Wednesday, April 20, What are some of the ethical problems faced by journalists? How are they resolved?
Ethical Reasoning Ethical Claims Ethical claims are claims that include even if only implicitly a "should" or "ought" in them, or that make use of the concepts of good and evil. Examples include, "You should tell the truth" or "Murder is evil.
To get more clear about ethical claims, we are going to make a controversial but generally accepted distinction between factual claims and value claims.
Factual claims are the kinds of claims that we have primarily discussed in this class. They include empirical claims and mathematical and logical claims.
Some debate exists about whether metaphysical and methodological claims are factual claims; we can set that debate aside. The clearest cases of value claims are what we will call basic value claims that are about what should be, and from which we have separated all of the factual claims that are implicit.
Our standards for evaluating factual claims are just those we have discussed in the class up to now: The potter box model of reasoning is no such agreement about how to evaluate ethical claims.
Evaluating Ethical Claims One of the greatest problems, perhaps the greatest problem, of philosophy is how ethical claims "fit with" other kinds of claims.
Or, equivalently, how a world that science describes only in terms of what is, might also have facts about what should be. Philosophers call ethical and also aesthetic statements "normative" statements, and what such statements express are "norms.
Here is a sampling: Norms exist because God wills them. Norms exist because there is a thing good, and norms are rules which lead to the realization of the good. Norms are arbitrary rules.
Normative claims are not really claims, but rather expressions of emotion. Normative claims are all false, since there is no good or evil. Most philosophers have adopted the second strategy, and tried to describe what it means to be good and thus how we can have true norms. However, the bad news is, there is very very little agreement about what the good is, or what methods should be used to determine whether a statement about the good is true or false that is, even if there is a good, surely people might sometimes be mistaken about whether some act is good; how do we recognize such mistakes.
This lack of agreement in method puts settling questions about good beyond the scope of this class. However, we can still bring a great deal of clarity to reasoning about ethics by analyzing ethical statements and recognizing what factual and what value statements are being made.
Analyzing Ethical Claims Very often, ethical debates are very confused. People do not make it clear what they are claiming, they mix empirical with value claims, and they attack principles which are irrelevant to the thing at issue.
We can avoid most of these confusions if we distinguish the implicit factual and value claims. Factual claims we now know how to evaluate. Basic ethical claims we do not agree on how to evaluate, but by clarifying them we can at least identify the real thing at issue.
Consider the following claim: Lying is wrong because it undermines social cohesion. This is a complex claim. If we asked the person who made the claim, we might get them to explain that they believe that social cohesion is good.
If they do not offer any additional reasons for why social cohesion is good, then we can take this as a basic value claim. Then, the person is making two claims, implicitly: The first is a factual claim.
The second is a basic value claim. Suppose now that someone denies the claim that lying is wrong because it undermines social cohesion. Our defender of this claim, as described above, should now ask: If the other person denies the first claim, we know how they can try to settle that we might try a big experiment where a group of people lied to each other, and compare it to a group that did not, and so on.
If the person denies the second, then they have at least exposed their most fundamental disagreement. Note that people don't often use the words "good" and "evil. Philosophers call these "thick" terms: You'll have to recognize such terms for what they are, and unpack them to distinguish both the factual and the ethical element.
More than two thousand years ago, the philosopher Aristotle offered an important test to determine our ethical values. Some things we say are good, but this is only because they are good for something else.Georgia Standards of Excellence Framework • Human Box Plot Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Students use data to make inferences from sample sets. They construct viable arguments by referring to representations as evidence. problems use vertexedge graphs to model and solve problems; Design simple experiments and collect data.
Discrete Math PreTest Harry Potter 1 Class can only appear once in a row, column or box. The Hollywood Reporter is your source for breaking news about Hollywood and entertainment, including movies, TV, reviews and industry blogs.
One of the greatest problems, perhaps the greatest problem, of philosophy is how ethical claims "fit with" other kinds of claims. Or, equivalently, how a world that science describes only in terms of what is, might also have facts about what should be. Philosophers call ethical and also aesthetic. Decision Making – Potter Box The Potter Box is created by Harvard philosopher, Ralph Potter. Potter Box is a decision making model that allows professions to make ethical systematically. Generally, it is always used by communication professional. The "Character-Based Decision-Making Model" model, developed by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, can be applied to many common problems and can also be used by most individuals facing ethical dilemmas.. It involves three steps: All decisions must take into account and reflect a concern for the interests and well being of all affected individuals ("stakeholders").
ThinkGeek creates unique products that stimulate the imagination. Shop for apparel, home and office, gadgets, collectibles, and more.
Free shipping available!
Apr 30, · Introduction Potter’s model of ethical decision making was introduced by Ralph Potter, a Harvard philosopher. It is a tool for making an effective ethical decision, which guides a decision maker towards a decision.
It is also known as Potter Box. This model helps a decision maker to make a good decision following four quadrants of. Synopsis. Ethical Reasoning for Mental Health Professionals addresses a fundamental need of ethics training in psychology and counseling: the development of reasoning skills to resolve the complex professional ethical issues that arise.