Just an FYI, the group can also address one another not just me:
When I took the critical thinking reasoning virtual philosopher I have to admit that it was difficult to make some of the decisions that I did. With the friend problem I choose to tell my friend the truth by ethical reasoning, with the life boat scenario I choose to throw the 400 pound guy out the boat with critical thinking, and for the liver problem I choose to save the AIDS researcher with critical thinking. All my choices came from my personal ethics and I have to say by doing this assignment I felt like I had to take real responsibility for my choices. Ethical reasoning deals with your beliefs and values and sometimes that interferes with what you need to do. Critical reasoning is more like looking at a problem from all angles and coming up with the best situation not really involving your feelings. Summarizing my scores I was consistent with my choices, half of me was happy to see that but then the other half felt bad because of some of the choices that I had to make in this exercise.
DO THIS….Have fun with this exercise
1. Click the link below which will take you to an interactive exercise called Virtual Philosopher developed by Dr. Wade Maki from the Philosophy department at the University of North Caroline at Greensboro.
Virtual Philosopher Link (must have updated FLASH to play correctly): http://web.uncg.edu/dcl/
2a. Comment on your critical thinking reasoning that led to your decisions for all three scenarios: the friend's problem, the lifeboat problem, the liver problem.
b. Explain where your critical thinking gave way to your values, ethics, and beliefs? Comment on the differences you perceive between "ethical" and "critical" reasoning and what kinds of problems it caused in doing or reflecting on this exercise and even in your academic experiences.
c. Comment on how the Virtual Philosopher scored your response. From the comments you received about your responses, what insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning?
Well....Apparently my critical thinking is a little shaky and inconsistent. Maybe I have a funny way of looking at things or I didn't think things through as well as I should have. I answered that it is OK to lie in certain situations, and I stand by that choice. On the friend question I opted to tell her the truth. I still say it is OK to lie, but why should I lie to a friend. I think in the long run my telling her the truth is a better decision. Who are we to say what is 'normal.' The only reason she was dumped was not because she was odd, but because her and her boyfriend were different and he found someone more like him. When she does finally find someone she will be happier because she can be herself! I chose to dump the poor 400lb. guy out of the boat. I am not proud of this decision but I did what I thought was best for the majority of the people. I could have waited, had faith that we would have been rescued before everyone drowned but I chose to be offensive. I don't think I have the right to decide if people die but I chose to act for all the other people. For the liver problem I probably ignored all ethical reasoning and went my own way. It was a very tough decision. I chose Sarah. I skipped the 1st on the list because he would have just ruined his new liver with the drinking, mean but true. I skipped the wealthy guy but he was my 2nd choice for the obvious reason of the donation. I picked Sarah because she has 6 kids, maybe her family wouldn't be able to survive without her, she might work and bring in needed money or she allows her husband to work while she takes care of the kids and he brings home the dough. I also chose her because she seems like she has a very good chance of surviving the transplant, if someone is so sick their body might reject the transplant, so not only does that person die but all the others who didn't receive the liver. I also think that I saved not just her life but the lives of 6 children. Those 6 lives would have been so dramatically altered by the death of their mother that they may have never recovered. I have seen what the death of a mom at 13 can do to someone (who is now 30) and it is not good.
ReplyDeleteRest of my answer is in the following post, it was too long for one comment.
~Simone Cohen
Obviously ethics and critical thinking are 2 very different things. Critical thinking means, to me anyway, that you leave out all human emotion and look at a problem logistically and try to figure out the 'smartest' outcome. Ethics means that smart or not, you need to do what is right.
ReplyDeleteIf I had chosen ethical all the way my answers would have been to tell my friend the truth, to keep everyone aboard the boat and hope for a miracle, and to give the liver to the homeless drunk since he was the first one on the transplant list. If my answers were critically chosen I would have lied to my friend, dumped the 400 lb guy overboard (to save the others) and I would have given the transplant to the wealthy guy so the hospital would receive the donation.
The virtual Philosopher told me I was inconsistent in the first 2 situations and I was consistent in the 3rd.
It questioned why, since I thought a lie every now and then was ok, did I tell my friend the truth.
It then asked me why, if I thought murder of innocents was not ok, I throw the 400 lb man overboard. ( I don't think murder of innocents is ok, but I took the lesser of two evils, I saved 10 and killed one, instead of condemning 11 to die)
As for the liver I was consistent in my thinking but I probably let my emotions play a large role in that decision. Ethically and critically I picked the wrong person in that one, but I still stand by my decision.
I may not be consistent but I do have a reason for the answers I arrive at so I'll stick with my methods, inconsistent or not.
~Simone Cohen
1. “A Friend’s Dilemma” – My answer to the question was “B”, “No, you are quite normal and it is entirely the significant other’s loss for leaving such a wonderful person as yourself.” Which, according to the VP response, is Inconsistent? Inconsistent to what? That lying is always wrong? I don’t agree with the VP response because I am not lying. My reasoning behind this answer is that the question started off by saying “One of my close friends…” Therefore if she is one of my close friends I would not say anything to hurt her especially when she is coming to me for comfort. Her self esteem has already been challenged. Besides, who am I to judge and say she is odd? Maybe I am odd in the eyes of others. And, even if she is odd I would love and appreciate her for who she is, not for what everyone else thinks. Remember she is one of my close friends.
ReplyDelete2. “The Lifeboat Problem”- My answer to the question was “B”, “Refuse to push the 400 pound man or anyone else out of the boat and hope for a miracle.” My answer was Consistent. My reasoning behind the answer is that I value all life, human or otherwise. Like the answer said, I would “hope for a miracle” but, if a choice HAD to be made, I would jump out of the boat before I would expect anyone else too. I don’t expect people to do things I wouldn’t do myself. And, I certainly would not want to be in the position of choosing whose life was less valuable than mine.
3. “The Liver Problem” – My answer to the problem was that all candidates are equal and the one chosen should be by lottery. This, according to the VP was Consistent. Again, this is a question of life or death. As stated earlier I value human life and consider us all to be equal. All of these candidates have families and loved ones that are also affected by their illness. I would never choose one life to be more valuable than another.
I am glad I was not the only one who had a problem with my decisions, you know real life is not cut and dry like being consistant or not. Sometimes we go against our better judgement but that is what makes us human beings and not animals. Critical thinking and ethics definitly bump heads alot but the good thing is that our friends and family for the most part support our decisions whatever they might be.
ReplyDeleteIf you do not tell the truth about something are you not being a real friend in the long run?
ReplyDelete@Dee, In my opinion real friends tell the truth ALL the time, even when it hurts. If I found out someone lied to me, I would not consider them to be a friend. The basis of any real relationship is Trust and Respect, both of which need to be earned and not given. Lies break trust and show no respect. I expect my real friends to tell me the truth, especially when I mess up. To lie to someone to avoid hurting their feelings is only hurting them in the long run.
ReplyDelete@Diana I agree, my real friends will always tell me the truth no matter what because they are just looking out for what is best.
ReplyDeleteAnswer This...
ReplyDeleteWhen making decisions do you think you use more ethical thinking or critical thinking?
For the first scenario regarding the close friend, I chose to tell her the truth because if not told now then wouldn’t I have to tell her anyways in the future? Lying, in this case, wasn’t an option because I should always tell the truth to my CLOSE friends, and not telling her would be morally wrong. It’s better that she understands that not everyone is going to find every person they come in contact with as normal. It is their oddness that makes people unique. If I had the choice I would have told her that her-ex should go run himself over because he has lost a great girl.
ReplyDeleteFor the second scenario, unfortunately I decided to push the 400lbs man out of the boat because it’s a life-or-death situation. This is what I call a critical situation because many people could have died; it’s what I call an emergency. If 11 lives were at stake, including my own, my initial response would be to figure out how to survive and unfortunately the man would have to be pushed out of the situation.
Ethically, I chose Sarah because she seemed as the most viable of the 5 candidates. She would benefit from the liver transplant the most because she will most likely not reject it and her body would be able to adapt quicker through the healing process. In my decision her kids were a factor because she needed more time to help her kids grow into being adults, where hopefully one will become a doctor.
All of my answers were inconsistent with the 3 questions at the beginning. I understand that it would be so because I believe that lying in some situations is OK and each life is equally susceptible to murder is wrong. But in each situation, those morals get thrown out the window. My critical thinking depends on each situation, the variables, and the possible outcomes. I firmly that first you have to listen, then think second, and speak third. Because not everything’s written in a manual that says “Hey, so you’re on a boat and just because that guy over there is 400lbs, it doesn’t give you the right to push him overboard so all you guys can live.” Life doesn’t come with a how-to book.
~Valerie Perez~
@Dee, Good question! Based on the exercise we just did I have to say I lean more toward ethical thinking than critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteHow about you simonie and valerie? How do you lean?
ReplyDelete@Gonzalez:
ReplyDeleteI'm more of a critical thinker I suppose because I tend to throw ethics out the window when it comes to life/death situations and close friends. I don't like lying in any situation other than to little children because they don't understand everything people do. If you are to be someone's friend, then trust and honesty becomes a main factor in any situation. In addition, each situation is different.
~Valerie Perez~
Do you use ethical thinking at all?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Virtual Philosopher, I was inconsistent on the first scenario, but consistent on the other two.
ReplyDeleteFor the first scenario, "A Friend's Dilemma", I answered that lying is sometimes justifiable, but said that I would be honest to my friend. I agree with everyone else that I would not lie to a close friend. A lie would not do that friend any good, so it's best to just be honest. While I stand by my answer that lying is sometimes justifiable, I do not think that this would be one of those situations.
For the second scenario, " The Lifeboat Problem", I chose to hope for a miracle. I feel that all life is valuable, and that the 400 pound man is worth just as much as any of the other 11 people. I couldn't live with myself if I killed an innocent person, even if other people would be saved in the process. I would have to leave that choice to fate.
For the third scenario, "The Liver Problem.", I chose to pick the liver recipient by lottery. I didn't think that it was fair to choose one person over another, because they all had good reasons to live. Again, I feel that every human life is valuable, so I would want to give everyone an equal chance at life.
I suppose that I didn't use critical thinking at all during this exercise, as all of my answers were based on ethics. To me, critical thinking involves considering all aspects of the problem to come up with the best solution, while ethics deals more with values and moral reasoning. I believe that critical thinking is important, but ethics meant more to me in these situations. I think you have to look at every situation individually and decide which method is best.
The friend situation I chose to be honest and tell her yes shes a little weird but ultimately its his loss. The test stated I was consistent. I always try to be honest sometimes I can be blount but Ive learned I have to dress the truth up sometimes. I wont dress up the truth to the point its somewhat a lie. I believe ethically I choose to be true to myself and my friends. I owe to myself and them to be that true genuine person.
ReplyDeleteAs for the lifeboat situation I chose to let the 400 lb man stay aboard. The test showed I was inconsistent with that decision. I did state that murder sometimes can be justified. I believe I thought both critically and ethically. I couldnt allow myself be the murderer. Deep down I would want someone to push him off to save mine and other lives. Although, at the same time I will be praying that miracle happens where none of us dies.
The last scenario I chose the mother to recieve the transplant. I was thinking critically. I thought about if she died the burden that would be placed on others. I also thought about the children and situations (foster care, drugs etc.) they could be in if the mother died. The test stated I was inconsistent. Everyone does have the chance to live but some things are the inevitable.
After taking the test I realize that juggle from ethical to critical thinking depending on the situation.
I definitely think I am more of a critical thinker. I always look at a problem or situation and try to think of different solutions. The solution that I choose though is not always ethical. Just because something is morally right that does not mean it is the best solution. But just because I think critically doesn't mean I don't make decisions based on emotion sometimes. Who doesn't? I will always put family before strangers even if that stranger is getting gypped in the process. I think you can be ethical and critical at the same time. You can think critically about a situation and come up with all the possible solutions and then choose the one that is ethical, not the one that is critically correct.
ReplyDelete~Simone A Cohen
To my friend I chose to tell the truth. I think that relates back to my belief in "what friends are for." Lying does not help your friend at all. Critical thinking was definitely taking a backseat to being honest friend-to-friend. For the lifeboat problem I chose to throw the fat guy out. Hoping for a miracle seemed like a bad choice for the rest of the survivors that could live for the loss of one man. That was a sign of critical thinking over ethical decisions. The liver problem was certainly the toughest. I chose to save the single mother with six children. I think the children definitely were the key factor in that. Certainly I was hardly thinking critically. I had not considered all the further effects that saving the scientist could create.
ReplyDeleteI think my values were hindering my critical thinking on this assignment because there were human lives at stake. It seems strange to apply "critical" thinking to situations where lives are on the line. I need to find the balance between the two. For this assignment it seems I should have weighed my options more mathematically.
I feel like I may not know myself and my thoughts as well as I should. I answered the first question I said lying was justifiable and then also agreed that lying to protect my friend’s feeling was ok. I was at least consistent with that one example; it’s the other two questions that I wasn’t so consistent on. I feel that if something isn’t physically hurting somebody then it is ok to do. For example, lying to not hurt a friend’s feelings is not physically hurting that friend, but killing somebody is. That is why I answered that killing an innocent person is always wrong, but then when faced with the scenario question I said that I would have to push the 400 pound man off the boat. My reasoning for answering the question that way was because if I didn’t push him off 10 people including me would die. If I did push him off only one person would die. I think that I used critical thinking in that situation and decided that it is better to spare one life in return for 10 being safe.
ReplyDeleteI answered the third question by saying that “Ethically, all human lives are equally worth saving,” but again, when faced with the scenario question I chose a different way. I felt that because Bob had a criminal background, was homeless and had a drinking problem that he did not deserve to have the liver transplant. He had thrown away the liver he was given because he had a drinking problem and who is to say that he wouldn’t ruin the next one? I thought that Sara really needed the liver transplant because she had six kids that would then become orphans if she did not receive the liver. I felt bad for Chris, because he would probably die without the liver, but putting kids first in this situation, Sara really needed the liver. The Virtual Philosopher found my answers once again inconsistent. Again, being faced with such a tricky situation I would have to say that some lives are more worth saving than others. I feel that it is terrible for me to feel that way, but I feel that it is also logical.
It was a pretty interesting assignment all in all. I really enjoyed it and felt that I learned more about myself through this.
For those who commented at the last minute you can just answer the questions I posted through the blog.
ReplyDeleteWell I think it is awesome that most decided to tell the truth to their friend. I do think there is a time for lying, but when you truely care about someone there is no reason to lie. You might be saving their feelings now but what about the next time it happens? and then the time after that? You just keep hurting them over and over. I don't know about everyone else, but I may have thought critically about each and every situation even though I may have not chosen the most critically reasonable solution for the situation. I am not a robot, my emotions are going to show through in some particular situations. I think survival instincts would kick in for the second situation. I don't believe it is ok to murder innocents but I chose to murder the 400lb guy to save myself and 9 other people. I think most people felt the same way about that situation. Hopefully I am never in the boat (literally!). I don't know if I could live with the death of an innocent on my hands.
ReplyDeleteSimone A. Cohen
@Gonzalez:
ReplyDeleteWhether or not I use ethical thinking or critical thinking really would depend on the situation because not all situations are the same. When it comes down to any situation, anayzing and then making a good decision should be the end result rather than knowing if something is an ethical decision or not. My ethics may be that every human is equal in the quality of life but my morals may say who is going to benefit more in the end and appreciate the end result.
Valerie Perez