For this week’s blog I will be focusing on the second case on the ethics bowl list. For this case the morally prohibited would be to just give the two students a hundred or didn’t test them at all and just didn’t factor there grade into the total. What is morally permitted is for the teacher to let the students take the same test that all the other students took. As the teacher he has the right to believe the students story and deem that it is a reasonable excuse to take the test at a later date. It is also morally permitted that the teacher just fail the students for that test. They did not take it at the scheduled time and therefore gave up there right to be tested at all. Even in the syllabus that they most likely signed, it says they agree that if they don’t take the test on the scheduled day they forfeit a good grade without a good excuse. Morally encouraged and the kind of morally ideal would be to have done what the teacher did. The only problem would be if the students got the 1 in 16 possibility and guessed the tire. This is a very small possibility though so it should not be of much concern. The only possibility that I would see as being better would be to have tested the students first on the tire question then if they got that question right test them with the same test as everyone else. This way if they were telling the truth they get tested on the same material and if they were lying they get the zero they deserve.
I agree that the tire question should have been the first question, followed by either a zero for not stating the correct matching tire on both tests, or if they did happen to guess the same tire they would be allowed to take the same test the class had been given earlier that week. It's not exactly fair that the students who lied got to take an easier version of the test. Suppose the students had foreseen some kind of questioning. They may have planned out their stories. In that case the easier test questions on the front of the test given to the students would not have been an accurate portrayal of their knowledge and an unfair advantage over the students who took the test as scheduled. I do not think it is ethically wrong for the teacher to ask the tire question. It is morally encouraged for teachers to teach life lessons as well as course material. It is stated in most university guidelines that cheating in any way is against the rules. This was cheating. The students lied to be able to manipulate the timing of their test. The teacher is teaching them the value of being honest and taking your work seriously on top of teaching them calculus!
I will be looking at the credit for class case from the ethics bowl. The agent I will be looking at is the school administration. The morally prohibited action here would be to be including credit applications for various different banks along with acceptance letters. This seems extreme but if given the opportunity the credit companies would probably offer some sort of monetary reward for the school to present them in any sort of formal way to their students. The school could stand to make a lot of money. This would be wrong due to the fact that students would get a false sense of trust for that particular bank and would be more likely to choose their services rather than looking into what is right for them. Morally permissible would be for the school to only allow the credit vendors on campus during non school hours. Being that there are usually night classes this would only allow them on campus on weekends. Which would hopefully greatly reduce there access to students. Morally encouraged would be for the school administration to not allow them on campus at any time as it is their job to protect students. The moral ideal would be for the school administration to provide mandatory credit counseling apon entrance to the university. They should also be sure that school and financial aid councelors be up to date and knowledgable on outside credit opportunities so that students can come to them any time of the year with questions. The school should provide some resources for further information or even good credit options. This is the moral ideal. It does put a lot of extra strain on the school administration and councelors. But they are the ones who have been trusted with the education of our youth. The credit companies have not. This is why I did not choose to look at their moral spectrum. I think the school has he strongest role related responsibility towards the students and how they do in these early years of their adulthood.
I will be discussing the Terrorism Broadcasting case. Since this is a case of whether or not something in general should be done (covering terrorist attacks) and not one particular case, even though they do outline 9/11. It is tough in this case to say that one thing is morally prohibited because at the same time you could say that is it morally required. Take for example, broadcasters showing the traumatic events that took place at the world trade center. On one hand one could say it is morally prohibited to subject viewers to these kinds of images and on the other one could that it is morally required by broadcasting companies / media to broadcast these images because it is our right as people of a developed country to have access to these videos to be well versed in current affairs and the fact that our country was put under attack and into a frenzy because of these actions. What is encouraged for broadcasting companies is that they report relevant topics in a fair and un-biased way with intention of informing and not ratings. This may be off topic, but this is a large problem and has especially been noticeable in the current election race, although this occurs in almost all elections, this has been the most noticeable for me. The problem the media is having is that they report what they believe/ what does give them the most rating. Outrageous things like reporting on Donald Trump more than nearly any other candidate, this does not fall in line with the moral requirements of the media. Also the fact that the media is so worried about being classified as being on one side or the other they won’t actually fact check and call bullshit on the words being said which is a moral responsibility of the media to provide accurate and fair covering of topics. This goes back to the terrorism case because media will cover what will make their ratings (morally prohibited) and not on what the people of the country should know (morally required).
Looking at the actions of head coach Jim tressell he is solely the moral agent in this case although his players may take some of the blame for what has happen. Coach tressels morally prohibited action in this case would be that he had withheld valuable information from the NCAA and Ohio state officials the information he withheld showed that his players where receiving benefits that are clear ncaa violations. When he was later asked about the violations he lied and said he had no knowledge but that statement was completely false. He lied and withheld information for his players own benefit let’s not forget the fact that the school stood to make a lot of money from that comes directly football program. This was a direct violation that tressel did he it gives any player or child that looks up to him a false sense that says it is ok to lie and hide the truth he is having a negative influence on the culture around him. What is morally permissible in this case would be that coach tressel immediately goes to his bosses and reports the player’s that violated NCAA rules. This wouldn’t have stop the media attention it these violations that happen at such at high class program it would have saved tressel his job, the revenue and as well as the entire 2010 football season that has been erased from the history books. What is morally encouraged from this case is never lie no matter what the consequence may or may not people because the result of lying can cause more harm than what you originally lied about. The moral ideal would be would top be able to monitor and regulate both coaches and players actions both on and off the field. They should make sure that both students and coaches have a strong knowledge on what are ncaa violations what benefits a player can a cannot take to prevent this from reoccurring in the future. There should be some kind or course or presentations that they should be required to attend before any games can be played.if not by the school by the head coach or coaches themselves to prevent this from happening in the future. I say coaches because they have more of a role related responsibility to the players more than the school does because they are the ones that they interacted with them on the regular basic.