Wow. I just realized that, in my history course, we don't have to respond to every single topic in the discussion boards. Fifty percent of our grade is based on our discussion, but, as my prof put it in the syllabus (which I should've read closer), "there is no 'magic number' of posts you must make." Wow. I just did a lot of extra work.

In Ethics, I believe it is necessary to respond to every discussion. He doesn't give us very many. The funny thing is, less of our grade depends on our participation in discussions in that class. Most of our grade is based on the exams.

I really like Ethics so far. I got through the Ethical Relativism chapter today. The very word "relativism" scared me away at first. I did NOT want to get into anything mucky like that. But when I read the chapter it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. The author of my book actually doesn't agree with pure ethical relativism. I was glad. If she had, I would have certainly had issues with reading the rest of the book...

Here is what she said about ethical relativism: "According to some philosophers, ethical relativism is a theory that holds that there areno universally accepted ethical standards... There is no objective standard of right and wrong, even in principle. All there is are different views of what is right and wrong" (MacKinnon, 18).

My immediate reaction was an absolute fear of meeting any people who believe that way. If there is no universal standard of right and wrong AT ALL, I don't want to be here!! Get me out now. That kind of belief leads straight to anarchy, and I do not want to be around it.

The chapter also addressed personal or individual ethical relativism, which is not ethical relativism proper. I think the author of my book believes in that. And it does make sense. Every single person in the world believes differently. You will not find one person who believes exactly the same as another. You just won't.

The author of my book also called ethical relativism "a lack of moral courage." Well, actually, she said it "may sometimes manifest a kind of intellectual laziness or a lack of moral courage" (MacKinnon, 23, emphasis mine). Gotta be p.c., you know. I think that's what she believes though. I loved how she said it: "I may hide behind some statement like, 'What is good for some is not necessarily good for others'...simply to excuse myself from having to think or be critical of various ethical positions" (MacKinnon, 23). It was perfect.

But anyway, after all that, I know I want to find the universal standards of right and wrong. There HAVE to be some. What are they?? That's going to be my mission for the moment: find out what the universal standards of right and wrong are!

There's so much I want to know. I thought of something just now as I scrolled up to reread my first paragraph. "I just did a lot of extra work," I said. Now, why. Why do you suppose that humans would be opposed to doing work they don't need to? My Christian friends, be someone else for a moment. Be someone who doesn't believe (or isn't sure of) the Bible and its tale of the orginal sin. What answer would you give? Why is it that humans are naturally lazy? Why is it that we would do NO work if we could?

These are questions I like to play with. I am so glad I'm in this class. Ethics and philosophy... Love the stuff. Haha--off to post in my MySpace blog. Jana will love me. :P (Jana hates philosophy. "My mind just doesn't think like that!!" she says.)

MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 5th. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadworth, 2007.

-Stephanie

previous || next

Miss Something?

Social Anxiety with Guys - February 07, 2024

Education Expo with an ADHD Kid - February 03, 2024

Lovely Church Experience - October 22, 2023

Seek Out Community in Christ - August 29, 2023

Grieving Lost Friendships - May 08, 2023