Case study in ethics

As a perfect example of the vast range of causes and effects consquentialists seem to think they can manage.

My vote, as it happens, would be yes, they get to prevent it. But I make no claims that this is a correct prioritization. I am sure the scientists can find some other way to help people or have an interesting investigation.

Interest, consideration and respect, for the people involved in the situation, are key to finding an ethical solution that works.

But often, we have an individual or group arrogantly imposing his/its values/ethics/morality on others. Maybe involving outright unethical actions which are justified by a greater good. Which leads to anger, alienation, resentment, mistrust.

Sure, the intentions may be wonderful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

karrpel tunnel writes:

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick) ... ontroversy

Karpel:

Which theory of ethics do you prefer as an alternative?

My theory cannot be accurately described as Consequentialist, although I do see some merit in that approach; namely, its concern to aim for public policy that makes for the well-being for the vast majority. For that reason I am willing to learn from it and to absorb its best features into my theory. A Unified Theory of Ethics is a synthesis of the highlights of Shinto, Buddhism, Confusious’ teaching, the Golden Rule, and the three or four traditional schools of academic ethics. Check it out. - myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT … %20all.pdf

or myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI … ETHICS.pdf

Your evaluation? Your comments?

I think it worked out ok in the end. I saw a video about it where the scientists appealed to the natives who were sympathetic to the gathering of useful info before returning the remains, and then the researchers returned to present of the information about their genetic heritage which the natives found interesting, so the story had a happy ending because people were willing to relate to each other in communication and be considerate, but we’re lucky that dogmatic insistence didn’t prevail.

You want to go out and I want to stay in, so who wins? The natives are in pain everyday the bones aren’t in the ground and the scientists are in pain everyday the bones are in the ground, so who wins? Someone is going to be hurt no matter what.

Yep.

I’m sorry, it’s not Kennewick man, but Clovis Boy.

sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/ … ontana-boy

nature.com/news/ancient-gen … te-1.14698

I can’t find the documentary video. It was probably taken down.

It’s interesting that you frame it in terms of winning.

Well that’s what it is… one want vs another want. Who wins? It’s a coin flip.

That’s one way to think about it … Ethics : a competition with winners and losers

Phyllo wrote:

Although there will be pain on both sides, Phyllo showed us that when the archeologists consulted with and collaborated with the native-Americans there was less pain.

One could construe that the cooperation that occurred as “a win-win” outcome …which is just what the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics proposes we aim for in each situation where human interaction takes place. Be a value creator!

Phyllo added: "… we’re lucky that dogmatic insistence didn’t prevail."

The dogmatic view is often a case of “either-or” or “black-or-white” thinking. Such thinking fails to see the many beautiful shades of colors, the alternative perspectives, that a more reality-based view has to offer.

I also agree with Karpel Tunnel that in our calculations - when confronted with a moral dilemma - we are to proceed ‘as if people mattered.’ (That’s Dr. Schumacher’s phrasing.) Hartman taught us that in our setting of priorities we are to place people above things and stuff; and things above unsubstantiated opinion - above ideas not backed by solid evidence.

What say you?

You didn’t attribute the quotes correctly.

It seems disrespectful to me to build a shopping mall around a burial site, even though the solution does avoid sacrilege.

I would build a structure around the site, an architectural marker of some kind, to allow people to visit and honor or at the least be aware of the site, have it in their conscious. This would be a celebration of life.

Yes, thank you. I apologize to all for any confusion caused. That was a gaffe on my part.

Serendipper gets the credit for the quotes. He earns a high Morality score!
Pedro and other contributors to this thread are also ethically sensitive as well.

For more case studies to analyze and solve, see:
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-studies

.

Here, for example, is a super-dilemma with which to grapple:
Banning burkas; is it freedom or is it discrimination?
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/wp-co … nation.pdf

Also, you may enjoy reading this essay on ethical facts and applying the theory:

myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf

I’m not sure if less pain resulted, but possibly more pain because the natives took on the pain of the scientists via empathy. Of course, in the video, Sarah Anzick was feeling pain as well because of her empathy, so she wanted to alleviate her pain by reducing the natives pain by helping them understand the situation. So, empathy on both sides saved the day and we’re lucky it happened that way.

[i]Both Doyle and Anzick (who notes that she is acting for her family, not NIH) say they are agonizing over how, and how soon, the child should be reburied. They worry that reburial will destroy data that might be retrieved years from now with better genetic techniques continue to improve. Schurr agrees: “This is why scientists are fighting against NAGPRA repatriations of Paleoamerican remains, as much can be learned from these ancient samples.”

But Doyle and Anzick insist that the child should be reburied out of respect for his Native American descendants. “The boy has given us an amazing gift,” Doyle says. “Now we must repay that by putting him back where he belongs.”[/i] sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/ … ontana-boy

That’s probably the crux of ethics: make an effort to understand my side of it; relate. We can’t have a relationship without relating otherwise it’s a sinking ship.

Freedom is having no opinion on burkas. To either sanction or ban burkas is discriminatory.

The ones that cover the face though, those are fucking creepy. They must be banned on grounds of disturbing the peace. Like a guy walking around with his cock out. It’s just not done in polite society.

Greetings, Pedro

I know how you feel.

It is done, though, in the U.S.A. if not in France.

The policy here is complete freedom to dress any way you want and not to impose on religion - unless maybe if they start to set up Sharia Law for their neighborhood.

Actually, I hold that this “let them wear a full body bag if they want to” is the best, the most moral, policy. In Chicago the women who only show their eyes and their hands seem to be a very tiny minority. You are free to avert your eyes from them, thus giving them no recognition.

If one such-attired woman ever spoke to me, I would give her my full attention; I would see how I could help. For that is the Ethical thing to do.

It is true that a terrorist strapped with bombs and a detonator may wear, for a disguise, a full-length burka; but to be filled with fearfulness that this may happen at any moment it is not a moral way to live.

It is better to live courageously and hopefully. Be an optimist! Seek out the good. Let’s put our emphasis on what is going well. Let’s look forward to a brighter future – and work to make it happen :exclamation:

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

The US deciding to join WW2. They killed many many thousands,including many civilians and children, but perhaps it would have been worse if they had not joined. I think most mainstream historians would argue that it would have been much worse. But it did lead to Dreseden, Hiroshima, fire bombing Tokyo, etc.

I think there would have been less death if the US had stayed out. Hitler just wanted to rebuild Germany and it was the resistance to that which caused the death. The concentration camps were likely victims to disease and starvation due to the bombing of supply lines. If Hitler were left alone, he would have come and gone like everyone else. The US joining the war was the manifestation of “the road to hell being paved with good intentions.” It was a righteous war.