Ethics in Care and Education
Introduction. Moral reasoning; relativism and egoism
13-09-2021
Dr. Anouk Zuurmond
Program
1. Applied ethics.
› Why do we need ethics in care and education?
2. Meta-ethics.
› What is the nature of moral statements?
› How do we gain moral knowledge?
▪ Relativism ▪ Subjectivism
3. Normative ethics.
› What is the right thing to do?
PART I. APPLIED ETHICS
WHY DO WE NEED ETHICS IN CARE AND EDUCATION?
Moral issues in care and education with conflicting values. Making a choice as a professional. Training
yourself to become aware of ethical theory’s.
Examples of moral issues with conflicting values: news items during the corona crisis.
- Proctoring (online tool, students are being monitored during large scale exams). Students are
worried about their privacy. Notion of privacy versus notion of justice, no cheating during exams.
- Distance learning: kids “disappeared” because teachers couldn’t connect to them online. What
do you do when students don’t have a safe place to learn? Safety versus the right to education.
- Debates about the corona vaccine. Can you order students to get a vaccine? Student can make
their own choices versus a safe environment. Autonomy versus safety.
Why ethics?
› How do you deal with a pupil diagnosed with impulse control issues who benefits from being in a
classroom, but frequently disrupts the learning process of peers?
› How do you deal with parents protesting against ‘Coming Out Day’ celebrations in school?
› How should we regard expensive institutes offering shadow education in schools?
Examples on 3 levels:
- Level classroom, client (small)
- Organizational level (larger)
- Societal/national level – education policy’s
› These issues are everyday dilemma’s for people working in children’s care and education
› They are ethical challenges: they have to do with notions of equality, care, inclusion, respect, etc.
› These dilemmas can be solved by asking instrumental questions
▪ However: in this course we provide an ethical perspective
Ethical: what are the moral values behind this issue?
Instrumental: what is the most effective way to deal with this issue? Effective strategies, for example
during interaction with the student or client.
Codes of conduct
Orthopedagogiek: NVO (Nederlandse Vereniging van pedagogen en onderwijskundigen).
Education: association of American educators.
1
,From the Code of Conduct: American educators Code of Conduct (online)
1. The professional educator strives to create a learning environment that nurtures to fulfillment the
potential of all students.
2. The professional educator deals considerately and justly with each student, and seeks to resolve
problems, including discipline, according to law and school policy.
3. The professional educator complies with written local school policies and applicable laws and
regulations that are not in conflict with this code of ethics.
The Code of conduct is not a single way to solve specific problems.
CASE STUDY 1: THE CHEATING STUDENT
› Import scholarship for one of your students
› Precondition: average 7
› Problem: cheating on one test: school policy result 1,0
“Though experiment”. You are a schoolteacher. A student from a lower background who has worked
hard has an important scholarship coming up. There is 1 precondition to get funding: an average 7.
You catch the student cheating in 1 test: plagiarism. The student has never done something wrong.
What do you do? Dilemma. School policy is very strict: when a student is cheating the result of the
test should be a 1, changes for getting the scholarship are ruined.
Look at the Code of Conduct.
1. One time cheating, the student has potential. My task is to nurture the potential. I will talk to the
student.
2. What is “considerately”?
3. It doesn’t matter who the student is, you need to comply to school policy.
Part 1 & 3 are contradicting.
The Code of Conduct doesn’t give 1 solution. It needs a lot of thinking and weeing norms and values.
› Moral judgements must be backed by good reasons
› A moral argument sound argument, without logical fallacies.
› Beware of reasoning that misuses analogies, turns to ‘slippery slopes’, etc.
› Important strategy in moral thinking: thought experiments (support of a theory, provide
counterexamples, develop moral argument)
The Code of Conduct is the beginning to think about moral dilemmas. It needs a lot of thinking and
weeing pros and cons. It is not a mathematical approach. Reasoning is important in ethics.
Wolff has a chapter about reasoning. ‘Slippery slopes’ = hellend vlak.
The “Thought experiment” is important in the exam.
Applied ethics
› Begins with a specific problem; then looks at values, principles or other normative standards
involved
› Professional ethics: a community of professionals is always are moral community as well.
Professionals share values, implicit or explicitly listed in codes of conducts or protocols. Using these
will inform their decision making process.
2
, Set up course
› Week 1 - 4 Normative ethics. Meta-ethics. Applied ethics.
▪ Introduction into moral theories, reflecting on moral issues for ortho & education:
- Equality & diversity - Rights & Care
› Exam week 5
› Week 6 – 7 (seperate meetings masters) Meta-ethics. Applied ethics – casus.
▪ Ortho: applying Code of Conduct
▪ Ethics: moral decision making model for education
PART II META-ETHICS
“Above level”. Helicopter view. What is ethics? What is the nature of morality?
From the code of conduct: moral statements - guideline
1. The professional educator strives to create a learning environment that nurtures to fulfillment the
potential of all students.
2. The professional educator deals considerately and justly with each student, and seeks to resolve
problems, including discipline, according to law and school policy.
3. The professional educator complies with written local school policies and applicable laws and
regulations that are not in conflict with this code of ethics.
What makes a claim ‘moral’?
› Moral claims need first to be distinguished from factual ones: they describe and can be true or false
› These claims are prescriptive, not descriptive: what you ought to do
But how do we know moral statements are true?
What are moral claims? Moral claims versus factual claims.
- Factual claims: descriptive, true or false. Example: statements about the time tables of the train.
- Moral claims: prescriptive, it tells you what you ought to do, what kind of actions are right or
wrong. This is how you should live your life. This is a good person.
Two questions:
› How do we gain moral knowledge?
› What is the nature of moral statements?
These questions are ‘meta-ethical’ questions: what is the nature of ‘norms and values’? Where do
moral rules come from? Etc. Moral questions are ‘meta-ethical’ questions. Understand the moral
nature from a helicopter perspective.
1. How do we gain moral knowledge?
So moral statements are different from factual statements.
But how do we gain moral knowledge?
Wolff: 2 ways of thinking about ethics, grouping the different strands together in two models:
1. Objectivism / realism / universalism: mathematics model
Something that is out there for us to discover, objective. It is the same for everybody, we have to
strive towards to gain that type of knowledge. It is not depending on personal preferences, culture or
interaction.
2. Subjectivism / relativism / nihilism: cultural (or 'fashion') model
Moral knowledge is dependent on the cultural surroundings of people. We have created morality as
a part of our cultural costumes, rituals, language, etc.
3
,Moral realism / objectivism
› Values are ‘real’
› The idea of goodness is universal
Objectivism: values are “real”. The idea of goodness is universal, the same for everybody.
Plato: in reality we never have the perfect idea of “goodness”, it is an abstract concept. People
engage with each other in different matters. However there is one universal idea of goodness.
“Morality” is discovered and “god given”. It is out there and we have to gain access to it, for example
by thinking. Objectivism: there is only one way of good. No matter where you live, not matter what
culture you come from, people share intuitive universal goodness.
Problem: ideas of morality have changed during throughout history. Example: the idea of
homosexuality. How do you explain this if you think there is only one idea of good?
Cultural relativism
› Cultural relativism: right and wrong is always tied to a specific culture. Therefore: it is always wrong
to impose moral ideas on another culture
You accept different points of view tied to a specific culture. Example: different ideas about gun
ownership.
Problem: there is an inconsistency in the reasoning. On the one hand it is always tied to a culture and
on the other hand there is a universal statement saying that it is always universally wrong to impose
moral ideas on another culture.
› Pseudo-relativism: there is at least one universal value and that is the right each culture has to
moral self-determination
You accept at least one universal value opposed to cultural values and the universal value and that is
the right each culture has to moral self-determination.
Issues moral and cultural relativism
Moral isolationism
› No cultural group is homogenous
Cultural groups consist of people again with different cultural backgrounds.
› There are no agreed-upon moral standpoints
› A person’s moral beliefs are not necessary the result of the values of the group
You as an individual always make choices.
Cultural relativism sometimes makes people uncomfortable. For example, in some African nations
teachers interact with their students in a physical way (punishment in a physical matter). For
example, female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice, as a proper
relativist you conclude that it is fine that cultures practice this, because it is their idea of morality,
goodness. But this consequence makes people uncomfortable. Should we really accept all cultural
practices?
4
,‘Modest relativism’
› ‘Core’ morality that is universal
▪ Value of cooperation
▪ Conflict resolution
▪ Ideals for a good life
› Social, non-universal practices
You accept some universal elements in morality but also accept social, non-universal practices that
have to do with goodness. You can see an underlying core universal principle. For example: funeral
rituals are all expressions of respect for the diseased even though practices are different. We share
core ideas that have to do with value of cooperation, conflict resolution of ideals for a good life. And
there are some non-universal practices that differ culturally.
2. What is the nature of a moral statement? Anti-realism
› Is morality merely a device that those in power use for looking after their own interests (nihilism)?
› Is it an expression of your personal preferences or emotions (subjectivism)?
› Is it evolutionary evolved, so that we can live in groups (evolutionary argument)?
Anti-realism: morality is a construct, something that human beings have created and invented. Anti-
realism is opposed to objectivism.
Subjectivism
› Moral statements are not factual statements about the world or other people
› But they do state a fact, namely about the person making the statement
› That is: saying something is good is comparable to saying: I strongly approve of X / X gives me
pleasure
Subjectivism says that when you make a moral statement you state a fact about yourself as a person.
“I strongly approve of X / C gives me pleasure.”
Problem: if you say that a moral statement is a factual statement about a personal position, it makes
all the people infallible (they can’t be wrong).
Emotivism / expressivism
› Moral statements express attitudes without stating them
▪ Capital punishment: booh!
Moral statement are not factual statements about the person expressing himself, but about
expressing attitudes. If you are against capital punishment, an emotivist will say: “booh!” (expressing
an attitude). It offers an solution to the fact that people are infallible, emotions are not facts and
express attitudes.
But how about moral reasoning? Attempting to persuade one another – and not just by merely
stating facts or emotions of yourself?
Problem: if you only express attitudes, it is not possible to persuade one another if you turn moral
statements in “booh” “hooray” statement.
Argument from evolution
There is nothing special about morality. Morality is just part of our evolution. It is not just in human
beings but also in primates. Throughout evolution humans got an idea of justice that works to
function in a group.
5
,PART III NORMATIVE ETHICS
WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
Four moral theories
Starting point the other way around: general theories / principles to begin with, then look at specific
cases
› Ethical egoism
EGOISM
Is altruism possible?
I saved a child from drowning!! What is the reason you did this?
› I thought it was my duty to save her
› I took the responsibility to save her: someone had to do this
› I know and care for this child
› Ok, I would have felt guilty for the rest of my life if I hadn’t done this
› And I sort of didn’t want people to think I was a coward
› I thought it would be great to be the hero….
Is it possible to really do stuff for other people or is it about you?
Psychological egoism
› Egoism: every human action is motivated by self-interest
› Descriptive: theory of how the mind of people works
› Hobbes: "I obtained two absolutely certain postulates of human nature," he says, "one, the
postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property;
the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death"
Hobbes: Thought experiment: what would life be like if we put people on an island where there are
no laws? How would people engage with each other? Hobbes: “People are greedy and only care for
themselves and they want to prevent bad things from happen for themselves and want the best stuff
for themselves, that is how the mind works. In the end of the day people think about themselves”
Problem: Can we falsify psychological egoism?
Any theory that describes how the human mind works or how people engage with each other should
according to some philosophers of science, for example Popper, be able to be falsified. Any scientific
theory should predict certain events from happening and if it doesn’t happen, the theory should be
falsified. Psychological egoism is a weak theory and can’t be falsified. For example: children at a
young age in an experiment display altruistic behavior. But you can reinterpret this behavior, maybe
the children have been trained, if they display this behavior they get a reward or it makes them feel
good. Psychological egoism is impossible to falsify, because you can always invent other motives and
keep up the idea of psychological egoism.
Ethical egoism
›Prescriptive: it describes you what to do.
›The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own rational self-interest
Rational self-interest has a component of thinking about your own self-interest. Rational self-interest
is not just following what you want to do at that specific moment. For example, it is in your own
rational self-interest to study and get your diploma instead of watching Netflix every evening.
›Against altruism / self-sacrifice
If people do what is in their own self-interest the world would be a better place. Egoists resist the
idea of altruism / self-sacrifice, because it makes people for whom you do those things feel bad and
the person doing those things feel bad. Helping another person is fine if it is in your self-interest.
6
,Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982)
Objectivism:
› Realism
› Ethical egoïsm
› Laissez-faire capitalism
Ayn Rand: the best thing to do in life is always persuade your self-interest. Ethical egoism is in neat
line with laissez-faire capitalism and presume your interest as a consumer as well.
Problem ethical egoism
› James Rachels: “Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interest”
▪ Why should my life take priority over yours?
We seem to share the notion that morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s
interest. Why should my life, my ego, should take priority over yours?
› Wolff: false dichotomy
Ethical egoism creates a false dichotomy: either you are altruistic or egoistic, there is no in between.
But in reality they are vague in between areas.
› Wolff: how can we then prevent a situation like Hobbes’ state of nature?
If everybody would pursue their self-interest, wouldn’t we end up in an state of nature where
everybody would sting each other and wants the best for themselves (Hobbes). How do you prevent
that?
Lecture 2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics
20-09-2021
Dr. Anouk Zuurmond
Program
› Utilitarianism
› Deontology
› Virtue Ethics
RECAP
Three perspectives in Ethics
› Meta-ethics: what is the nature of morality?
▪ Subjectivism
▪ Cultural relativism
› Applied ethics: starting with a problem in the professional practice
▪ Codes of Conduct
› Normative ethics: what is the right thing to do?
▪ Ethical egoism
▪ Utilitarianism
▪ Deontology
▪ Virtue ethics
7
,UTILITARIANISM
Would you choose a life of limitless pleasure?
Utilitarianism is all about pleasures.
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)
Principle of utility: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to promote unhappiness.
Do the thing that makes the most people the most happy. Happiness is the key in moral values.
Happiness: pleasure, absence of pain
Happiness also to the greatest number (of people): promote and expand happiness to the maximum.
This moral theory is a form of ‘hedonism’: subjective experiences of people are emphasized.
This idea of utilitarianism was evolutionary in the eighteenth century about thinking about morality
in terms of happiness. It was a start in engaging animals in moral thinking. Animals can suffer pain as
well. We need to act morally towards animals as well.
Three fundamental convictions of utilitarianism
› Morality requires everyone to be treated equally
› ‘Pleasure is the ultimate good’ (the ‘instrinsic goal’):
The goal that is the end goal for everybody: in the end you do something because it brings happiness.
▪ Against the ascetism of religious moralism
If happiness is the ultimate good, it also means that you resist ideas that promote pain or
unhappiness. Utilitarianism resisted some forms of ascetism of religious strict policy’s on for example
sexuality. For example: promoting contraception is an utilitarian thing to do, because it is focused on
preventing pain and misery caused by religious moralism on sexual behavior.
› Morality should be based on firm principles
Morality shouldn’t be depending on certain likes or dislikes, it should be something that you can
objectively calculate. What the right thing to do is.
These convictions can be translated into two parts of the theory of utilitarianism:
› Theory of the good
› Theory of the right
Theory of the good: how we conceptualize good
› Pleasure is good and unhappiness/ pain is bad
› Pleasure is the only thing that is good
› ‘Classic hedonism’: focus on understanding good as subjective feelings on pleasure and pain.
Theory of the right: what is the right thing to do?
› Act in such a way that you bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number
› Theory of the right
Slogan utilitarianism: “Greatest happiness for the greatest number”
8
,- Bentham’s Felicific Calculus: you can decide the amount of happiness while looking at 7 qualities
of happiness.
- Ranking of Happiness in countries.
Utilitarianism tries to calculate for each situation what the result is of your decision in terms of
happiness and pain for yourself and all the people involved.
- Interpersonal comparison of utility: compares different levels of pain and pleasure between
people. This is subjective and difficult.
Example 1
Netflix: The Good Place – The Trolley problem (example in moral philosophy).
Decide whether you give up 1 person to save the life of 5 persons.
Basic idea of utilitarianism: calculate the amount of happiness, 5 is more than 1.
Example 2
The subjection of women – John Stuart Mill.
Utilitarianism as a driving force for social reform: happiness and unhappiness can be understood as a
driving force for social reform.
Question of the book: Why end the tyranny of men of women?
1. Bad for men to grow up with the false idea that they are superior
And will be disappointed when it turns out not to be true.
2. Society loses important contributors to the fields of law & medicine
We want woman to work in the fields of law, medicine, education.
3. Men are forced to having a conventional occupation
If woman are not allowed to work, it means that men are forced to care of woman and their family.
4. Women lose personal enjoyment, fulfillment, and suffer dissatisfaction
These are 4 reasons for happiness/unhappiness for men and woman. Ending the tyranny will make
men and woman much more happy.
Possible critique on utilitarianism
› Theory of the good
› Theory of the right
Theory of the good: critique
1.The Narrowness objection: Is happiness the sole ultimate good?
Is it really the case that we do things to make us happy? There are other ultimate goods as well.
People also do things because they want to become very good at something and sacrifice things for
it. For example: you study arts and work really hard even though it makes you feel miserable.
2.The Agency objection: What matters is not just our feelings, but also our acts/ choices
The acts and choices we are able to make also matter. People want to be life as real as possible and
have control over their life and make choices. People want to know the truth, even though it is
painful. For example: knowing the truth about a cheating partner. It is better than fake happiness.
3. The Evil Pleasures objection
This is a form of evil pleasure and objectionable. For example: there is a camera places in a woman’s
dressing room and is secretly taping. This video is streaming life. From an utilitarian point of view you
calculate, 20 is not comparable to 2000 people.
9
, Alternatives for the theory of good: 2 different forms of utilitarianism
1. Preferentialism
Good = fulfilling one’s preferences
Utilitarianism admits that happiness is not just about the sole good, there are other things that
people want to do in their life, for example doing sports on a high level to fulfill one’s preferences.
2. Perfectionalism
Good= goals we find (objectively) worthwhile for everyone (knowledge, health, justice)
Maybe we should device some things that we find objectively good. Goodness is goals that everyone
finds worthwhile to strive for (knowledge, health, justice).
Theory of the right: critique
1. Minimalizing happiness: isn’t that a bit overdemanding?
▪ Doing good / doing extra good (supererogate)
▪ Morality also depends on types of relationships (close – far)
Utilitarianism tells you to maximum happiness to the greatest number. Should we always maximize
happiness during normal life for the greatest number of people? For example, you had breakfast, had
a shower, did your hair. If you look at your morning routine form an utilitarian point of view, you
weren’t maximizing happiness. You can do better, you can get up earlier and do some volunteer
work. Utilitarianism is not making a difference between people doing good and people doing extra
good. Morality also depends on types of relationships. It is difficult to treat everyone equally.
2. Counter-intuïtive consequences
▪ Scapegoat
The idea of sacrificing 1 person is something that is easily the result of utilitarianism thinking. This
creates the idea of a scapegoat: sometimes it's ok to sacrifice an innocent person if the results lead
to more happiness. For example: you are a policeman and in your city is huge violence and you want
to stop it. You have caught a person and you know that this person is not guilty. But you are going to
tell everybody that the person who did the robbery’s is caught. And punishing him by death
sentence. The real robber will get scared away and people find rest. But what happens with the one
innocent person? The person has no rights. What happens to the single individual? It can‘t be the
result of a moral theory that it is fine to sacrifice a person for the greater happiness.
Response utilitarianism
› Act-utilitarianism: decide and calculate for each situation what to do.
Some things are so terrible that you can’t do them even though they might lead to a form of
happiness. For example: you cannot punish innocent people.
› Rule-utilitarianism: decide the rules and exceptions for rules.
Rules for utilitarianism: even though it makes direct involved people happy, it has to be right. It is
difficult how to decide the rules and exceptions for rules and to look at the results in the future.
The problem of contingency
Contingency is another word for ‘coincidence’: the idea that maybe utilitarianism is right for the
wrong reasons. For example: list 4 reasons of ending the tyranny over woman. One of the arguments
was that men find out that there are not superior. But what if men would be happy with fake
superiority? Would it then be okay to have tyranny over woman?
Utilitarianism might result in something noble, but the wrong reasons are only explained in pleasures
or pain. But we want woman to have rights. No matter what pains and pleasures are involved and
not matter what man think of it. Utilitarianism can’t explain unconditional rights.
DEONTOLOGY
Deontology is different than utilitarianism and defends fundamental rights, principles. For example: a
deathbed promise. You make a promise to your dying grandfather to live a healthy life. From an
utilitarianism point of view it is fine to not keep the promise, if it will make you miserable. You are
the only person involved, the other person is passed away. Deontologists say that making promises is
an obligation even though the person doesn’t life anymore. We have duties for each other.
10
