Welcome to Week 3! I hope you all are enjoying the blog and getting to know more about the benefits of your degree and the possibilities that come with it. This week we will talk about critical thinking and how it applies to your degree.
Critical thinking has a common definition of thinking critically, but how can we relate that to interdisciplinary studies? A critical interdisciplinarian try to interrogate and evaluate existing disciplines and knowledge to raise questions for value and purpose. They try to eliminate build bridging and do away with borders entirely. Very similar to integration, thinking critically about interdisciplinary studies allows you to create a new discipline entirely using your cores. The Virtual Philosopher should have helped you evaluate your critical thinking ability.
Here is the link in case you missed it earlier...
In the liver problem you were asked to decide who should get the liver first. This process is highly challenged and debated across hospitals. The Division of Transplantation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services makes that call on how gets the transplant and who does not. UNOS (the united network for organ sharing) is a private organization that took responsibility for the operation in 1986. The members of this board debate the ethics of who gets an organ and who does not. Usually, the sickest and youngest is the first on most occasions. But what do you think? Should the 60 year old Noble Peace Prize winner get the organ? Or the little boy? Or the billionaire?
For this week discuss how your critical thinking relates to interdisciplinary studies?
Comment on how the Virtual Philosopher scored your response. From the comments you received about your response, what insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning? (basically comment on how you came to the decisions you did in the friends problem, liver problem, and lifeboat problem) How does the outline of your critical thinking disposition match with the application of it in doing the Virtual Philosopher?
The link doesn't seem to be working. when we we supposed to previously encounter the Virtual Philosopher??
ReplyDeleteThat's weird, Erin! Sorry. Try copying and pasting the url
ReplyDeletehttp://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/vp/vp.html
Hope that works!
Kelly Jasen
My critical thinking has always been commented on by others. I think a lot differently than the average person. I chalk this up to gifted classes that I started going to in first grade, where we were all encouraged to think freely and be truly independent.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed this assignment. For the first situation, I was unfortunately rated as being inconsistent. Yes, while I agree that little lies are sometimes necessary, I wouldn’t lie to a friend. That’s my own personal ethics right there. I wouldn’t lie to a friend who was hurt by a significant other-No, it’s time to move on. To me, the little lies are important and necessary when there’s a good reason to do it. For most people, it’s probably personal gain, so I imagine a lot of people will agree with the allowance and necessity of telling the little lies. Lying is justifiable at times. And yes, there’s some things that we just don’t want to know. Been there, done that, and I wish that I wouldn’t have been told.
For the second situation, I was rated as being consistent. Some lives are worth more than others. I think we can all agree that our own life is worth more than the guy’s on Death Row who killed 8 people. There is a difference between people and humans. Yeah, we’re all humans, but I’m a person. I have feelings and I do care about the others. So no, I’m not going to push a 400 pound man off a boat. What happens if he’s smaller? Then we get to play a lottery? No thanks. The 11 of us can hang on and hope for a miracle. Murder is wrong, and a horrendous act when it involves innocent people. I won’t be part of it.
For the third situation, I was also ranked as being consistent. Ethics play a big role in our lives. We shouldn’t have to decide who has to die and who gets to live. That’s essentially why, with organ donation, that there is UNOS. They, as an organization, get to decide. I immediately eliminated Bob from the list. He is homeless and unfortunately has a drinking problem, a problem that most likely caused the need for a new liver. Joe? He’s older, wealthy. He’s lived his life. Karen, is much older than the rest and has a greater risk of infection and rejection after the transplant, so it’s a waste. Chris, while the youngest, is also the sickest, and doesn’t have ties to so many children like Sarah does. So I chose Sarah. I chose her based on the fact that she has children, young children. No school age child deserves to lose their mother when there’s an option out there.
I think the Virtual Philosopher was right on the money with me. It was my own thoughts, and they were evaluated, so it’s got to be pretty true. Critical thinking and ethics shape our lives, and it’s something that people really should be more aware of. The Virtual Philosopher allows for a little of that realization to come out.
-Jessica Starr
Critical thinking is vital to interdisciplinary studies because we must think outside the box. If we thought inside a box then we would have picked a single 'regular' discipline rather than a collaborative mesh of three distinct study areas. I believe I'm a good critical thinker, potentially due to my academically-focused upbringing; my parents required me to do well in school. Being involved with the Gifted-Student-Program from a young age, first grade, could also be a factor. Regardless, I believe critical thinking is an important skill for intellectual individuals to posses to solve problems: both long term, short term, school-related and life-related.
ReplyDeleteI think the Virtual Philosopher is a fun activity to asses your basic ethical thinking. I think it could use some improvement on the first scenario, maybe ask another question with a more serious lie, than one regarding lying to friends. It was fun to see it analyze my ethical consistency from six questions, haha.
Situation 1: A Friend's Dilemma
The Virtual Philosopher said I was inconsistent for the first scenario because I said lying is sometimes okay, and then decided not to tell a little white lie to a friend. But, I disagree, I don't lie to my friends especially when its something they need to hear - there's nothing wrong with being odd, hell, I'm odd and love it. I'd say, its actual more beneficial to hear the truth than a lie. An instance when it would be permissible to lie would be if someone came to my front door with a gun and asked where my child/friend/significant other was. I would tell that criminal that there was no one home but me. White lies are not justified because, if there's no harm - then you should tell the truth.
Situation 2: The Lifeboat Problem
The Virtual Philosopher said I was inconsistent for the second scenario and I agree with him. I should have said that it is sometimes justified killing innocent people, but I'd like to add the qualifier, only when you are saving more people than you are harming. The lifeboat problem, it is justifiable to kill one person because you are saving 10. If one wasn't killed, then all would be lost. So either way, that person would die.
Situation 3: The Liver Problem
The virtual Philosopher said I was consistent in the third situation because I said that some people's lives are worth more than others.
1. Bob - I choose Bob first because he is an alcoholic. Alcohol impairs your liver, chronic alcoholism will lead to liver failure. Therefore, because he in a sense 'brought this upon himself' I don't think he deserves the liver.
2. Joe - I choose Joe second because he was last to sign up.
3. Chris - This was a hard one, I choose Chris third because the other two (Karen and Sarah) have a greater impact on the world.
4. Karen - I choose Karen fourth because, she is doing wonderful research to hopefully help save many lives by curing them of AIDS. But I put Sarah before her because there are others working on research -- you never work alone.
5. Sarah - I choose Sarah to receive the liver because she is the sole provider of her six young children. You CANNOT replace someone's mother; it would be difficult for these children to continue living a 'normal' life because they have no father to fall back on. Also, with 6 children - there's NO WAY they would all end up in the same foster home.
Critical Thinking is interrogated into my life everyday at my job. As a leader I must formulate working solutions and promote them to my staff. With my training in my current career I have had to learn how critical thinking can be used without OVER-thinking. Certain situations rely on critical thinking even when dealing with everyday decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor the first situation I was rated as Inconsistent. I can see where that may be but I believe it all depends on the situation. In the friends dilemma it asked if I would tell my friend if she was odd when her ex-boyfriend told her she was then left her for someone in his eyes “normal.” I believe that her knowing how important her oddness is to her personality can help her realize how special and unique and NOT boring she is. Lies that hurt people should not be told, but a little white lie to ensure someone’s happiness or safety without hurting them in the long run can be ok, depending on the case.
In the Second situation I was rated consistent. I don’t think it was my choice to make the judgment to throw a 400 lb man off the boat. He could even be the person that can keep others alive. I don’t think anyone has the right to decide another’s fate when it isn’t in your hands to make that decision.
In the third situation I was rated inconsistent. It works with the second situation at some point because in a situation like the lifeboat dilemma there is no reason for someone unqualified to make the decision to allow someone to die when the end result in not certain. I don’t think the Liver problem should always be decided randomly or first come first serve. In most cases if you are a constant drinker or drug user you automatically are not considered a candidate. I think it shows you do not value your life. Other than that I can understand the use of the random choices.
Ultimately, I believe this exercise with the virtual philosopher had good points but the scenarios to me were not case by case. They were a little too broad for someone who is not specialists. But it does make you think about the style of decisions you would make for your life or others.
I found this assignment to be very interesting! I really enjoyed hearing what the philosopher had to say and I like how he made me think more in depth for certain circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for me all of the situations were pretty easy to decide between except for the one with the friend who had a dilemma. I was consistent for two out of the three situations. I started off the questioner by stating that I feel lying is sometimes right; there are some situations when you need not to tell the truth for the sake of ones own good. When I came across the question about the friend I really had to contemplate my answer. The majority of the time I would straight up tell my friend the honest truth; I think honesty is very important in a friendship. The truth hurts but it only makes you stronger. However, in this situation, depending on the friend, I might lie and blame it all on the guy. I came very close to losing one of my closest friends last year because we had some differences and I confronted her about it; the night of my birthday she tried to take her life. Because of that experience I decided that I would tell a little white lie in fear of losing one of my best friends again.
I also stated that I felt that murder was wrong. Therefore, when I was presented with the situation of the man on the lifeboat I refused to push the heaver man overboard. I could never take someone’s life even if it meant death would be the result for me; I wouldn’t be able to push an innocent man over into the water and just watch him suffer in pain of the freezing cold.
For the last situation, the liver issue, I then again decided that everyone should have an equal opportunity at having the chance to receive the liver. I don’t think that it would be fair for Bob to automatically get the liver just because he is rich and has decided to donate money (even though that would be amazing and could probably help many others). I also wouldn’t be able to be the one to decide who got the liver and who didn’t. A decision like that is something easy; it would constantly be one my mind. I don’t think I would ever be able to forgive myself if I had to decide just one person to save. I think it is only fair that everyone has an equal chance of be the recipient of the liver.
Altogether I really enjoyed this activity; I believe that critical thinking and ethics have a big impact of a person life and it shows what kind of person they are.
-Megan Sebastian
Critical thinking is vital to interdisciplinary studies because it takes deeper thinking to connect two things together, and that's what interdisciplinary studies is, blending two subjects to come out with a stronger one. I have always been better critical thinker than general thinking, that is why i was always put in higher level classes since middle school. I tend to think deeper than most.
ReplyDeleteSituation 1: A friends dilemma
It said that my conclusion was inconsistent because i said that it was ok in some situations to tell a white lie however when it came to either lying to my friend or telling him the truth i said that i would have told him the truth. I think this question was not correct as to what i was thinking. I feel that in some situations that are actually sort of necessary to telling a lie is when i would do that, but when it comes to friends and family i just dont consider that to be cool to tell them lies. Thats where i was coming from with that question.
Situation 2:The lifeboat problem
It said that my conclusion was consistent.Also, it stated that my personal ethics and personal choices are consistent. I do believe that it got it right becuase i dont believe ever in killing innocent people, and i would definitely never throw someone over a boat, i couldnt live with myself knowing i kill someone.
Situation 3:The liver problem
It said that i was inconsistent in this sitation because i said that everyone is equal however when asked about the liver i put down the the child should get the liver first. I guess this sort of is right because i love kids and that is the field im going into, and if i see a kid any of the choices, i was bound to have to chosen that. The reason why i didnt put down the mother was because im sure that there are more family members that could help take care of the kids.
I think that the virtual philosopher was sort of right but not completely because i think that there is certain situations where you act differently and may stray from your morals and i dont think this application counted that. However, overall it was a fun application and i saw a litte bit more of myself and the reasoning why i chose my choices.
-Benjamin Rivera
@ Jessica Starr
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you wouldn't push the 400lb man out. I personally voted to. Your logic would most likely follow Kantian ethics in that it is wrong to commit an action of ethical dilemma even if the outcome is greater.
Completely opposite to you answer @Erin Chandler said that wither way the man would die. She follows utilitarian ethics in that it is best to do what creates the most happiness for the most number of people rather than to benefit one.
To both of you and others on this board think about this. It is a common philosophical question posed to Kantian's and Utilitarians.
Say you are the train driver and the breaks on the train suddenly go out. You have the ability to switch to a different rail or to keep going straight ahead. Straight ahead there are 5 men working on the tracks and all 5 would die if you kept going. To the right only one man is working on the track and he would die if you switch. What do you do?
Kantians normally say continue straight because under Kantian principle it not your place to decide the fate of another. Utilitarians usually say switch to do the most good or least harm.
On the hand, another situation is...
You are a doctor and a homeless hermit who has no living family or friends or possessions of any sort comes into your room at the hospital. On the floor above, there is a child that needs a heart transplant, one man that is a single father that needs a new lung, a women that takes care of her sister needs a kidney, and still there are two others. This man is in perfect health and all of his organs are a perfect match for the above patients. They are all terminal and will die by the end of the day. Do you kill the hermit to save the five? Or let the patients die?
What about if it was not illegal and you would completely be freed of all charges?
Just something to think about to see if your views change. Happy thinking!
Critical thinking is essential in our major; it allows us to think outside of the box as well as intuitively about life and all it has to offer us. The Virtual Philosopher was a very fun and interesting assignment.
ReplyDeleteFor the first scenario, I answered that I wouldn’t lie to my friend but I would reason with her, although I previously answered that lying is sometimes justifiable, and the virtual philosopher scored my response as inconsistent. However, I believe that in that situation it was better to know the truth even if it hurt a little and she had to shed some tears in result of that in the long run she would be better off.
For the second scenario, I answered that I would not push the 400 pound man overboard and that I would just wait for a miracle to happen. The virtual philosopher scored my response as consistent with my personal ethics. I do believe that murdering innocent people is never okay, regardless of the situation. I put myself in the 400 pound persons shoes, and if I was him, I wouldn’t want anyone to sacrifice my life in order to save the others, that’s where faith and hope would come in the situation.
For the third scenario, I answered that I would give the 26 year old single mother of six school children the lung transplant. The virtual philosopher scored my response as inconsistent with my personal ethics. Ethically I do believe that every human life is worth saving equally, no matter the age, race, gender, or past medical history. However in this situation, I chose the single mother because I was thinking about what the kids would do without her more than I was thinking about each individual patient. I couldn't imagine what it would be like for the kids their lives would never be the same.It is a very hard choice to eliminate patients, because each patient had a very different and unique case. All in all you have to put your personal feelings aside when choosing these kinds of life making decisions.
My critical thinking disposition is spread out because of my personal feelings in each situation, that’s why its called critical thinking because you have to think very critically in order to make each decision in life.
Leslie-Ann Ellington
Critical thinking is used in everyday life important at work, school and home. In critical thinking we must first identify a problem, gather information, prioritize and find clarification. Critical thinking and decision making is based upon reflection, past experience and personal observations. Interdisciplinary studies enable a greater comprehension of multiple areas. This allows one to blend knowledge together for a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe virtual philosopher graded my responses as consistent in all three situations. I am a huge believer in telling the truth, never to lie in any situation. I am honest with my friends, family and co-workers. I think it would be in my own as well as my friend’s best interest to tell her the truth. I would explain to my friend who was dumped for being “weird” that everyone is different and has their own oddities. She will eventually find someone who either appreciates her differences or has the same oddities as her own. Why would she even want to be in a relationship with someone who found her quirks weird instead of cute or endearing? Lying to her would end up backfiring and harming our friendship, as lying always does. At point in the future I am sure someone else would comment on her odd nature, this would lead her to question my honesty and value as her friend.
I would never be able to harm another person therefor incapable of pushing a man into the ocean and watching him drown. I would pray for a miracle, hope for change and wish for help. I understand the thinking that only one man was sacrificed to save a boatful but I could never be the person to push him out nor would I be able to allow another to make it happen. At least if we all die together with no one being sacrificed I could accept death without guilt in hopes of being heaven bound. If I were to sacrifice someone for my own good and still die on that lifeboat it would have been a wasted sacrifice. I would be guilty, sinful and worry where I would spend eternity.
I chose to give Sara the young mother of 6 children the liver. Perhaps, because I am a mother myself or more likely because I am concerned for the emotional and psychological effects of losing a mother at a young age and being separated from your brothers and sisters. I can imagine 6 children being thrown into 6 separate foster homes and bounced around from place to place. My father lost a parent at a young age and the effects are everlasting. So, I would give the lifesaving liver to Sara not for herself but for her children and their wellbeing.
@ Megan
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way in regards to taking someones life. I would rather sacrifice my own. I agree completely.
@ Erin
ReplyDeleteI also would like to see how I held up with more questions. I wonder if my consistency would continue.
@Shannon
ReplyDeleteI as well felt the same about choosing to not make the decision to throw someone over the boat because of his weight. It makes me think how can I make that decision without be an expert or a highly trained health professional. I also felt the same way about the liver problem, though I chose the child I feel as someone who is not yet a parent I would never know how I would feel about that situation. After choosing the boy It made me think of how those 6 children will be affected after loosing their mother and how it could effect them long term. I think you really never know unless you are in that position to make that decision.
@ Leslie-Ann Ellington
ReplyDeleteI see a trend with situation one and lying to a friend. I agreed and actually stated something similar that it is always a case by case basis on the decision you would make to state a little white lie that would not harm someone yet help them.
Critical thinking is thinking critical meaning thinking of the options and varibales of different answers to a problem. Their are mnay ways a problem cold be answered and steps as well. Sometimes an answer will have a few steps while other have long steps. The decision is choosing which one to go to. The decision can be made from past experinces or observation.
ReplyDeleteVirtula philosopher was a fun activity that got me thinking. The situations that were presented from me two of them was consistent. For me personally i know a lie is a lie but their are some situations when one has to and is justifiable. However, the guilt does come in the head and later on the truth is told once situation is under control.
About the friend situation a friend is a friend no matter how they are. You accept them for who they are. I agree that its the person loss for leaving the friend.
The boat situation was the one that virtual philosopher marked me as inconsistent. I viewed that it was something to be done for the great good of pushing the 400 pound man off the boat. Rather save more lives than have them all die on the water.
The liver situation was one their had to be a process of elimination. The two options left for the liver was the child and the mother with six kids. I chose the child should get the liver cause as philosopher mentioned he has a longer life span. However, their was a part about the mother with six kids that would leave them in sorrow.
@ Shanna Kahn
I agree with you that a white lie sometimes is the only option left in a situation. Sometimes to a extent it can save someone i cant come up with an exmaple but will post one when i do.
Hey everyone
ReplyDeleteYou guys are doing great. Keep up the good work.
For all of you that answered that you would not push the 400 pushed man off the boat, I'd like you to think of something. Because you did not push him off you are now responsible for the lives of the other people on the boat, so by not sacrificing your morals you are in fact killing more innocents because of your own selfishness in you act of being selfless. It is a very complicated decision. This is also a very common principle touched on in many philosophy classes, which is altruism.
Altruism is the act of preforming a selfless act. It is theorized that there is no such thing as a selfless act at all. By not pushing the man for example you are sacrificing everyone else for your own moral benefit. Even as silly as doing something as opening a door, you in turn feel good about the "karma" you get in the action. Or even taking a bullet for a loved one could be said that you would rather the loved one living in pain than yourself. What do you guys think is there really altruism?
@Spetree
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that not pushing the 400 pound man is to guard your value of belief. However,as you mentioned their are innocents life taken cause the man was not pushed off the boat. This type of situations can be pushed back and forth between whether to push him or not to do the greater good.
@ Erin
ReplyDeleteI also was very curious how my results would have turned out if were given more questions to answer and just two to judge how we think.
-Benjamin Rivera
@ spetree
ReplyDeleteI understant to what you are saying, however could you live with yourself knowing that you killed someone, regarless if it saved 11 more lives or even 300, the fact is that you would be killing someone. I know that it would be for the greater good however is it worth it to have that on your mind that you had to kill someone?
@ Shannon,
ReplyDeleteLying really does always end up backfiring and causing a lot more harm than good. I think that we’ve all been witness to that personally. I personally don’t like the fact that sometimes, we have to say things that we don’t want to say. There is no point in lying and losing out at the end.
As for the lifeboat, I agree. Let’s just pray for a miracle. No one person needs to die to save others. That’s just not right. Everyone goes together or no one goes at all.
-Jessica Starr
@benrivera89,
ReplyDeleteI looked through all the posts and I’m pretty sure you’re the only one who chose Chris to get the liver! I think the rest of us were complete blinded by the fact that Sarah is a mother and that there’s six kids who are going to feel the pain, six young kids, after she is gone. However, I understand your reasoning, and I think it’s great that you’re looking at a field involving kids. It seems like you have a soft spot towards them, even at the conclusion of this exercise, so best of luck to you!
-Jessica Starr
@spetree,
ReplyDeleteAltruism really does exist. People perform selfless acts every day. But, unfortunately, it depends on the person. A lot of people look for what they can get out of a situation, and that’s really not good. Life isn’t about what you get in return.
-Jessica Starr
@ Jessica Starr and @benrivera
ReplyDeleteThis was just something for you to think about as this exercise is called critical thinking. These are very common topics that are covered in philosophy classes are come up often. I just wanted you guys to see a different perspective from your own and consider their validity as well as your own. I am not justifying anyone as right or wrong because each person has their own reasons and opinions and is entitled to them. Just consider the different information as a better tool to understanding your own perspective.
I'd be interested in what you guys think about the train situation and the doctor situation that was mentioned earlier. Feel free to scroll up and let me know your thoughts. :)
Critical thinking is most definitely one of the most important attributes of an IDS student. For me, there are so many ways to integrate psychology and science that it requires critical thinking in order to simply figure out how to do so.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately my ethical opinion and results in relative situations were inconsistent. I think that my opinion was influenced by seeing his face in relation to the answers that I selected, which is actually a psychological phenomenon studied in questionnaire type research. In the friend problem, I chose to tell the truth, because that’s how I define a genuine friend, although I am not against a white lie every now and then.
In the liver problem I did consider that the 26yr old lady had 6children, but I let the fact that she is so young, and that the little boy was the sickest override that fact.
I respect the fact that all lives are equal, however in a life or death situation, I automatically assume that a 400lb person has lower self-value than the average person, and therefore should be sacrificed for the greater good. I enjoyed the activity, but did not like having to see the opinions on his face. ~Andrea Graves
@Andrea, I think that is funny how you felt that the man influenced your opinion. He kept creeping me out every time I saw him in the corner making a different facial expression.
ReplyDelete@Benrivera89, I agree with you about not being able to kill an innocent man; I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I do realize what @spetree said about being responsible for the other people on the life boat but I still wouldn't be able to get myself to throw the man off the boat. I don't think it's fair for one man to have to suffer for the rest of everyone just because of his weight.
-Megan Sebastian
@Lisa-Anne
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance on lying to friends. That's not where white lies are justified, but rather to avoid dangerous situations. (This seems to be a common consensus among our class)I was also rated inconsistent for the same reason. I also choose the single mom to receive the transplant, for similar reasons. But I chose to throw the man overboard to save more people, rather than hope for a miracle.
@ Andrea G.
Thats an interesting point you present about the Virtual Philosopher having a face with emotions. I didn't think about how his expressions might influence answers and consistencies. Do you think it would be better to just remove the face all together or just keep him but emotionless?
Critical thinking is a must in our everyday life. now when it come to giving the free liver away, i would pause for a moment. and think which one of those people would benefite society the most. well the 60 year old Noble Peace Prize winner rules out since they contribue something and is old. its come down to the billionare or the kid. now if you save the billionare , they might have an epiphany, donate alots of money toward research for liver cancer. if you save the kid he/she might find a cure for cancer. i would bank on the billionare because you know you would get the result quicker. and again you never know if that kid might turn out to be a screw up.
ReplyDeleteCritical thinking is important to interdisciplinary study because in a particular field of work one will not always be faced with making quick decisions off the top of their head. It will require a chance to construct a system or systems, in the mind, that creates ideas and breaks down the pros and cons of each idea scenario to compute and justify which is more suitable in a specific situation. In other words critical thinking is using the brain as a tool rather than an ornament.
ReplyDeleteIn the friend’s dilemma, the virtual philosopher said I was consistent because I picked to tell my friend that there is nothing wrong with her and that her boyfriend is the one with the problem because I feel like everyone has their differences whether they are mild or extreme. Those are what make that person unique, other than that they are still normal. Their heart does beats the way mine does. They eat, sleep, bathe, laugh, talk, and cry like I do therefore in my eyes they are normal and if I can see that her boyfriend should be able to as well. If not than he would be someone that I classify as a bad boyfriend and she should be happy not to be dating him anymore.
For the lifeboat problem the virtual philosopher told me I was consistent in that area of personal ethics because I chose that I would not sacrifice one life to save the greater good. I would keep the 400-pound man on the lifeboat and hope for a miracle rather than push him off and let him die in the freezing water. I refuse to paint that sort of ugliness on my heart. I also refuse to rule miracles out of the picture because they happen everyday, some are big and some are small.
For the liver problem the virtual philosopher caught me on this and told me I was inconsistent because I believe that all life is equally important but I chose the sickest eight-year-old boy over everyone because he had a week to live unless he got the transplant. The question did not say the others had a timetable before they died therefore they could continue receiving therapy, plus the child still had a life to live, the others were adults. However I just figured that the sickest, most in danger should get a shot at living if the opportunity is there.
@ Jamin
ReplyDeleteI like your input about how the mind breaks downs and processes or creates a system to deal with a situation. Nice statement about the brain being a tool than an ornament. Yes the differences in a individual dose make them unique and one cant accept it its their loss. Having the death of a person in the head will be tormenting and stressful.
@Erin
ReplyDeleteHe should definitely be emotionless.
@Jessica
I love your thought process for the first scenario.
@Jamin I like your perspective on the first scenario with the friend and her boyfriend.
ReplyDelete@Shannon I understand your perspective in scenario two because I am a very religious person and that is indeed a hard choice.
@ Spetree
ReplyDeletePerhaps instead of pushing out the 400 lb man some of us would rather jump overboard. Would that be altruistic of us?
@Shannon
ReplyDeleteIt would be, considering the reasons for the you're jumping. If it is solely to sacrifice yourself to save others then yes it is altruistic. If you feel that you are sacrificing yourself in order to not feel guilt then it is not altruistic. It is sort of a double edge sword and very hard to get an action that is truly altruistic. Altruism is more about why than what the actual action is.
Everyones opinion in itself is correct however because they are very theoretical possibilities. I am just very happy that you guys are thinking and giving each opinion a chance to have its own weight and deciding what the best option really is in your opinion. That is what critical thinking is about and a lot of philosophy.
@spetree,
ReplyDeleteI just don't know on the man. I know it's his human right, and it would be my oath as a doctor, to not harm him....however, so many people could benefit. But what if he's truly happy? I can't make that decision.
-Jessica Starr
@Jessica Starr
ReplyDeleteThere is no right answer to this question only what you believe is right. As a future hopeful doctor the do no harm oath means a lot. I personally would not harm him and hope that an organ would come along for all of the above patients. I believe that organ donation is a really big ethical dilemma in the medical field and requires a lot of thought and consideration.
You never know what one person would legitimately do. You could be saving a future serial killer, you could be killing a future noble prize winner. As doctors, we heal, we don't play God. With the power of medicine and its advances its easy to think that you do play God. It gets really sticky when doctors forget that fact and lots of sleep can go lost. Simply do what you believe is right by your own conscious and I think you'll be fine.
-spetree
Ryan B
ReplyDeleteI just finished my virtual philosopher and it was pretty accurate on some the assessments. I had some inconsistencies especially will the lifeboat scenario, but for different reasons than the philosopher stated. I choose to eliminate the overweight person because of the logical decision that they would be able to survive in more extreme temperatures because of their size and also due to my military background I would consider the extra person as collateral damage for the survival of the group. However horrible I must sound to some at this point take in mind that I would certainly exhaust all other efforts before executing someone which wasn’t given as an option.
In the scenario of the liver transplant recipient I also was inconsistent because I choose the little boy, not just because of his age but because he had the most life to gain. The choices were very difficult and under more realistic terms I don’t believe the decisions would quite as difficult. How many recipients have 100 million dollars to donate? However, under the circumstances it does make you question what you as an individual would process through to come up with an ethical solution. Because there is no correct ethical decision than any answer on who gets the liver would be scrutinized by some percentage of the population and it would never be entirely the right decision. This is why some organization works in such unbiased ways such as a lottery or first come first serve basis. There will never be a simple solution to this debate.
The friend’s scenario is entirely subjective and does not give insight as to the extent of the relationship you have with the friend so it is difficult to say what someone would do. I’m not the type to sugar coat things but realistically if you consider your friends feelings you would be better served to console your friend and give them a positive outlook for the future as the right thing to do.
The critical thinking disposition was correct I did answer things at time inconsistently but I think that’s because the questions were inconsistent scenarios that several different people would answer differently. Amiable personalities would try to save everyone and that would unrealistic. Passive people would not want to act at all on a decision etc.
~Ryan Burris