In the first podcast episode, Dr. Bezio discussed the different ways that people think about how the world works. The dominant ways of viewing the world are through either a normative or relative framework. A normative framework is when the individuals believe that there is a universal truth out there, while a relative framework is one in which there is no universal truth, and instead, individuals hold different ethics and evaluate what is morally good or bad based on these individuals ethical reasonings. In listening to this podcast, I think that one of the most interesting points raised was the overlap of these different frameworks with the different ways to evaluate ethics, which includes consequentialism, deontism, and virtue ethics. To evaluate whether an action is moral, these different means can be used, with consequentialism involving the evaluation of the consequences or outcomes of an action, deontism involving the evaluation of the action itself, and virtue ethics involving the evaluation of the virtue of the individual. It is the overlapping use of these different means of evaluation that offers the most interesting take on and way to further look at the different frameworks through which we view the world.
In understanding how these different methods of evaluation work, a hypothetical explanation can be used. One explanation that was mentioned quickly was a robbery. In evaluating robbery, from a consequentialist view, this action could be seen as immoral because the action results in the original owner having less than he did before; however, the act of robbery could also be seen as immoral through a deontistic evaluation, for if the action of robbery is seen as immoral itself, then this robbery would be immoral as well. And yet, robbery can again be seen as immoral but for a different reason using the virtue ethics evaluation, for if the individual and they intended to hurt another by stripping them of their goods, then the person and their intentions are immoral and the robbery would, in turn, be immoral. This example of robbery depicts the idea that the reason we see something as immoral can be deducted in several different ways. Immorality, as such, is not a fixed state. Different individuals, thinking in different normative or relative frameworks, will see different things as immoral based on their views, culture, and beliefs. And even if these individuals come to the same conclusion that something is immoral, they can come to these same conclusions using several different methods of evaluation, and maybe even a combination of the consequentialism, deontism, and virtue ethics means of evaluation. The concept of mortality, as such, incorporates the ideas, beliefs, and culture of the individuals, and will continue to be questioned and re-evaluated as people search for a clear way to
I think that this is a really interesting point. Dr.Bezio mentioned that many people generally have a common sense of “good” or “bad” in the US, but how we arrive at those moral conclusions happens in different ways. That raises another question though: does it matter how we come to our own moral sense of reasoning? Does it impact the way we behave?
Great analysis! The way you worked through the robbery problem using the various ways of evaluating morality reminded me a bit of the Heinz dilemma, used in Kolberg’s Stages of Moral Development and in Carol Gilligan’s critique. The main difference in the Heinz dilemma is that instead of it being a generalized robbery, a man is stealing medicine that he can’t afford from the pharmacy to help his wife. By adding more context, we can see that sometimes even actions that are wrong/morally suspect, can still be (arguably) moral. When using different methods of evaluation, I think they can really be useful when examining the context of the action in addition to the action itself.
I’m glad you brought up the conversation about robbery. Understanding that different people assess things as being immoral or moral for a variety of reasons is something that I think is often overlooked. Differing evaluations, backgrounds, cultures, ideas, etc. all lead us to draw differing conclusions about whether something is right or wrong.