firms, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/wcom/

While coverting other people's wives (and indeed husbands) may be unethical, where would gossip magazines be without a steady stream of the rich and famous doing this all the time? And why do millions of ethical(?) people buy them and read them?

I'm not sure that there are applied ethics courses for gossip magazine editors, but there certainly are for engineers and finance professionals. They take the basic principles that everyone is assumed to know, and apply them to complicated situations, like how safe to make a car, or how to advise clients on an investment on which you are paid a commission.

OK, we're back on topic, which is something. But what a let-down. All that is at stake are just some fancy negotiation tactics, apparently.

>>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<<

So when we look at MikeM's list of ethical issues, we are actually not seeking a single ethical answer to any of them. Which at least answers my original question, which was how a university course would improve upon the ethics learned at mother's knee. Clearly the answer is that it is not intended to, it just enables you to add to your negotiating skills.

>>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?<<

It is actually quite liberating to finally understand that underneath all the verbiage, we are still left with the need to negotiate a compromise between the need for a cure, and the risks associated with applying it to human beings. Just as it always has been.

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

This is where it gets difficult. No amount of education on the topic of ethics is going to bring the community to a single answer to this question. For a start, there are those who have immutable religious convictions that provide them with the answer without them having to think about it. Are we prepared to accept then that there might be two “ethical” answers to a single question that are polar opposites?

Because it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a compromise.

None of this disturbs my position that the study of ethics – as intellectually stimulating as it clearly is to many – will not advance anyone's ability to recognize “the right thing to do”.

What would've be the outcome of putting a so called ethical man like Bob Brown (one of Virginia Wolfs Winni hating crew for example) in charge of WW2 as opposed to Winston Churchill, who was as "victory at any cost" as they come.

I'd say certain death.

Stem cell etc can be debated within the realms of commonsense with a good outcome for each side of the argumument. Ethic "studies" are full of idealisitc biased(they can't help it) and abstract assumptions on behalf of people who may well prefer commonsense.

Sometimes u just gotta do what u gotta do. Bob Brownists may well squeal n sqwark but hey stuff happens

You've got the picture, Meredith.

Interesting that you mention Churchill, as this reminds us of the ethical issue of "just war" - and I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do, even if morality usually holds that violently killing other people is wrong.

There are occasions in life when you can't squib a decision by saying that there are two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose.

Whether to accept a marriage proposal, whether to decide to split up, whether to sign a contract with Microsoft, or sue the company.

People who can't resolve such conflicts suffer from the problem that doomed Buridan's ass:

“To be pulled in many opposite ways at once results negatively, but it is not the same thing as to feel no impulse at all. An ass between two bales of hay is said to have died of starvation, but not from indifference.”

- US Supreme Court Judge Learned Hand - P. 10, Class-Day Oration, (1893).

From http://president.uoregon.edu/Learned%20Hand%20revised.htm

Mike

"and I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do"

Sorry man, but these days I'm totally sure they would.

Thanks for the link I'll read it n get back on it soon.

Meredith,

When I wrote "I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do" I primarily had in mind Churchill's declaration of war on Germany - to fight a "just" war - as opposed to eschewing violence and surrendering.

There are many specific incidents in WWII that have generated heated ethical debate, notably the firebombing of Dresden and dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

If you are interested in "just war theory" the BBC has an extensive web site on the subject at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/index.shtml

If you want to discuss it, you might like to join the St James Ethics Centre's discussion forum and revive this discussion: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1078 or this one: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=626 or even this one: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=104

Or you could start a fresh discussion on an aspect of the subject.