You are on page 1of 22

IB Extended Essay

Philosophy

How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion

Name: Pinnapa Phetcharatana School: Vienna International School Candidate Number: 00014-082 Supervisor: Madame Fella Hacini Date: November 23, 2010 Word Count: 3,718

Abstract

The concept of moral pluralism emerged as result of a shift from modernist to post-modernist beliefs. Attempts to establish common universal laws in order to seek rational order were abandoned since the impact of globalization in the past few centuries has resulted in more liberal views and a more differentiated community. Post-modernists have moved away from classical absolutist beliefs towards a more open-minded approach to defining morality. However, it is important to consider the degree of reality of this ethical pluralistic concept when applied to an evolving and diverse world. To what extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral cohesion in society? This essay discusses several aspects of moral pluralism, including the plurality and conditionality of values that encourage the use of moral intuition, which promotes a wider definition of what is good; the incommensurability and incompatibility of values that hinders the creation of a rational moral ranking; and the acknowledgement of social and cultural differences that may result in a more tolerant and flourishing society. Flaws and limitations of the theory are also taken into consideration in order to provide an unbiased outcome. Pluralism promotes freethinking in the ethical sense since it does not attempt to provide a fixed definition for morality. It further dismisses dogmatism as individuals are encouraged to make use of moral intuition while taking into account appropriate limits. Upon the demonstration that moral pluralism will lead to stronger social cohesion, there is still the danger of the fracturing of morality and increased skepticism resulting from the plurality of views, which may lead to a state of anomie. It is important that society defines and establishes clear limits in regard to human rights in order to prevent the dangers that threaten morality.

Word count: 290

Table of Contents

How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion Introduction Essay Body Conclusion Works Cited Appendix 1 2-13 14 15 16-19

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

Introduction
The emergence of the postmodernist era has brought about a strong skepticism towards universal morals. Critics claim that universal morality is disintegrating. Among the majority of them were modernists who conformed to the grand narrative- a historical story of ideologies and principles in different cultures and traditions that communicate themes and values. However, the grand narratives were gradually dismissed as ideologists, philosophers and social scientists realized the futility of seeking a common universal ground in the moral sense. Deep differences in cultures and social structures call for a more contingent and non-absolutist narrative, and this awareness ultimately gave birth to the concept of moral pluralism. Bearing this in mind, it is important to consider the extent to which the monistic view of morality should be dismissed, and more importantly, the extent to which pluralism should be adapted effectively to ensure a flourishing society. To what extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral cohesion in society? This essay will discuss and analyze different aspects of moral pluralism in regard to how it may contribute to higher social tolerance and diversity. Certain limitations of the theory will also be addressed in order to achieve an equitable conclusion.

As a result of societys confusion about its own values, moral dilemmas occur since there is no longer a rational foundation for moral convictions.1 What used to be the solid core of morality is now uncertain, and everything concerning ethics suddenly
1

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 7

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

becomes questionable.2 Should moral value be defined through deontology, where duty and obligation are prioritized and rightness and wrongness are determined within an act itself? Or would it be more appropriate to consider the ethical value in the actual outcome of an action? Deontology and consequentialism are two clashing concepts that both appear to serve as epitomes of morality; they are the basis for making moral decisions. However, the theories should not be binding since different types of ethical situations require different approaches. Perhaps what is right may not always be good. In light of the extremes, the thesis has paved way for moral pluralism- an alternative that allows for openminded judgment in ethical situations. Pluralism asserts that there are no objective truths and encourage the acceptance of a multitude of beliefs and values.3 It further leads to the awareness of the fact that there exists no such rational system of ranking for these values.4 The inevitability of conflicting moral values that result due to the subjectivity serve to bring about greater social tolerance for different ideas and conceptions of life, while ensuring that limits exist in order to avoid abusing the contingency of values.

Unlike primary values that are universally known and predetermined (such as love being regarded as a benefit or humiliation as harmful), secondary values differ depending on societies, traditions and historical periods.5 Individuals prioritize their values in regard to their social roles and personal beliefs. For example, a doctor is required to save lives, so he places life above all other values. On the other hand, a soldiers duty is to fight for his

2 3

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 7 McGrath, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism 4 McGrath, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism 5 Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 18

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

nation, even if this means killing. One sees life as a higher priority, while another dedicates oneself to patriotism. Different roles call for different rankings of values, and often, the values come into conflict. What is regarded as beneficial to one may be considered harmful to another. Moral pluralism brings awareness to the vast individual differences that emerge above the level of the values we are bound to hold in common [primary values].6 Tolerance towards various culture and social groups may be encouraged by openmindedness towards new behaviors and opinions.

Values are conditional since they depend on social roles, individual preferences, religious beliefs and many other factors that have affected ones upbringing. However, moral absolutists deny this, arguing that this extreme conditionality will lead to the disintegration of morality as a result of a lack of norms. Kants deontological theory, for example, defines morality through the intentions of the agent rather than the consequences of actions. The will or motive of these actions must correspond to a particular given set of ethical codes that determine the rightness of a certain act. This means that one is always required to obey a certain moral rule despite how absurd it may seem given the circumstances. If a murderer were to ask a man where his wife and children are, Kantian ethics would suggest that it is the mans duty to speak the truth. Lying, in this case, is considered to be intrinsically immoral, despite that by doing so may save lives. This example serves to highlight the idealism in the absolutism-based Kantian deontology in the sense that it attempts to bring an outright, rational order upon a situation that calls for a

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 19

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

deeper examination. It is important to consider that maybe what is morally right may not always be the best choice. In order to prevent growing moral conflicts, absolutists believe that there should be one overriding value in which all other values become automatically subordinate to. This overriding value ultimately rules over other values in all moral situations regardless of circumstances. If justice were an overriding value, for example, then in conflicts between justice versus life, freedom or any other positive value, the value of justice would preside over all- meaning that lives and liberties must be sacrificed for justice. This notion brings convenience when resolving moral dilemmas; the overriding value automatically takes precedence over the value it conflicts with. In Kants case, this is shown through the universalization of moral codes: Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law.7 This can be drawn back to the concept of the grand narrative introduced previously where there is an attempt to provide a logical justification for the ranking of values. Nevertheless, the absurdity of this absolutist theory lies in the fact that it does not provide a justification for why all other values must be positioned subordinate to the overriding value. Why are some values placed below other values, when they all seem equally moral? What determines the overriding value? These questions have been left unanswered.

Perhaps there can be no fixed, rational ranking of values, since differences in social roles, religious beliefs, desires, and environments allow for the existence of equally moral values, in spite of how they may all conflict with each other. Moral pluralism, on one hand,

Kay, Notes on Deontology

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

will lead to unresolved conflicts among values because it allows for the interpretation of values. During this stage of questioning, one would find oneself in a vicious circle until it has been realized that more than one value can hold the same ranking- that there are plural and equal values. The meta-ethical notion thus encourages society to become conscious of the differences in preferences, i.e. secondary values, promoting less prejudiced opinions and more open-mindedness.

Previously, the moral absolutist theory has been put to question. How is it possible to place values into a universal system of ranking when there are countless factors that lead to many different concepts of a good life? The monistic theory takes into account the right type of life (deontology) while pluralists promote the good life. More importantly, pluralism recognizes the incompatibility and incommensurability of values as the reason to why a rational ranking system cannot exist.8 Values are incompatible if they are mutually exclusive and cannot be realized at the same time; for example, one cannot pursue both independence and an active role in politics since they contradict each other; being politically active requires taking into account the views of society whereas complete independence excludes all social intervention. Incommensurable values are unrelated and cannot be compared nor ranked on the same plane, such as vegetarianism versus nationalism, cleanliness versus wisdom and so forth. The incompatibility of these qualities makes the ranking of values impossible. Australian ethical philosopher John Kekes argues, On what grounds could any value be regarded as invariably overriding if the values it is

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 22

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

supposed to override are so utterly unlike it as to exclude the possibility of comparison between it and them?9 It appears that the attempt to rationalize by ranking values into a fixed order involves arbitrary decisions that may lead to an inconclusive and fallible outcome.

Absolutism favors the overriding value, claiming that the only exception to which this value can be violated is that if it is for the best interest of the value- meaning to strengthen the value itself.10 This may be considered doctrinaire in the sense that there is a quality of permanence placed upon it. If life were an overriding value, the only condition that would allow this value to be violated is to preserve another life. This is a case where the overriding value comes into conflict with itself. If absolutists allow an exception in which the overriding value can prevail over itself, the value appears to cancel itself out rather than being strengthened. The absolutist theory provides a convenient solution for moral conflicts by letting overriding values take precedence over subordinate values, despite how unreasonable the outcome may be. Nonetheless, in situations where the same value conflicts with itself (such as to sacrifice a life in order to preserve another life) the idea of an overriding value loses its effectiveness as it cannot no longer be referred to as the authority value, and this leaves one to make arbitrary decisions.

Since pluralism allows the conditionality of values, it promotes subjectivity in the sense that there can be different and changing rankings of morals depending on the
9

10

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 22 Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 23

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

situation and/or people involved. Yet, the complete reliance on subjectivity is dangerous; subjectivity in this case should be valid only within a certain band with appropriate limits. Under pluralism, one is encouraged to allow the guidance of moral intuition and reasoning rather than having to conform to a universal set of moral rankings. For instance, if an agent were to be faced with a moral dilemma in which he/she would have to steal a persons boat in order to save a drowning person, then the conflicting, incompatible values involved are justice (to not steal) and benevolence (to save a life). A conducted survey11 reveals that the majority is willing to violate justice in this situation in order to prevent harm after having realized that a boat can be compensated for while a life cannot. Moral absolutism does not provide a spectrum broad enough to reach this explanation as well as other reasons to why a person might place certain values above others. It simply refers to an authority value that presides over all, regardless of the situation, and often the best outcome is not achieved.

Pluralism fosters moral intuition, which allows one to realize, with reason, that there can be exceptions to moral guidelines, such as in a case where one value may take priority over another. Exceptions depend upon the agent and how he/she perceives the definition of a moral duty. Referring back to the example above, it is apparent that this type of intuition requires an understanding of the ethical features in any given situation.12 The agent realized the importance of life and harm-prevention over stealing and mentally constructed a ranking of values in light of the situation occurring, leading him to perform

11 12

See survey attached. Garrett, A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

his actual duty13 of stealing the boat to rescue the drowning person. Yet even so, had he believed that another persons property should not be violated and thus decided to not steal the boat, then he would be acting in favor of justice. Both options are equally correct and moral in the deontological sense; the agent is acting upon either the values of justice or harm-prevention, which are both considered intrinsically good, irrespective of his acts outcome. A consequentialist, on the other hand, would have decided to rescue the man in order to prevent an injury or possible death, even if it required him to violate others rights. However the consequentialist would first have to define the best outcome that would be brought about by the act, and commonly it is the maximization of utility- the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The consequential and deontological theories are two common views from a broad selection that moral pluralism allows one to adopt. Yet, there is one problem: the views cannot always be applied consistently. Suppose that there is a person who takes money belonging to the wealthy and gives it over to the poor. How can one measure this acts degree of morality? Consequentialists, namely utilitarianists, will claim that the act is moral since the pleasure and welfare gained by the poor is greater in proportion to the loss suffered by the wealthy; while deontologists believe otherwise because they consider stealing to be intrinsically immoral. A survey was conducted among the same people, and it suggests that majority chooses to not steal in the first place because they regard stealing as morally wrong.14 When asked why they had not taken this point into consideration in the first example, they responded that this situation cannot be perceived in the same way because it involves acting immorally towards a third party that
13
14

Garrett, A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross See survey attached.

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

would have otherwise been uninvolved (the wealthy population) and that there are other moral means of earning money for the poor without having to steal, such as through donations and job-training.15 Other responses suggest that they have based their choices on moral intuition, claiming that they can just know that stealing would not be the right thing to do in this type of situation. More than fifty percent of this deontology-supportive majority includes people who have chosen the consequentialist option in the first example. Thus it appears that there is a lack of consistency in settling on certain views, which perhaps results from varied judgments and situations and, not to mention, the very limited scope confined by each of the views.

As a result of the conditionality of values, the lack of consistency in making decisions is an inevitable feature of pluralism. Pluralism calls for the use of moral intuition and reasoning in order to achieve consensus. In such situations, absolutists would have simply allowed the overriding value to preside with little regard to neither the consequence nor the degree of morality intrinsic to the act itself.16 However, there are more complications in resolving conflicts among pluralists since some values are equally moral and reasonable and may be questioned. It is easy for society to fall into deep skepticism that may lead to a negative kind of nihilism. If all values were open to be interpreted and questioned, society may then be drifting closer to the theoretical epoch where all judgment is suspended.17 Would pluralism deteriorate morality, as the disintegration thesis

15 16

See survey attached. Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 23 17 Encyclopedia Britannica

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

suggests? Pluralists must find the appropriate means to tackle moral conflicts without inducing increased skepticism.

In a political society, for instance, policy-makers debate over common controversial issues such as the legalization of euthanasia or marijuana. Reaching a consensus would not be easy since controversies often involve a battle between conflicting values that appear to be equally moral. In most cases, one side may have to compromise by violating certain morals in order to reach an agreement, or the two opposing sides may wish to establish a new common ground that appeals to the same morals. Yet, both cases result in a stronger unity in which new views are being accepted, taking into consideration societys diversity and thus enhancing social tolerance.

The origins of the two opposing ideas of pluralism and absolutism become evident when they are observed in terms of the battle between the bigger ideas of modernity and postmodernism. Grand narratives, as previously mentioned in the introduction, appear to lie under the general concept of moral absolutism. According to twentieth-century French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, a grand narrative is somewhat an attempt to maintain totality, stability, and order by concealing conflicts and disorders that are evident in any particular society.18 The dogma of this notion becomes evident; one may feel coerced to accept that certain disorders are ultimately wrong, and that order is ultimately

18

Klages, Postmodernism

10

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

appropriate and rational.19 Conformers to the grand narrative strive to establish an objective, universal truth without realizing that their ideas emanate from subjectivity. Human knowledge, whether derived innately or through the senses, is limited in comparison to all the knowledge that exists on this world- so how is it possible to seek a general truth for the justification or impeaching of actions? Postmodernists thus have introduced a replacement for grand narratives, known as mini-narratives. Similar to pluralism, mini-narratives are not committed to achieving universal truth as they only serve to provide conditional explanations regarding individual events.20 Since this concept does not attempt to generalize the immense diversity of the human race, but rather enables society to examine situations from a variety of perspectives, it may further encourage the ridding of prejudices and the acceptance of different ideas and customs. On the other hand, grand narratives are criticized for potential bias and unreliability since it may be that hierarchies and other authority figures in history have brought their own influences upon them, altering its context to fit with the views of the time. As a result, once society starts to become aware that grand narratives, just like government-based laws and policies, have been created by humans that are capable of err and obscured judgment, and that the subjectivity in establishing truth is inevitable, there will be a greater inclination to accept a multiplicity of different, smaller-scale narratives.

The strongest arguments that are posed against pluralism challenge the very basic fundamentals of the theory itself: its plurality and conditionality that have so easily served
19 20

Klages, Postmodernism Klages, Postmodernism

11

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

to exonerate groups that have engaged in evidently unmoral practices. Dr. Alister McGrath, Lecturer in Theology from Oxford University, questions the pluralist theory in his work, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism: Behind all the rhetoric about openness and toleration lies a profoundly disturbing possibility- that people may base their lives upon an illusion, upon a blatant lie, or that present patterns of oppression may continue, and be justified, upon the basis of beliefs or outlooks which are false.21 Can these illusions and lies be justified? After all, pluralism allows different conceptions of what is perceived as good, so would it be right to believe that everything and anything can be permitted? When referring back to the crimes against humanity that have occurred in the past, such as the Nazi regime or the Pol Pot genocide, it is difficult for one to accept that the initiators held a perfectly rational mental state. Humans have been convinced that they were right, and this led to wars, genocides, slavery and racism.22 Consider the Hindu custom of burning a widow alive after the death of her husband or the ritualistic sacrificing of children in order to propitiate Gods.23 It is true that these practices may be considered right for them, nevertheless it would be absurd to let them pass unquestioned.24 The conditionality of pluralism, in this case, is a liability. Such an open-ended theory calls for certain limits to be set in order to exclude certain views that are evidently morally unacceptable.

21 22

McGrath, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind 23 McGrath, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism 24 McGrath, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism

12

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

The boundaries may serve to protect the basic primary values of life25 and should thus be defined by human rights. As previously mentioned, actions and practices that are known to be evil such as child sacrifice, female circumcision or torture should not be passed unchallenged since they all involve the violation of fundamental human rights. There are also several values that are distinctly known to be good in a variety of contexts, such as justice and the protection of life from harm. Although these values appear to be the most virtuous of all values, yet under pluralism, they are not overriding because all values are said to be conditional. It is even possible that the seemingly moral values may be reasonably violated in extreme cases where the extraordinary and the abnormal may occur.26 This is why it is important to clearly define limits in order to eliminate potential risks that the broadness of pluralism brings about.

An example of an attempt to establish boundaries within reasonable grounds can be observed through the concept of prima facie duties. Nineteenth century Scottish philosopher Sir William David Ross introduces this concept of obliging to duties that must also be taken into priority unless reasonably triumphed by other duties.27 Clear examples of prima facie duties include fidelity, gratitude, harm-prevention and justice.28 Thus, for example, one ought to prevent harm in all cases unless there are stronger values that may overtake harm-prevention. Prima facie duties are not to be confused with the absolutists rational ranking of values because there is no specific order in which the duties are ranked,

25 26

Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 118 Kekes, The Morality of Pluralism, pg. 120 27 Garrett, A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross 28 Garrett, A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross

13

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

and each value is not binding. Moral intuition and reasoning is heavily relied upon (refer back to the example of the drowning man), and is determined by ones moral upbringing and background. Pluralism urges the use of moral intuition that will allow one to look beyond dogmatic beliefs, moving towards a more sensible outcome.

Conclusion
On the surface, moral pluralism may appear to lead to skepticism and social confusion as it accepts a variety of views and does not provide truth; it simply denies the existence of any fixed universal rule or rules that attempt to justify certain actions. However, by doing so, pluralism eliminates the possibility of being led into dogmatic beliefs that attempt to impose rational order and further serves to encourage higher social tolerance as it heeds the diversity of moral codes. However, bearing in mind that moral pluralism is an open-ended theory, society must become aware of the responsibility of establishing boundaries concerning the extent to how much an action can be justified. There must be certain limits that serve as the stable, unchanging core for morality, particularly in regard to the fundamental human rights. If this can be achieved, then pluralism is less likely to harm the morality of society and lead to the so-called disintegration of morals. Pluralism, against a backdrop of democracy, urges society to look past fixed, a priori rules and guidelines, whether in the form of religious codes or a set of government policies, in order to develop a strengthened moral intuition that will ultimately lead to a more socially tolerant and flourishing society that unites under one re-established common ground.

14

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

Works Cited
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987. Print.

Garrett, Jan. "A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross." 10 Aug 2004. Web. 25 Aug 2010. <http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm>.

Kay, Charles, D. "Notes on Deontology." Web. 22 Nov 2010. <http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm>.

Kekes, John. The Morality of Pluralism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Print.

Klages, Mary. "Postmodernism." University of Colorado, Web. 11 Oct 2010. <http://www.bdavetian.com/Postmodernism.html>.

McGrath, Alister E. "Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism." Web. 17 Jul 2010.

"epoch!." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 22 Nov 2010. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/190459/epoche>.

15

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082

Appendix
Below is a survey conducted among 64 individuals in order to investigate which options were most popular in an ethical dilemma. 1. You see a drowning man waving for help. Next to you is an expensive speedboat belonging to a family. What do you do? Username
sophiek2011 hugob2011 javiern2011 mariaflorenciac2011 tanjak2011 margheritam2011 chrisz2011 annag2011 laurianes2011 natalieh2011 marie-louiseg2011 alexanderr2011 andream2011 laurah2011 denisp2011 jacopoz2011 mikes2011 thomasr2011 amilap2011 rouzbehm2011 lisbethh2011 pinnapap2011 josephh2011 masatakaf2011 ondrejs2011 sharont2011 sabinat2011 miland2011 annam2011 nathaliem2011 christophh2011 radikah2011 christosv2011 da-youngl2011 juliand2011 sarap2011 evgenyr2011 beattak2011

Answer
Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Walk away because you don't want to be involved. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man.

16

IB Extended Essay Philosophy


davidar2011 tjeripot2011 dimitriosg2011 dbancroft michelleq2011 maximiliant2011 po-weiy2011 manuelh2011 corneliab2011 pilarh2011 mariap2011 danielw2011 paulaisabell2011 tayof2011 manuelm2011 andreasr2011 lok-szel2011 surbhik2011 alia2011 faisala2011 ranih2011 davidd2011 felicitask2011 leonidm2011 jung-hyunl2011 davidr2011

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082


Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Watch the man drown because you don't want to steal the boat. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Steal the boat in order to save the man. Walk away because you don't want to be involved.

Summary 2 people out of the 64 surveyed have decided to walk away because they do not wish to be involved in the situation. 1 person out of the 64 surveyed has decided to watch the man drown because he/she does not wish to steal the boat. 61 out of the 64 surveyed have decided to steal the boat in order to save the drowning mans life

2. What is your view on a person who steals money from the rich and gives it to the poor?
sophiek2011 hugob2011 javiern2011 mariaflorenciac2011 tanjak2011 margheritam2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

17

IB Extended Essay Philosophy


chrisz2011 annag2011 laurianes2011 natalieh2011 marie-louiseg2011 alexanderr2011 andream2011 laurah2011 denisp2011 jacopoz2011 mikes2011 thomasr2011 amilap2011 rouzbehm2011 lisbethh2011 pinnapap2011 josephh2011 masatakaf2011 ondrejs2011 sharont2011 sabinat2011 miland2011 annam2011 nathaliem2011 christophh2011 radikah2011 christosv2011 da-youngl2011 juliand2011 sarap2011 evgenyr2011 beattak2011 davidar2011 tjeripot2011 dimitriosg2011 dbancroft

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082


Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

18

IB Extended Essay Philosophy

Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10 Candidate #: 00014-082


Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

michelleq2011 maximiliant2011 po-weiy2011 manuelh2011 corneliab2011 pilarh2011 mariap2011 danielw2011 paulaisabell2011 tayof2011 manuelm2011 andreasr2011 lok-szel2011 surbhik2011 alia2011 faisala2011 ranih2011 davidd2011 felicitask2011 leonidm2011 jung-hyunl2011 davidr2011

Summary 29 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral since it is considered stealing, which they believe is a bad action in itself. 10 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral because they believe that poor people need to find more proper ways to make their own living. 20 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the benefit gained by the poor people is greater than the loss experienced by the wealthy. 5 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the money is a necessity for the poor people, whereas the wealthy do not need it.

19