Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Unit 7 (SMA, Steps II and III) Assignment

Discussion Blog— first 5 students, choose one case from the “Ethics Bowl Cases 2004”,

do Step II of the SMA, build on the previous work on this case (see last week’s

Discussion Blog); second 5 or so students, choose one case from the previous 5 students

(from “Ethics Bowl Cases 2004”), do Step III of the SMA, build on the previous work on

this case (see last week’s Discussion Blog and the previous posts for this week).

11 comments:

  1. I will use the same case I used last week. In the case of the credit card companies targeting students on campus the moral agent I will focus on is the university administrators. The university administrators have the ability to allow or not allow different organizations on campus. It is there job to make sure that students are protected and able to focus on their education. When credit card companies are allowed to advertise on campus they are allowed to reach a population that is usually newly independent and does not possess the knowledge to make an educated choice when it come to credit and finances. A student has come from the protection of their families to a new environment where often times the only line of defense for young students is school administrators (among other school employees). It is their job to provide as much guidance for these newly independent students as possible. In allowing credit card companies unbridled access to students on campus the school administrators are saying that they do not care about the all around well being of the student but simply about their formal education in the classroom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While students are usually new to that type of environment I think that the credit card companies ought to teach the students about the importance of good financial choices, this however does not make the company the same amount of money that it would if they were to go into debt with the interest rates. But it would form a trusted bond between the companies and the students, thus making them long term clients when they do decide to get a credit card. I think if the card credit companies want to advertise on the campus the school should make an agreement that makes the companies teach the students.

      Delete
  2. Last week I used the case of the two students misleading their professor into allowing them to take a rescheduled exam. The moral agent I will be focusing on is the professor. The professor has the authority to reschedule exam in the event of an emergency. In this case the professor allowed the students to retake the exam but used an unique way to test the students if they really did have an emergency. If the professor had not allowed the students to retake the exam they would have received a 0% on the exam however, he gave the students a chance to receive partial credit 10% of the exam score. Some could argue the professor has the moral responsibility to test their students on the same curriculum. The agent did have a goal in mind when rescheduling the exam. The professor made the two students take the exam at the same time but in different rooms thus making it nearly impossible to answer the emergency question the same. Had the two students really had an emergency with their car having a flat tire the test would have been unfair to the other students in the course because 90% of the exam was the about the flat tire. The professor used the exam to test the students’ honesty and only because the students were dishonest the test works in her way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is good that you brought up the part about the test only working because the students were lying. If they had been telling the truth it could be argued that they would have unfairly walked away with a 90 percent or higher because it said the other questions were fairly easy. If they were telling the truth and got a 90 that would be unfair too because that means the test was only looking at the students honesty not there skills in the class. All the other students were at the test on time and didn’t lie so shouldn’t they all receive a 90 percent because of their honesty.

      Delete
    2. I don’t think the moral agent has any ground to stand upon. The whole point of being a professor is to educate and CHALLENGE individuals and groups of students trying to pursue advanced knowledge of subjects. I don’t believe the professor has any right to take what they say as false or a lie. If the professor thought they were lying she shouldn’t of even allowed them to reschedule. Giving them the chance take the test but it being a bogus test is more deceptive than the students lying to their professor in the first place. The agents responsibility is to act morally, the professor in this case did not!

      Delete
  3. The case I will be focusing on is case two where the professor is the moral agent. The professor has unilateral control over the students and is able to punish them or not as he sees fit. In this situation the professor could determine that there reason was valid and take the students word for it that they had a ligament reason and allow them to take the actual test, he could decide that there reason was not valid and not allow them to receive any grade or he could do what he did and give them the chance to prove their story. The professor’s role related responsibilities are to treat all students fairly, make sure grades reflect student’s ability and work ethic and protect the prestige of the field the professor is teaching. In this situation the professor was trying to protect the prestige of his field and protect the other student’s right to have a fair playing field on which to compete. By allowing the two students to take the test the professor is giving those two students a potentially unfair advantage because the two students got extra time that could have been spent studying that the rest of the class didn’t. to eliminate this problem the professor made 90 percent of their grade on the test a question about what tire was flat. In this way the students only had 1 in 16 odds of guessing correctly and they would fail the test and therefor the other students would be saved from harm and the institution would have punished the students for lying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the case out of the University of Florida involving the history professor and the curriculum he teaches to his students, the moral agent is the professor. The professor has all the control over what he decides to lecture on, on any given day. Also, being head of the history department gives this professor more freedom to do as he pleases in his profession. Moving to his class, the professor teaches “American History to 1887.” The professor chooses to go away from the traditional way of teaching this course from the Anglo-American perspective and teaches his course from mostly the perspective of the Native Americans. The professor’s course does not strictly follow the makings of the constitution and prominent figures like George Washington. Instead the course follows a path that shows the students that Europeans did not discover the Americas, they immigrated to it. Some argue that the professor is not doing his duties by teaching the class the way he is. However, the students deserve a different historic perspective. With history usually being taught from the Anglo-American perspective, it is important for the students to learn some real history, to learn things as they actually happened. After the students learn in this way, the students can form their own opinions and take a critical look at these times. Instead of teaching history the same way many people teach it, this professor does his students a service by teaching in his way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matthew, I agree with what you have to say about the professor. I think I can speak for most of college students my age and say that I have heard the telling of American history, the constitution and such, about a million times. It would be boring for me to take a class with that because I know most of the things about it. In my opinion it would be refreshing to learn the history of America before the Europeans arrived and to learn the history of America from a different prospective.

      Delete
  5. Using the josephs case from previous week. The moral agent was the university who debated rather it was the right to release the personal files of a student that had recently passed away. Although they were releasing the information to the family of the student. They had no knowledge of what information was on that file and wasn’t sure if it would be detrimental to joseph image. In this case the university has complete control on rather these records are release or not. The university has to make a choice that’s e either for the greater good of the family or for the greater good of joseph reputation he is leaving behind. The university role related responsibility to report the death of the student, they don’t have to release the files but they have to determine rather it is justified to release these files. If they do it they have to understand that this will be required for all students in the future that may pass and be ready to take on anything that comes from these releases of information. In this case the university is trying to protect the student, their family, as well as the reputation of the university because they don’t know what these files can hold. The information on the files could put a lot of people at risk. If these files contain nothing there was nothing lost there would be no groups would be harmed. The university should let these files be given to the family so that they can have closer. That’s what they are looking for and if any information on that file would most likely stay between the families I don’t see it coming back to hurt the university but that may be a rick the university has to take.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am going to be playing off of what Randi has been talking about with credit cards being distributed like candy at university systems to young and naive students. With the administration being the moral agent here, if they decide to let the credit companies advertise freely to students trying to entice them into getting a credit card they would be not helping out their students and harming a lot of the students credit rating. One may say building credit is good at a young age but one can make their own decision on if they need a credit card and can pursue those credit companies individually. If the moral agent denies the credit company’s access to their students then it doesn’t put the students in a situation in which they could make bad financial decisions. The downside is that then students may not be exposed to their possibilities which just inhibits their freedom. The needs of the students at the early stages of their independence is social, education and monetary security. No student wants to live their college career not doing much just because it costs money. I personally don’t spend outside my means but I also spend stupid money on things for my friends and I just because it seems fun at the time and it always is. Creating stories and memories is the desire of college. The access to a credit card gives students these freedoms and allows them to spend money, although some may abuse it. The denial of credit card companies prevents the students from acting immoral when using money.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Building off of what Matt was talking about, the history professor at the University of Florida. I agree with what Matt said that students can learn the material, then make their own interpretations. I don’t think there are any moral violations to this at all. The majority of the class has probably heard the story from the textbooks a few time, aside from foreign students. The professor is not being deceptive he is doing his job, you can take a college class on almost everything these days and there is nothing wrong with a different prospective on American history. If a student feels that it is wrong they can simply drop the class and take a different one. If anything he is preventing the brainwashing of public schools by telling the story from a different prospective. For example if Star Wars was told from the perspective of the empire then more than likely the rebels would look like the villains. This course would help the Natives more than anything because it tell the true story and how the Europeans violated the treaties and committed genocide on some tribes.

    ReplyDelete