EDUCATION ETHICS
My Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines ethics as “standards of conduct” in a field. I could talk about the ethics of cheating in education, or a teacher’s moral standards of conduct, but today, I prefer to address this community’s educational ethic. What standard of conduct does Decatur and Macon County have toward educating her children? Will we choose to educate all our children—or only some of our children? Will we require that our community leaders, our city staff, and our media sources see each child as a child of God--capable of learning and growing? Will we provide the resources and respect to children so that they have the freedom to explore the world that their curiosity opens to them?
We are a caring people. We have substantial resources. But for some reason we still have children who are not meeting their potential. They leave preschool and don’t know all their letters or can’t write their name. They leave third grade and haven’t taken a walk in the woods or stood outside and noticed Jupiter. What is our standard of conduct toward those children? Shall we gnash our teeth and say “their parents don’t care whether they learn,” “they have too many problems,” “they’re too far behind.” Or do we remind ourselves that all children are loved by God. All children—not just the clean children, not just the smart children, not just the compliant children—but all the children.
Will we take the time to work with a child on the multiplication tables (rather than cursing the darkness because he doesn’t know them)? Will we work with a child as he struggles with a reading passage (rather than berate him because he doesn’t know the King’s English)? Will we ask a child that doesn’t look like our child about his aspirations for college? Will we take a step outside our zone of comfort to embrace all children in Decatur? Will we expect from them their very best and not offer excuses as to why they are not learning? Do our standards of conduct require us to provide the community support for them to thrive?
I just completed reading Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. It is a wonderful story of the determination of people in the poorest parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan to provide schools for girls in order to promote peace. If a small village in Pakistan, with few resources, can come together and resolve to educate their children, we certainly can do the same in our abundance.
What do you want this community’s educational ethic to be? How can you be a part in building that?
Jan Mandernach
JOURNALISM ETHICS:
An Old Tale with a New Twist
Journalists find plenty of detractors in this age of instant communication.
Once people received news by word of mouth, which was often fast but unreliable. Then along came newspapers with printed words that passed from hand to hand, but still the “facts” often were in question. Soon came radio, television, the Internet and cellular phones with text messaging and even Internet access.
This dizzying array of technology is pushing against the ethics that developed in journalism in the last century. Today, a story can be spread literally around the globe in a matter of minutes, which places a heavy burden on those charged with gathering and disseminating the news. Errors can be magnified quickly and responses to breaking stories have been known to outpace actual developments. E-mails and blog posts provide instant feedback.
The Code of Ethics developed by the Society of Professional Journalists has long been the gold standard for news coverage by reputable outlets. Its four major points are:
1. Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
2. Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
3. Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
4. Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
While reputable journalists strive to be as “objective” as possible, that term is always open to interpretation based on where you stand on a story. Every time a reporter attends a meeting, talks with a source or covers a speech, he or she instantly acts as a filter for what is occurring. No news report is an all encompassing recitation of what occurred because of the constraints of time and/or space. Television reporters must edit their video tape to fit a news segment that normally ranges from 30 seconds to 2 minutes. A newspaper reporter may have a specific story length dictated by the available “news hole” or the number of stories that must get printed on a given day. Space or time constraints cause a further blurring of the report if a story is edited to fit a news hole or time slot.
Reporters are constantly questioned by sources on why certain parts of what occurred were put into a story and other items left out. It’s always a judgment call on the reporter’s part. Journalists frequently are accused of “slanting” a story or expressing personal bias because of what was or was not included in a story. While those things have certainly occurred on occasion, the majority of stories are written with an eye to giving as balanced a report as possible. Newspaper readers often don’t understand and appreciate the difference between a news story, a column that includes personal viewpoint, and an editorial which is the paper’s way to express its opinion on topics within its community, state or nation.
All news media are businesses that rely on consumers to purchase their product in some manner and on advertisers to provide the bulk of the revenue that keeps them operating.
Providing fair and ethical news reports that “get the story right” is their constant goal.
Ron Ingram
MEDICAL ETHICS: Or What Values Health Care Professionals Use in their Practice and Decision-Making
In most considerations of medical ethics, four values are commonly listed. I think an additional three are equally important.
1. Autonomy – the patient has the right to choose or refuse treatment. Respect for the patient’s right to be part of his or her treatment.
2. Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient.
3. Non-maleficence – first, “Do no harm.”
4. Justice – for the distribution of health resources and the decision regarding who gets what treatment.
5. Dignity – the patient has a right to be treated with dignity.
6. Truthfulness and honesty – the concept of informed consent
7. Confidentiality – the patient’s right to privacy.
We probably all can think of the difficult ethical cases that have made the news over the years, but how do these values play out in the daily practice of doctors, nurses or other health care providers? If the training experience instills these values and the individual’s motivation is to serve, then these values become an intrinsic part of his/her practice. Some examples would be: When the oncologist discusses with the patient the options for care and then supports the patient in whatever decision he/she makes; When the nurse stops and takes the time to fully explain and answer all the questions regarding a patient’s treatment/surgery before asking them to sign the informed consent; When the family doctor sees patients he/she knows will not be able to pay their bill; When a physical therapist treats a stroke patient as if he were his/her grandparent.
These examples may all seem obvious, but in today’s health care system, where the bottom line drives much of the decisions which affects both patients and health care professionals, it can be a struggle to stay true to the values listed above. Some of the ethical concerns that nurses expressed on a recent survey include: 1. Clinical decision-making based on insurance coverage, 2. Managing increased workload in patient care, 3. Reduced length of stay, 4. Providing care with possible health risk to the caregiver (TB, HIV, violence).
Of course, the problem comes when the situation is not “usual,” such as: how medical decisions are made for patients who are incapable of making their own decisions, what justifies an exception to confidentially, who gets the vaccine when there is a shortage. Many ethical situations revolve around the beginning of life and the end of life--issues that can create conflict between the patient, family and the health care providers. These often become the greatest dilemmas.
Phyllis McPherron
ANIMAL ETHICS:
In Food and Agriculture
The past few decades have seen an outpouring of interest in the moral value of animals. Instead of focusing on characteristics inherently linked to humans as determining the moral value of animals, today animal ethicists have embraced a neutral criterion for admitting different beings into the moral community. Just like us, some animals are conscious in the phenomenal sense and life can go either well or poorly for them. The fact that animals also can have a welfare is the basis of their moral value.
Because we farm and slaughter more than 10 billion terrestrial and aquatic animals annually on a global scale, it is not surprising that much of the recent attention in animal ethics has revolved around how we treat animals in food production. Consumer demand for cheaper, readily available and abundant animal protein; the switch to industrialized technologies in agriculture in the last 60 years; and the control of animal agriculture by large-scale agribusinesses; have raised a wide range of serious animal welfare issues. In more industrialized countries, production, especially for poultry and swine, has shifted dramatically toward greater concentration of animals in few, larger units, typically indoor facilities known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Aspects of industrial-scale production systems, combined with the transportation and slaughter of enormous numbers of animals, pose significant ethical concerns for global agriculture.
Spurred on by scientific knowledge, media attention and a sympathetic humanitarian concern for animals as moral subjects in their own right, more and more consumers are calling for agricultural practices that not only secure access to safe and healthy food, and which are humane, profitable and sustainable, but also promote “fit and happy” animals; ones which feel well, function well and are able to express their natural behaviors.
It is not hard to see that human welfare is inextricably linked to animal welfare. More than a billion people rely directly on animals for their food security, clothing, income and social status. Furthermore, cultural identification for many people is contingent on the quality-of-life and productivity of animals. In turn, animals depend on us to care for them and to provide for their nutrition and welfare needs.
Currently, there are a number of initiatives, both globally and nationally, that have been implemented to ensure better animal welfare practices. They include:
You may be wondering, “What can I do?” A first step is to be more reflective about our food choices and how we exercise our ethical values as consumers. Do we currently support an agricultural system that is driven by our moral commitments to social justice and respect for others? Might we not also consider shopping for “animal welfare friendly” meats and byproducts? Taking time to inquire about the place from where our food comes and its husbandry standards as a way to acknowledge the life of the animal that we consume and those who care for farmed animals goes a long way to sending a strong message about the kind of animal agriculture we desire.
Another thing we can do is to have a frank discussion about what uses of animals are acceptable and what baseline standard for morally acceptable animal welfare we will tolerate. Finally, tackling together animal welfare problems such as culling of animals that are ill, transportation, slaughter and pre-slaughter management, provisions for food and water, handling/herding methods, and housing animals under conditions for which they do not have the requisite adaptations, will help to make animal welfare a significant ethical priority and ensure that we have the capacity to care for farmed animals in a more humane way.
By Raymond Anthony University of Alaska, Anchorage
Suggested readings:
David Fraser, Understanding Animal Welfare
Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma
TEACHING ETHICS IN QATAR
It’s my first day as an instructor of ethics at Carnegie Mellon University in Education City, Doha, Qatar. I’m not paranoid (well, maybe a little) but I am apprehensive. Qatar is 87 percent Sunni Muslim. Its religious genealogy can be traced back to the extremely austere Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia. The country’s judicial system follows the Shariah, a theocratic legal system originating in the 6th and 7th centuries C.E. and enforced by Islamic clerics. (There are secular Civil Courts to adjudicate “trivial” issues such as traffic violations.)
The day of my arrival, the Qatar Tribune reported the trial of an unmarried British couple who were each fined $272 and sentenced to three months in prison, followed by deportation for “kissing on the beach.” (The Shariah defines such actions as “public disturbances.”) Even more anxiety-producing for us pedagogues was the Gulf Times story of an Afghan student who was sentenced to death for “insulting Islam,” by asking “hostile, careless, and rude questions”! (Ironically, an example was “Why is Islam such a harsh religion?”) An appeals court overturned the death sentence and reduced his punishment to a “mere” 20 years in prison.
Walking into the classroom for the first time, I felt my apprehension was justified. At least half of the male students were wearing thobes (floor-length white robes) plus white head dresses secured by black ropes. All but one of the women wore an abeyya, flowing black gown, and half of them were veiled.
Teaching ethics at Millikin was a breeze. I introduced the students to a variety of different theoretical approaches (metaethics) such as rationalism (Kant), utilitarianism (Bentham and J.S. Mill), intuitionism (Ross, et.al.), natural law ethics (Roman Catholic and/or secular), and divine command. One size didn’t fit all and the students felt free--in fact were encouraged—to pick, choose and even syncretize. Most of them vacillated, preferring a Kantian solution to certain moral dilemmas and perhaps a more utilitarian resolution of other conflicts. There was no threat of being censured.
Teaching ethics in Qatar was entirely different. All but three of my students were Muslim. At the end of the first week, two rather dramatic events had occurred. First, I introduced the class to the Socratic Method in which the students, not the professor, debate the moral issues. Their initial response was, “Dr. Adell, we have never had to do this before.” Second, all of the female students who wore the Islamic dress dropped the class. My best explanation to their en masse exodus was that as children living in a Muslim family, females were not permitted to express themselves as forcefully as their male siblings and by no means should they be argumentative or confrontational. No Socratic Method for them!
I followed the Millikin script, requiring them to learn the various Western ethical theories supplemented by some Eastern additions—Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian and Islamic—and apply them to cases which contained rather vexatious moral problems. The students were exceptionally bright and in their class debates demonstrated they not only understood the concepts of these philosophical/religious systems, but could persuasively and appropriately apply them. However, when it was time for the final resolution of each ethical dilemma, these scholars always resorted to the authority of the Koran and Shariah. For example, in discussion of the morality of capital punishment, they could articulate all of the concerns which convince many of us that it should be abolished, but then summarily dismiss them by the recitation of Mohammed’s teaching that adultery, blasphemy, religious infidelity (et.al.) were capital offenses. End of discussion.
As frustrating as this religious dogmatism was, I discovered some positive, encouraging signs. Although my students were not pluralistic (the understanding that there are a number of legitimate paths to the truth), they were remarkably tolerant. Plus, many exhibited (cautiously) a tendency to question and even reject the literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran and do their own hermeneutics. Most important, I and the students developed an exciting rapport in the class which trumped our cultural, religious, ethical and generational differences. At some future point, there may be common ground for serious classroom discussions involving young persons from both Decatur and Doha. Arvid Adell
BIBLICAL ETHICS
(Note: The writer makes no distinction between “ethics” and “morality”; they are used interchangeably. The basic question is: what makes something right, what makes something wrong?)
Growing up in a fundamentalist church, I was taught that moral rules were eternal absolutes, and they began with the Ten Commandments. While studying the New Testament in the original Greek, I was concluded that there is only ONE moral absolute in the Bible; namely, love. In the Gospels Jesus was asked, “What is the greatest Commandment?” The question was asked because religion in Jesus’ day and culture had been reduced to a rule book. You shall do this, you shall not do that. Jesus spoke Aramaic and his words were written in Greek 30 to 100 years later. So we do not have the actual words of Jesus. He is quoted as saying, “The first and greatest commandment is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength. And the second commandment is just as important: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. All true religion is based on these two.”
What is love? I can honestly say, “I love my wife.” But that means something different after 45 years of marriage than it did when I was courting her. I can honestly say, “I love my two daughters.” But that is something very different from the love for my wife. I also love to fly; I love to teach; I love to travel; I love chocolate pie; I would love to have a new Porsche. In short, love is the most overused word in the English language.
In the Greek language of the New Testament, there are four words for love:
A few years ago I bounced my conclusion that love is the only moral absolute in the New Testament off my friend and colleague, Dr. William Bodamer, who taught religion at Millikin University. He thought for a moment and then replied that there is also a second absolute: All human beings are sinners. No one is perfect. I had to agree.
So, what makes something right, what makes something wrong? The Apostle Paul deals with moral/ethical issues in Romans chapter 14. He considers two moral dilemmas for the early church: Because all meat in the market is from animals sacrificed to pagan gods, is it moral for Christians to eat meat? And are Christians who have never been Jews required to obey all the Old Testament rules, like those regarding the Sabbath? In other words, are Christians required to obey the Ten Commandments?
Paul lays out some principles to keep in mind when making ethical or moral decisions:
This is not a system of moral absolutes, nor is it “moral relativism.” It is “situational ethics”: Every situation is different. Ethical decisions are about relationships, not rules. This is complicated by the fact that we often face conflicting moral values. Sometimes, the choice is not between good and evil, but rather a choice of a lesser or greater evil, when none of our choices is good.
It is not easy being “Christian” or being “moral.” Simplistic moral absolutes simply do not work in real life. Such absolutes are self-destructive and destructive of relationships. It is not that some people are good and some are evil and you can always tell the difference. We are all deeply flawed human beings--sinners. But the Good News is that we are all forgiven sinners, and we should therefore be willing to forgive others. That is the basis of Christian morality. In a word, love God, love yourself and love your fellow human beings, especially those who are the hardest to love.
William R. Keagle
of
page