Week One: Moral Philosophy and Why It Matters

The Meaning of "Culture"

Of this week's readings, this one initially piqued my interest the least.  I thought I had "culture" locked down. At first glance, it was going to be a level-setting reading for me, given that I (not entirely incorrectly) had vocally defined "culture" on the first day of class as a particular group's way of life.  While my definition was an accurate regurgitation of a portion of the dictionary entry on culture, it was myopic.  Rothman's article, with it's emphasis on culture's "unconscious groupthink" and "darker, sharper, more skeptical" aspects, helped me better understand culture in the context of this class.  Although he ended the article on a hopeful note, Rothman's gloomy definition stuck with me.  Clearly, I'm going to have to up my game.  Having lived in the largely whitewashed Frisco (where people get pulled over for having spinners on their cars) for the past ten years, culture defined as business practice or the occasional trip to the DMA will neither make me a relevant, contributing member of society nor a successful EMAC student.

Moral Media

My adult life has largely been defined by the influence of authority as a way of knowing.  From the time I graduated high school to when I took a job at UT Dallas, I have - for the most part - been employed by organizations that rely heavily on authority as a way of "fixing beliefs."  While most adults have had exposure to tenacity, intuition, and science as ways of knowing, I have not, at least not in a professional sense.  That's not to say that I don't also engage those additional methods, but my two longest-running tenures have been in the US Navy and in a non-denominational church.

Both the military and the church are clear examples of authority.  In the Navy, we were taught to obey
orders blindly.  The best we could do in the event we were given what we perceived as an "illegal order," was make the person in command aware of our hesitation to follow that order and state why
we thought is was illegal.  If the officer insisted, we were to execute the order as given and report it up the notorious "chain of command."  Failure to do so would result in corporal punishment under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).  As property of the US government, we obeyed orders, whether we found them to be ethical or not.

While I concede that following authority doesn't cultivate mental, moral maturity, it is necessary, particularly in the military. A junior enlisted on the field of battle doesn't have the experience and
tactical knowledge to question orders.  When tracking an enemy plane, steering an aircraft carrier, or flying a jet, blindly following orders may save lives.

Similarly, as an employee of the church, I was expected to believe that the Bible was the absolute inspired word of God.  As such, I didn't question its authority.  While there is an element of tenacity in the rules of the church, I feel the primary way of knowing is dictated by the authority of the Bible.  This isn't just a reference to God's law as handed down on stone tablets; it also includes the senior leadership's interpretation of that law and it's practical applications.

Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Largely due to the military service referenced above,  I tend to follow the precept that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  The Moral Instincts section of this passage made me think twice about that pithy little saying. If that were always true, then the healthy man in the hospital waiting room would have to die to save the five who were critically injured in the first scenario.  The second scenario provided a more obvious solution.  Of course the unintentional killing of one person is better that the unintentional killing of five.  Ideally, no one would have to die.  But the second scenario differed in that a choice HAD to be made; one of the two groups was inevitably going to be eradicated (although I wondered if the train's horn was disabled along with the brakes).  It was a classic "lesser of two evils" scenario.  Most people wouldn't condone intentionally killing someone to save five.

I understand that these are "artificial dilemmas."  The real world example in the text quoting the National Guardsman who had to choose between saving a group of six or a family of two, made me wonder about the differences in the value of lives.  For example, what if the family of two were comprised of  two surgeons who could treat other victims? Would it be better to save those two than the six presumably non-surgeons?  Or would it be morally acceptable to save two young victims rather than six elderly ones?  After all, the elderly victims have already lived full lives.  I don't know the right answer or even if it's relevant.  But it seems to me that our society places different values on life based on demographics such as age, occupation, gender, etc.