Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Start these off...Group 1

We didn't have much time last class to discuss the dynamics of posting, so I'm assuming that's why we haven't posted anything as of yet. I'm not sure if Dr. Oliver is going to give us a full run for simply being an author (like he has in the past) or if we still have to post FQs/DQs/links as the author to maintain full credit for the day. Either way, I'm still without a book until later this afternoon, so I won't be posting any questions until either tonight or tomorrow (day of class) morning. Even though I can't put any meat and taters information in this post, it's still worthwhile to have a placeholder for our group to comment under.
Last class we briefly went over scorecards, explaining how they work. \

**For those who are still shaky on the concept--post one factual question and one discussion question pertaining to the reading that's due on Thursday (that's chapter two of our first text) in the comments below. Try to find an interesting and/or relevant link as well. Links include anything outside of the text, such as websites, articles, images (yes, even cartoons :D), songs, videos, and even a summary of a conversation you had with someone who may not even be in the class. As long as it's outside of our class readings and is pertinent to the subject at hand, it totally counts! If you have anything you would like to say about the chapter or anything relevant to the class or our discussions, feel free to include it in the comments below as well.**

We also decided that all of us would like to be authors in the off chance that the original three designated couldn't post. Better safe than sorry. I'm not sure if everyone gave their email to Dr. Oliver for an invitation to become an author. If you haven't done that yet, try to do so next class by reminding him (if he isn't already anticipating this need to add more people). Looking forward to seeing you guys on Thursday! Hopefully we can actually talk about the book next time :P

Another note to all fellow classmates: If your designated author hasn't posted anything by the end of the night after a class, go ahead and post for them. It's best to have SOMETHING for them to comment on. Otherwise, everyone's trying to get stuff up last minute and no one can actually prepare for a discussion OR the daily quizzes :)


  1. Important note part 2! Answers to the factual questions should be provided as well! If you just post questions, it's a lot harder to compile the quizzes and study for them as we'll ALL be searching for answers (Dr. Oliver included)

    1. Kat, thanks for backing me up here. You should be on the payroll.

    2. Being that I want to be a professor at some point in my life, I will be :P (Just not MTSU's payroll)

  2. I'll start off with a few questions...

    (FQ) What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?
    Answer: Aristotle

    (FQ) In deontological theory, what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
    Answer: Hypothetical imperatives allow you to freely make choices, in which your means reflect the desired end you wish to achieve. Categorical imperatives, however, involve unconditional obedience and override your personal preferences and desires

    (FQ) What are the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics?
    Answer: Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice

    Something I'd like to discuss in class is the example of the mayor since the book looked at it from all possible angles. I want to know what each of YOU would do. Personally, I don't believe I would be able to kill the two guerillas. As an aspiring physician, I am seeking to save lives and will take an oath to do no harm. The idea of willfully killing another is repugnant to me, so based on the theories in the book, I believe my hypothetical course of action lines up best with the "virtue ethics" stand point. I believe good people don't murder others, so I doubt I'd have the follow through to commit the act.

    Below is the link to an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy dealing with the subject of virtue ethics in greater detail.


    Please let me know what you guys think!

  3. A good person would not commit to murder, but would a good person also not save the lives of 80 other people? In other words, would you sacrifice 80 civilians, who perhaps were pacifistic, to stand your idealistic ground not to commit murder or maybe to save the two individuals that independently chose to be part of the conflict?

    1. Your stance shows the consequentialist side of thinking. While I agree that saving 80 lives at the cost of 2 sounds like a good way to minimize loss, you assume that the leader of the opposition is morally just and will follow his word. As the book stated, the first major problem of consequentialism is that uncertainty. The colonel may murder the 80 civilians and myself on a whim.

      There is uncertainty in my decision as well because the colonel's threat may have been a bluff all along, but as someone who will take an oath to do no harm, I don't think it's morally right to justify killing anyone.

    2. I mentioned in our groups summary that my stance on the topic is not consequentialist mainly because you are comparing two different groups of people: civilians and guerrilla fighters (people that made it known that they are a part of this brutal conflict by becoming soldiers and killing others). I agree with you that there is uncertainty of whether the colonel keeps his word, but I do disagree with you on the possibility of a bluff. He (or they) tortured and murdered one of the guerrilla fighters and two civilian women who helped him hide. There is a certainty that if you do not follow his command innocent people will die.

  4. Good, Logan, you got it!

    I don't think I'd voluntarily sacrifice anybody. And yet, I consider myself a utilitarian of sorts. A bad one, I guess.

  5. I still don't have the book! Butts!

    But I am stoked for this dilemma you've reiterated from the text, Logan. I'll ask you to elaborate in class so that I may participate in the discussion :P

  6. Much of ch2 is available online via Google Bks: http://books.google.com/books?id=R2bUibzUTckC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bioethics+basics+campbell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JSbhUrzSLu7KsQT4w4Eo&ved=0CEUQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=consequentialism&f=false

  7. Factual Question:
    What is the best known consequentialist theory?
    Philosophical question:
    Is it lying, or more generally morally/ethically wrong to tell partial truths or allow someone to harbor incorrect assumptions?


  8. FQ-What principle of John Stuart Mill's is frequently referenced in this chapter?
    Answer- Mill's Harm Principle

    Here is a link expounding upon Mill's Harm Principle:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z03OXBbLr40

  9. FQ- What is the moral theory based on rationalization, analysis, common sense, and judgement?
    Answer- Consequentialism

    FQ- What is the moral theory that stresses the primary importance of community benefit or social values?
    Answer- Communitarianism

    This link explains our country's and president's goals to obtain communitarianism, and its affects and place in our community. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/30/obama-s-shift-toward-communitarianism.html