2. Urban LegendThe urban Legend is about a professor catching two students lying to her about having a flat tire on their journey back to the school from the ski hill. In the legend the two students decide to skip out on an exam to have an extra ski day. The two then devise a plan to tell their professor they had a flat tire so that he would reschedule the exam. The professor agrees to the reschedule of the exam. Then the professor sits the two students in separate rooms with the exam, the first part of the test was extremely easy and only worth 10% of the exam score. On the second part the exam there was one question asking which tire was flat, thus giving light their lie. The moral problem in this case was the fact that two students lied to their professor about having a flat tire in order to receive a rescheduled time. On the other hand some can argue that the teacher should have only tested the students on the material covered in class. However, the two students brought the problem upon themselves while trying to pull a fast one. The students were dishonest not only to the professor but to their peers as well, because the students received extra time for the exam. I believe the students received the grade that they deserved, they lied to the professor.
I agree with you! The students received extra time that the rest of the class didn't have. And while the teacher did sort of pull a fast one on the students as well they shouldn't have lied. It is our responsibility as students to follow through with school work. And while sometimes that means missing out on certain things we with we didn't have too. It's not fair to expect a free pass when others in the class most likely made the necessary sacrifices of their time, or things they would rather be doing to be in class to take the exam.
I agree with you completely that the students deserved a failing grade but what is interesting is that the students had a 1 in 16 chance of getting the exact same answer for the tire question and then they would have gotten a minimum of a 90 percent on a test that they really had no business even taking. Even if the students got a flat tire is that really an excuse for not making a test. Most college students live pretty close to campus and could walk. Even if they are late to the test it is better than not showing up at all and validates there story. This professor in my mind was still to lenient even though the students probably did not received a passing grade.
Alright, Time to play devil’s advocate.This is school, it should be taken seriously and we should not be deceiving professors to benefit yourself. But, this is also LIFE and it should be lived out in a balance between the cultivation of mind and pleasure. These cats wanted to go skiing for an extra day because of nice powder, doesn’t matter. The fact is that the professor holds them to such a standard that does not allow for them to actually do what they want to. I believe this is at fault for the professor just as much as the students. If her rules where not so strict they would never have needed to lie to her. Professors always need to remember the student is the client of the establishment. The purpose of our schooling is that we learn and do the work that is asked of us. The point of school is NOT for professors to acquire homework and tests from students.
For the second moral problem, the two students that tried to pull one over on the professor, the moral harm or wrong doing was that the students were receiving an unfair advantage by getting extra time and abusing a policy in the syllabus that was not intended for them. They claimed to have an emergency but in reality they just were being lazy and didn’t want to fill their obligations. Using Gert’s ‘common sense moral theory’ it is not okay to deceive people. Lying is not a moral right under this moral theory and it should never be used for your own good. Under Utilitarianism the lying isn’t the moral problem because under utilitarianism some lying can be justified. For example in World War two lying to the Japanese about the number of atomic bombs we had was a justified lie because it brought the greatest good to the greatest number in that millions of people didn’t die in a main land invasion. In the moral case with the two students the moral wrong from the utilitarian standpoint is that there is harm being done to the rest of the class and everyone that has taken the class in the past or will take the class in the future. The two students were given an unfair advantage by being able to take the test at a later time which means more time to study and thereby giving them potential to do better than the rest of the class. The deontological approach to this problem is that the students were not using good will, reason and duty. There will was off when they didn’t set the test as a priority. There weren’t using good reason by lying. Finally there duty is to school and not the slopes. By all of the major philosophical ideas these students perpetrated a moral wrong.
Credit for class.The moral harm done in this case is done to the students who do not have the knowledge about credit card debt to use credit cards wisely and end up causing long term damage to their credit. Using Gerts philosophy it would seem unethical to set up application tables for credit cards on school campuses and inticing students with free gifts when it is well known that young people do not have a good knowledge of responsible lending. This is common sense. You should not target uneducated (on the subject in question) consumers without offering the proper education on your product. The credit card companies make the application process easy by coming to the students. The students, may or may not have thought about the possibility of needing a credit card before. When a fast, easy solution to your problems just shows up in front of you as a young person it's hard to say no. Or to hold off and do some research to find the best APR. credit card companies are not thinking nor caring about the long term damage they are doing to students who borrow more than they can repay. They are solely thinking about their profit. The idea that credit is technically a good thing to establish at a young age is great. But that's not where the credit card companies are going with their reasoning for targeting students. If they were conserned about helping students establish good credit they would be the ones offering credit counseling as a pre requisit for receiving the line of credit instead of the colleges offering it along with entrance into the university.
11)josephIn the case of joseph the moral problem of the story is Rather or not joseph hard drive from the school should be released to joseph cousin at the request of his mother. The reason the university is reluctant to give the drive to joseph cousin is because they do not know what files the hard drive might hold in them. These files could contain information that can be extremely harmful to joseph image and how his friends and family view and morn him post death. Denying the family joseph files may also have an impact on his family because obtaining these files can put them inside the mind of joseph, let them see a side of him that maybe no one has saw before. Which is something many mothers would love to have. I believe the university is trying to use Gert’s moral rules for utilitarianism doing what’s best for the group which in this case would be joseph family because not obtaining these files doesn’t have an impact on either joseph or his family life goes on as they never existed. While the exact opposite can happen if those files are released and they contain harmful information. This approach the university is taking could also be seen as deontology because if the files contain something very serious could be harmful to the university image as well so this could be viewed as a way for them to save the university for the backlash or just media attention it could bring to the university.
10) To Tell the TruthThe problem is terminally ill patients and how they should be treated by doctors. Should they tell them they have one month to live or lie to them and say they are just fine. This is fairly simple to me that you should not lie at all especially as a well-respected physician. Using the SMA step one: the moral problem is telling your patient he is about to die or not. This is definitely is going to be hard because death it hard to grasp for individuals and their family. The harm they could cause by lying is far worse a person would not get their will together talk with their family or possible even turn to god and be saved. If they are not told they won’t have that chance. Step 2: the moral agent is the doctor. In the article it says that times have changed and it is frowned upon to lie to a patient. Step 3: the action of lying would not be justified because it is deception. If you lied to a patient about having AIDS to save them their dignity or for whatever reason they would just keep spreading the disease unknowingly. Truth is always the better option. Step 4: the morally prohibited actions are lying. My deduction from this case is clear. The doctor should tell the patient the truth and help them with their response to the fatal news.
4. Terrorism BroadcastsTerrorism is an epidemic of the 21st century and poses real threats to many countries and civilians as it is an act of desperation and is motivated by power figures that have wronged groups of radicals that believe violence is the only action that is required. Broadcast journalists and the media in general are the link between general population and the ones directly affected by the terrorist act. The two sides to this are, one; to broadcast all acts of terrorism to inform the general population of the hate and the damage that has been caused by generalized radicals and share the motivation behind why these attacks are happening and two; to censor these acts so the terrorists don’t get the satisfaction of people knowing or people ever knowing what their cause and motivation is and may discourage the acts of future terrorists to take the outrageous actions that their comrades have taken. By censoring these acts the general population would never know about it, some may say that it would be not right to withhold that information, but looking at it from a utilitarian point of view this would cause great dissatisfaction by everyone as a pain and would not create much pleasure except for the pleasure of just knowing that you know it happened. Another way to view it is that everyone has a right to know and should be able to make that choice on their own on whether or not they view these acts of terror. If the terror acts are always broadcasted in an unbiased way, in that both the act itself and the reasoning for the act happening is shared with the general public then people would be more informed about world events and the way some organizations view others and what others have done to said organizations. This recognition though is a double edged sword as when these acts are well broadcasted and investigated into motivation for them, then others to follow will not be discouraged as their goal is actually going to be achieved.