October 2010 Archives

On our Climate Ethics blog one can find several posts arguing that national and international discussions of what ought to be done in response to climate change need to be oriented by ethical or moral considerations. The 'oughts' that stem from considerations of political expediency and economic self-interest, whatever their appeal to certain influential sectors of our society, cannot provide conclusive answers to the questions about social justice and responsibility for harm to others that are raised by a critical look at our patterns of consumption.     

Articles like this one from yesterday's New York Times suggest a very different strategy. Apparently, we can hope to influence behaviors in certain communities only if we, first, leave out any reference to climate change and, then, appeal to things like religious duties and economic advantages.

Imagine that you are hired by Green Energy Inc. to consult on a strategy for getting people in your community to switch to cleaner, more sustainable, forms of energy.  What would you do? Would you stress issues of social justice and personal responsibility, or opt instead to appeal to religious duties and self-interest?  Why?

Imagine that each strategy was capable of bringing about the same amount of positive change.  Would it matter at all what it was that motivated people to make these changes?    

A friend of mine is involved in the HealthWorks, a program at Penn State whose purpose is "to promote health among Penn State students." After getting back to our apartment from one of her HealthWorks classes, while deciding what we were going to make for dinner, she asked me, "Did you know there is a second food pyramid?" I told her that I didn't, and she began explaining what she had learned that day: Harvard had released a corrected and healthier food pyramid a few years ago that differed from the pyramid issued by the US government. As she was explaining the differences to me, I was shocked. I was shocked not about the dissimilar constructions but by the fact that I had never heard of any of it before. So I did a little research.

As an Honors student writing my Honors thesis and purportedly adhering to numerous Honor codes at Penn State, I am obliged to reflect on the concept of "honor."  What does it mean to be honorable?  Should I be honored because I am in the Honors College, because of academic success...or is it more than that?  The term "honor" appears to me to have two very distinct uses.  First, there is the honor associated with academic distinction, athletic performance, and extracurricular leadership.  But then there is also the honor that can't be written down, formatted and pasted on a résumé, the kind of honor that requires integrity and strength of character.  Unfortunately, this more profound sense of honor, this deep-seated self-assurance and conviction of purpose is not something that can be easily identified; this sort of honor can only be affirmed by observing an individual's actions over time and in critical moments of mental and physical duress. 

Now, while in practice the assumption is that those who achieve distinction possess this integrity, it is certainly not always the case.  We frequently hear about the debauchery of distinguished politicians, the perversion of high priests, and the corruption of decorated law enforcement officers in the evening news.  And we are extremely reluctant to call them honorable, despite their impressive accomplishments.  Equivalently, students who have gleaned a certain degree of distinction - whether in school, on the field, or in the community - do not necessarily possess the high degree of integrity required for this more profound sense of honor.  And this becomes an issue for the faculty and administrators of the Honors College, as they undoubtedly do not wish to produce merely accomplished students, but truly honorable individuals. 

For the Honors College, the question then becomes -- how can instructors and advisors instill students with this more profound variety of honor?  Should coursework be delivered in a broader context - that is - perhaps a broader political, economic, and moral context?  Should more emphasis be given to the implications of certain practices, rather than to their mere execution?  How can students be encouraged to reflect on their values and to develop an internal moral compass?  Moreover, how will they know when they have succeeded?

As for the students, we should be asking ourselves - what do I value?  What do I consider my virtues? Am I truly committed to any ethical paradigm, or do I just pretend to subscribe to a general sense of morality without really considering the implications of my views and actions?  Would I really consider myself an honorable person?

The tragic suicide of a Rutgers student whose private life was broadcast over the Web once again raises important ethical questions about boundaries.

 

Does the ubiquity and instant nature of these technologies make it difficult for people to judge the consequences of their actions? Or does the false sense of anonymity provided by staying behind a screen make it easy for people to say and do things they would never do in a face-to-face context?

 

Was this an unthinking prank? Were they more aware of the spectacle of broadcasting a private scene than the anguish their lack of empathy would cause? Did the two students who broadcast the information have trouble distinguishing what is public and private information? Was this online bullying motivated by homophobia? They were all from the same high school and it is not clear what led the two students to broadcast and Twitter about Clementi.

Does the fact that death was the consequence of this invasion of privacy alter how we perceive the actions of the two students?

 

Teasing, bullying and spreading damaging gossip have been intransigent issues for schools.  However, the ability to do so online with photos and videos changes the scope of the issue.  The Internet now makes it possible for the whole world to access such information. There was a time when a person could go to 'a new world' where no one knew who you were and start life with a relatively clean slate. Today, anyone could Google and find information about you; there is no forgetting or escaping in this digital age. 

 

So, how can we train ourselves to be more alert to consequences of our actions online?