Today’s podcast really helped me condense the reading. I felt like I understood the basis of the readings, but the podcast really helped me apply it to our world today. The most interesting thing I remember hearing in the podcast was how consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic methods and patterns of thinkings determine our laws. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Bezio mentioned that fact that true relativism is really literally anarchy. I hadn’t thought about it that way, but when you take relativism to the extreme, it really does mean that not only cultures are able to decide their own rules, regulations, and actions, but individual people also then have the complete power to do exactly what they want. Therefore, it seems that there has to be some level of balance among all of this to maintain a fully functioning, effective society. I thought thinking of our laws as mixtures and combinations of our intentions, actions, and outcomes was another new thought for me. I understood that that different intentions and actions of crimes were punished differently, for example, that manslaughter is judged differently than an accidental murder or intention to murder, but did not think about the morality evaluation of it all. With this in mind, it is much easier to see how certain cultures demand and regulate one thing, while another may do something completely different. What makes the common ground so important then? For instance, stealing and killing is generally wrong in all societies. Is this because it is so morally wrong, or is it regulated more so to keep the society able to function?
Category Archives: Reading Responses
Blog Post 1: Ethics (nichole schiff)
I found this week’s podcast about Ethics to be very interesting.. Before listening to this (as well as doing the readings), I knew what relative vs normative thinking meant, but I never thought about it before in the context of cultural relativism, and how this affects both our way of thinking and our society today. Also thinking about the combination of all of our “cultures” and how this affects our normative vs relative ways of thinking was a very interesting point to bring up.
From thinking about this, a point relating to the world around us came to my mind. Although we have our own ways of thinking and the organizations/”cultures” we choose to be a part of (such as being a part of the UR culture, hobby cultures, school/work culture/etc and how those affect us, cultures such as the culture of where we were born/live, the religion we are born into, etc, affects both our normative and relative ways of thinking, meaning this cultural relativism in certain senses affects each person and their morals/beliefs without even trying.. We become so accustomed to things in our daily lives and the “truths” of our society that we agree with many of them, just because of how we grew up. For example, when in the podcast it was talking about the differences in circumcision beliefs in the USA vs other countries, if we are looking at it from the context of the women in other countries want this procedure done, we are so accustomed here to not having this be a normal part of life that we inadvertently judge people, as it goes against many of the USA residents beliefs just because we grew up without it (or it could be religious beliefs, but the same principle applies).
This can also be said for our type of government.. For example, I have a friend from China who is so used to China controlling more individual freedoms that when she came to America, the amount of freedom she felt here almost felt “wrong” and immoral. The same can be said when we look at other countries’ governments; Although our democracy has so many layers and there are many things many people (including myself) do not agree with, taken from a big picture perspective, most of us in the USA may think that democracy is the best form of government, but this could just be because it is the environment we grew up in and none of us know anything else or have experienced any other type of governmental way of life. Overall, this means that because of the environment we grew up in, although we may grow to resent certain aspects, these factors of life can lead us to become very adapted to the way things are done around us (as they start to align with our own moral way of seeing things, aka our moral way of seeing things are sometimes formed because of our environment)
03/14 Ethics: Laura Roldan
Listening to today’s podcast concerning ethics provided very valuable knowledge about the field. The field of ethics is divided into two frameworks–normative and relative, both which completely contrast one another. The normative framework outlines the belief of a universal truth, which explains that there is a universal differentiation between good and bad, and moral and immoral. Transversely, the relative framework does not believe in a universal truth or in the reality of objective morality: essentially, relaying decisions concerning ‘morality’ to the individual, rather than the universe. Additionally, the United States focuses as a hybrid following cultural relativism, which branches together elements of normativism and relativism. However, this hybrid proves to be very problematic in our society. Personally, I have never discussed the frameworks of ethics in any of my classes; therefore, this knowledge will be very beneficial to shape my initial understanding of the field.
Ethics are a necessary aspect of society, as we pass judgement on actions everyday; however, people view issues in very different lens. I am not saying I know an alternative frame to follow issues of ethics in the United States, but it is important to acknowledge the issues in cultural relativism. For example, abortion is a topic that is split evenly between the normative framework: those who view abortion as immoral and those who believe it is amoral. The abortion debate is one of the more pervasive and consistent arguments present in the United States, as it grows increasingly more partisan throughout the years and less understanding is reached. I wonder if the stark divide between abortion opinions is due to our society’s function as one of cultural relativism: a country which equally values individual freedom and a clear understanding of morality leads to a paradoxical way of thought during the abortion debates. Abortion is not the only issue which challenges cultural relativism, but it is interesting to analyze the varying opinions and beliefs derived by our country’s understanding of morality.
CTAA Sophia Picozzi Response
I thought this reading was extremely interesting and put moral arguments in a way that I never really thought of them before. For example, when the chapter opened up with all the words that are commonly used in a moral argument I felt kind of tricked that throughout my life I was not consciously reading moral arguments. It was really interesting to me reading about the implied moral arguments like having little kids throw up and be in pain is bad, even though that was not the main conclusion of the argument. Now after taking this course it is interesting the way my thinking or perception of these words have changed.
For example, last semester I learned about Rawls in one of my classes about Law and it was interesting to see how my perspective on his type of thinking has shifted. When I learned about Rawls, we focused more on approaching issues of justice through the lens of the original position or “veil of ignorance” in which people should disassociate from their own identity’s and personal views in order to think of something as just or unjust. I always hated Rawls and felt like his reasoning was so frustrating because nobody could ever completely answer a question objectively. However now after taking Critical Thinking and really pinning down premises and conclusions it makes more sense to me. His idea of “reflective equilibrium” also makes more sense to me because it kind of reminds me of Bob and how he is a rational person but does not have an actual identity. Thinking of arguments this way is actually really helpful and now I feel bad that I hated Rawls so much. I usually use emotions a lot to determine my judgements or reactions, however now it is much easier to separate myself and just look directly at the logic of what someone is trying to say. This will definitely help me craft better arguments and also evaluate them more objectively, and I did not think that was entirely possible.
Blog Post (3/2/21)
In today’s podcast, we learned about normative and relative frameworks of ethics. A normative framework is where everyone believes there is a universal truth to the rules, so essentially, everyone agrees on what is good and bad. This is similar to religion because religion discusses how one is supposed to live their life. The difference is that ethics don’t include a ritual practice. In normative ethics, we know that just because people agree, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to convince other people that they are wrong.
In a relative framework of ethics, people believe there is no universal truth to what is good and bad, with a few exceptions. For example, the podcast discussed that some things are decided universally, such as murder, which everyone can agree is a crime. Other things, individuals make their own decisions. In relative ethics, people don’t judge one an another for their different moral beliefs.
If these are the two macro branches, where do we go about compromising in between these two? Ethics gets messy, because most of the time we don’t believe what the person next to us believe. At the same time, can we really say that we don’t judge people for their moral beliefs. For example, last year in one of my psychology classes, the topic of spanking a child as punishment came up. Many said this type of punishment has become outdated because people now realize is is morally wrong. But, what’s changed since then? It can’t be people because my guess would be that the people who now believe it would be wrong to spank their child as a punishment would believe the same thing years ago. Many people who believe this action isn’t okay are likely to judge parents who do spank their child as punishment.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no way that people will agree on moral beliefs. We know that. But, it also doesn’t seem practical to think that we live in a world where people don’t judge others for their moral beliefs. So where do we go to find a happy medium?
Blog response #2
The second video I watched relating to the topic of leadership discusses what the most important job of a leader is. The video states that being clear and giving your followers an easy to understand as well as see plan/vision is crucial in not only inspiring your followers. It also promotes mental health because there is no confusion or anxiety about what the goal or plan is. The video discusses constantly mentioning your vision in almost every interaction because it gives your followers a goal, as well as sense of purpose and they, are not aimlessly wandering around wondering what needs to be done. This will provide them not only with unity amongst themselves but will also make them gravitate towards the leader because he or she is clear, concise, and confident. Which are three crucial characteristics in order to be a great leader. If one is unsure of themselves or what their mission is their leaders will follow in suit and be discouraged. If you provide your followers with a clear goal and a path to get there they are much more willing to go the extra mile to get it done because it seems achievable.
Blog response #3
The second video I came upon discussed the importance of leadership in everyday life. Many people believe as though they are not leaders which then changes the definition of leadership or what a leader is. If you have the ability to influence someone or are influencing someone then you are a leader because someone is following you. However, that doesn’t make you a good leader. True leaders have the ability to develop a community of followers, a community of performers, and most importantly a community of leaders. In developing a community of leaders you inspire others to be better thus allowing them the ability to inspire others and making the people they surround themselves with better. A culture of leadership is where you grow and change that is where one becomes a true leader. Finally, the speaker delves into the difference between leadership in sports and business. He discusses how leadership is different in sports because you are playing with a set of rules and plays and whoever is better able to execute their plays will win. Whereas in business there is no such thing. People are constantly trying to undercut one another, outsell the other business, and he discusses how as a leader in a business setting one must be able to roll with the punches and be ready for change.
Blog Response #1
After looking through Ted-talk videos and searching youtube for videos on youtube I came upon a video called Derek Jeter on Leadership. Derek Jeter who is a retired professional baseball player is arguably one of if not the best leader in all of sports history. Mr. Jeter was almost unanimously voted into the Hall of Fame with a 99.7% approval rating. In his time in New York, he was extremely successful obtaining over 3,000 career hits, 14× All-Star (1998–2002, 2004, 2006–2012, 2014), 5× World Series champion (1996, 1998–2000, 2009), World Series MVP (2000), AL Rookie of the Year (1996), 5× Gold Glove Award (2004–2006, 2009–2010), 5× Silver Slugger Award (2006–2009, 2012), 2× AL Hank Aaron Award (2006, 2009), Roberto Clemente Award. Some of these awards are given to Jeter based upon his athletic abilities but others such as the Roberto Clemente award are given to the man who best represents baseball, sportsmanship, involvement within one’s community, and the contribution to the team. In his interview, he discusses the leadership qualities he used to lead the Yankees to five world series wins. He discusses how when in a position of leadership it is crucial to lead in the manner which feelest the truest to you whether that be by example, vocally, or both. Two other major takeaways I got from his interview was know who you are leading and don’t be superficial. If you stay true to one’s self people will naturally gravitate towards you and feel the authenticity in your actions and words. In addition, if you know the people in which you are leading you are better able to gauge what leadership style to use as well as how to communicate with your followers. Due to Mr. Jeter’s profound leadership skills, he was able to achieve one of the most successful careers in the history of Major League Baseball.
Event Post 3
The Ted talked titled “Leading with Laughter: The Power of Humor in Leadership” focuses on the direct relationship between leadership success and the ability to not take oneself too seriously. His talk begins with a story of how he believes he was able to keep a very fluid job position, and eventually get promoted in his industry. Working in a University administration, he knew that it would be necessary for him to go beyond just doing his job right, as any mistake could result in losing his position. Success at his job would require building connections in order to create benefits to himself beyond production. This simply makes coworkers more willing to accept mistakes and general humanness. To achieve this, the speaker went to a mall with many of his coworkers to spend the day. When at the mall, he claims to have accidentally used a womens bathroom before meeting back up with his coworkers. Rather than hiding what had happened, he chose to share the mistake with his coworkers, ready for them to laugh at him the remainder of the day. By building this connection with his coworkers, and simply making then laugh, he became seen as an asset simply for being well-liked.
The speaker continues to explain how he observes an inverse relationship between how seriously leaders take themselves, and how seriously those they lead perceive them to be. Leaders often develop egos alongside certain positions, and fail to realize that feeling more important will not result in others seeing them as important. The opposite effect truly occurs, as it makes followers far more interested in criticizing even the slightest mistakes. Humor is an incredible tool for countering these effects. By making one’s followers laugh, one signals that they understand life just the same way as those they lead. Leaders don’t realize that those they lead often implicitly assume that leaders only care about the goals they set out to achieve, and don’t have an understanding of, or care for, their followers emotions. By making those one leads laugh, one also makes their followers less afraid of error, making them more creative, and generally more productive. Laughing puts everyone on the same page, and is an extremely useful tool for leaders.
Thinking of this concept, I cannot help but judge many of the political leaders of the current era, as well as many of the contradictory traits people seek out in leaders. Americans commonly like when their leaders “project strength”, yet strength often comes with the horrible side effect of an indestructible ego. Leaders often take themselves more seriously than necessary, and do not admit their true faults. If presidents were to explain their ideas through cost/benefit analysis, analyzing the pros and cons of their plans, and recognizing their human limitations, they’d receive far better responses to their messages. The ability to make the people laugh can also go an extremely long way for citizen outreach, yet many leaders criticize jokes made by politicians as a lack of seriousness. The speaker in this Ted talk suggests that this often criticized lack of seriousness could benefit the people. Leaders ought to try and make those they lead laugh more, as it seems as though it would only yield positive responses.
Outside Event – TedTalk: Tribal Leadership
This tedtalk takes a really interesting focus at low level, or tribal, leadership. The speaker David Logan makes the really interesting point that based off the tribal level you can get a far better idea of the total group is thinking. He cites a really interesting example of ‘councils’ meeting during the Super Bowl in the form of Super Bowl parties. By surveying those parties on which candidate they were going to choose in the 2008 Democratic Primary, they found despite polling saying that Hillary had a strong lead, that the people at these parties tended to rally around Obama instead. This at least suggests that by looking at the lower level and at small tribal groups, we could get a much better idea at how decisions are actually made.
The speaker than went on to describe five different stages of tribes. The first one is the most dangerous, where people severe themselves off from functional tribes and hangout with people in a similarly destressed state. The other stages are a slow position progression. This system reveals how with an effective tribal system people can become far more productive. This is very helpful especially when working in small groups. This also reveals how important it is for leaders to not just look at giant groups. They need to be able to look and understand the lower levels, whether to understand their opinions or make them more effective.