What+the+TOK+syllabus+has+to+say+about+Ethics

Overall Summary: ** Few areas of the TOK course are concerned with such immediate and personal matters as ethics. Ethics involves a discussion of the way we ought to live our lives, the distinctions between right and wrong, the justification of moral judgments, and the implications of moral actions for the individual and the group. In TOK, the major emphasis is on how we can know or justify what we ought to do. Questions about … the Nature of ethics ** Questions about … Methods of gaining knowledge and knowledge claims ** Questions about … Ethics and knowledge perspectives ** Questions about … Ethics and politics ** Questions about … Ethics and areas of knowledge **
 * What the TOK Syllabus has to say about … Ethics **
 * Key Quotations: **
 * ‘To avoid any evil, to seek the good, to keep the mind pure: this is the essence of the Buddha’s teaching.’ Buddha, The Way of Practice
 * ‘If you travel with fraud you reach your destination, but are unable to return’ Ghanaian proverb
 * ‘He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked’ Kahlil Gibran
 * Is there any real distinction between “morality” and “ethics”? Is ethics concerned primarily with what is or what ought to be?
 * In what ways might a moral judgment differ from other judgments?
 * Are ethical differences between people the result of holding different sets of values?
 * Does morality necessarily involve action, or can it involve thoughts and attitudes alone?
 * How does living a moral life matter?
 * In what ways might justifications for moral beliefs be influenced by assumptions about human nature—whether humans are by nature good, evil, or amoral?
 * What are the assumptions underlying this quote? Is it necessary to be sincere, if your actions are to be moral?
 * How possible is it to undo the bad we do?
 * In an ethical discussion, must the participants accept rules that go beyond their own particular theoretical frame or position? What can be the implications of answering yes or no to this question?
 * Why and how does knowledge matter in ethical conflicts?
 * What is the source of the sense of right and wrong? For moral beliefs, can one distinguish between the source and the justification, or are the two the same?
 * What are the justifications for, and implications of, claiming that there are universal standards for morality, or that there are societal standards of morality, or that there are only individual standards of morality? Are the three positions mutually exclusive?
 * If moral claims are in conflict, does it follow that there is no such justifiable concept as right or wrong?
 * Does ambiguity in ethics make it “weak knowledge”?
 * Is there a sharp distinction between ethics, etiquette and matters of taste?
 * To what extent does the state of a person’s knowledge play a part in deciding whether an act is right or wrong? Under what conditions would it be legitimate for a person to plead ignorance? Are people responsible for finding out as much relevant information as possible?
 * What knowledge of morality may be gained by focusing attention on the individual making moral judgments? Is freedom of choice a necessary condition for making moral judgments? Should the person’s intentions be the criterion for deciding whether an action is right or wrong? Are people always aware of their real intentions or motives?
 * What knowledge of morality may be gained by focusing attention on the features of the moral judgment or act itself? Are some thoughts or actions intrinsically right or wrong, independent of circumstances? Is it possible to establish firm principles to determine moral action? If so, on what basis? On the basis of reason? Divine revelation? Is it possible to rank principles in order of importance? What are “human rights” and on what basis do they rest?
 * What knowledge of morality may be gained by focusing attention on the consequences of the thoughts or actions? Which matters more, the consequences for individuals or the consequences for the group? Can consequences be quantified or weighed scientifically?
 * What knowledge of morality may be gained by focusing attention on the social, cultural or historical context of the moral judgment? Is a shared moral code a necessity for a harmonious society? To what extent can acceptance of dissent be a feature of a shared moral code? To what extent do moral values differ, depending on the society or the historical time? For example, can a practice such as slavery be right in one era or region and wrong in another? Can the practices of one society be judged with any validity by applying the values of another generation or another culture? Do some values seem to be universal, or nearly so?
 * How may moral dilemmas arise? Is it possible for an individual to act in a morally justifiable way within a context of restricted choice, oppression, or corruption? To what extent may the circumstances of people’s lives excuse actions that might be condemned by society’s moral principles? Can respect for a culture, in harmony with principles of tolerance and openness, be reconciled with a condemnation of specific practices within that culture, on the basis of other principles?
 * When confronted by an unjust situation, is a person obliged to act? If the unjust situation is in the context of friendship or family, does this make a difference? Should this make a difference? Are there ethical constraints on the actions that a person should take to “right a wrong”?
 * How important are values (“principles”, “ideals”) in politics? Is politics primarily concerned with what is or what ought to be? Is it better for society if politicians are skilled in the workings of power, or if they have strong principles that govern their actions?
 * Are the following ideas political, ethical, or both: justice, rights, social responsibility, equality and freedom? Is the concept of property an ethical idea? Is the concept of society an ethical idea? To what extent are political systems such as autocracy, democracy, theocracy, capitalism and communism, in their ideal forms, allied with ethical ideas of the right way for people to live in a society? To what extent might each system embody different concepts of justice and social responsibility?
 * Does politics affect the ethics of a society? Is there an obligation on an individual to be politically aware, or even politically active? Conversely, is there an obligation on an individual to refrain from political action? Can one avoid being affected by politics?
 * How should the language of political debate be analysed and judged? Is there a greater need for analysis in politics than in other areas of knowledge?
 * What is the influence of politics on other areas of knowledge, such as the natural and human sciences, history, and the arts? What, conversely, might be the influence of these other areas of knowledge on politics?
 * When the moral codes of individual nations conflict, can criteria be developed for an international morality that transcends them? What are the justifications for, and functions of, such ethical and political documents as the Geneva Conventions for warfare or the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
 * Can one reasonably separate values in ethics from the definition of the discipline, its methods and its knowledge claims? How does it compare in this regard with other areas of knowledge? Do established moral values change in the face of new knowledge from other areas of knowledge?
 * How does the method of ethics compare with methods in other areas of knowledge? Is the method in ethics closer to the axioms and reasoning of mathematics, or is it closer to the evidence and theory of the sciences, or perhaps to the argument by analogy, from the particular to the general, of art? To what extent is argument a method?
 * How important is the study of literature, and of history, in an individual’s ethical development? In what ways?
 * Are there ethical obligations for humanity to treat the natural environment in a certain way? Are there constraints? If so, are the obligations and constraints based solely on a concern for the indirect effects on humanity, or are there other issues and principles involved?
 * Should research be subject to ethical principles, or is the pursuit of knowledge through research intrinsically worthwhile and, of itself, value-free? Do some areas of knowledge (mathematics? Natural science?) create knowledge that is more value-free than others (human science? history?)?
 * What ethical responsibilities do researchers have when they are working with human subjects? In what ways do these differ from the ethical responsibilities they have when working with animals?
 * Are there some types of knowledge that should not be sought on ethical grounds?
 * Does art have to be morally good in order to be good art?
 * Does the possession of knowledge carry an ethical responsibility?
 * What moral responsibilities do we have with regard to knowledge that has been created or published by others (intellectual property)? What moral responsibilities do we have with regard to the Internet? What ethical issues are raised by highly skilled Internet users breaking into private and public computer systems?
 * In what ways might CAS be said to promote ethical education? Is service to others, in whatever form, a moral obligation? If so, on what might the obligation be based? If not, why not?