https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8 1) Select 1 AOK column (first come first served!); 2) Add your name; 3) Show how 1 KQ from your section (AOK + Ethics) in the Guide can be answered; 4) Show how this question can or cannot be transferred to a different AOK. en-us 2022-02-06 22:58:59 UTC 2025-12-24 21:11:03 UTC hello@padlet.com sarahjford41 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2034786017 2022-02-08 06:42:12 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2034786017 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2039597745 2022-02-10 06:41:48 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2039597745 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2039604217 Animal testing for drug trials raise questions about it utility as many a times data obtained from animal trials is not replicated in humans. It may sound right on utilitarian perspective but on moral grounds suffering of animals cannot be ignored. Limiting scientific investigations on ethical grounds can limit our understanding coming from such test but then we need to decide about-  Is the knowledge coming from suffering of some organism worth it? Correlating the value of knowledge with the cost of suffering is practically not possible. ]]> 2022-02-10 06:47:17 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2039604217 miya_yang https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043500660 2022-02-12 07:12:31 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043500660 miya_yang https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043541716 We discussed the case of the debate of whether to remove the statue of Rhodes in Oxford University.  We gave students different source of this case such as Rhodes's biography and speeches, and the survey data of this issue among Oxford University students.

Then we brought this question: what standards should we use to judge people and actions in the past? 

One of the key points here is that we should ask "how do these people in the past know or make decisions?" If a historical figure didn't have the approaches to know the truth or knowledge because of the limited experience, cultural and environment impact, his actions can be justified but not necessarily appropriate with the standards of today. But if it's the opposite case, it is justified to judge them.

In addition, we also brought further discussion in this case like colonialism and nationalism.]]> 2022-02-12 08:49:05 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043541716 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043964069 2022-02-12 18:50:39 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2043964069 sarahjford41 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2044343411 Within the human sciences, this question might be answered by looking at different disciplines, in our class we look at Psychology and Economics. You would start by describing some of the ethical considerations involved in studying human beings, such as the awareness of intent, the principles of harm and safety and the freedom of choice and the right to consent. You could then take each of these and explore how they limit (or, for a counter-claim, enhance) discovery of knowledge in Psychology and Economics.

For example, exploring the validity or otherwise of self-selecting samples in questionnaires would be worthwhile (links to the natural sciences could come in here regarding drug trials, those outside of the domain of psychology as well as inside). Another example would be examining the risks of harm involved in studying human beings regarding certain experiments, and the effect that fear or belief of risk may have on the outcomes observed in the participants. Looking more at Economics, you could consider the effects of privacy and GDPR on obtaining reliable data and students could find examples where practices have had to change regarding data-gathering, and explore whether limitations are observable now in light of recent legislation.
I think the answer generated would indicate a degree of limitation but it is conceivable that students might also explore the counterclaim of ethical considerations enhancing the study of human beings: legitimising the discipline, for example, or enabling a greater range of participants, or enabling cross-cultural studies.

Regarding another AOK, I would then consider this in the Arts. I think you could slightly re-word: 'To to what extent are the methods used in the Arts limited by the ethical considerations involved in representing human beings?' (or, living species if you wanted to broaden it out to animal cruelty etc) Here you might discuss censorship as a main topic, and ethical perceptions in society of what can and cannot be shown. You could consider context: can we display one of our very own students' IBDP Visual Arts pieces in school, which depicts a woman's naked breasts? Could the same artwork be shown in a gallery that is not on our school site? What about if the exhibition was not a school-related one, does that make any difference? You might discuss more how limitations are rather more context-specific regarding the Arts and that, perhaps, the consensus of what 'ethical considerations' are is less shared and enshrined (eg as it is in psychologists' codes of practices) in this AOK than in the Human Sciences.]]> 2022-02-13 08:26:19 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2044343411 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2045104824 Since the instructions were just to answer one question, I’ll answer it relying on Philosophy. One way to answer this question is to say that aesthetic judgments help us understand how we can make moral judgements, without falling into relativism. This comparison can help us defend that there is no objective criteria in morality as well as art, but this does not need to lead us to say that every art creation is equally beautiful, or that any action is equally right. The way Richard J. Bernstein defends this is proposing the example of an amateur music player interpreting a classical piece and an expert musician playing the same piece. The trained music critic, can say that the interpretation of the expert is better than that of the amateur, for this we don’t need to rely on objective criteria. That is why it would be foolish to say that one interpretation is the “correct” one, however, one is indeed better, the way the music critic reaches this conclusion is with practical judgement, which philosophers like Bernstein would agree is used in moral as well as aesthetic judgments.  The ability to make this practical judgments come from experience, from a live lived (close to the concept of phronesis is from Aristotle.) 
Now, this question can be transferred to the natural sciences, through the perspective of this same philosopher, since he actually argues that practical judgment is what scientists use, when shifting from one scientific paradigm to another during big scientific controversies. During the debates in a scientific controversy, some philosophers would say the objective criteria to choose between two paradigms is no longer there (Kuhn), we have two competing set of criteria. This does not mean that both options are equally acceptable, there is not a “correct” one, but there is one that could be “better” than another, just like in art, just like in morality. A controversial stance, since it states that scientists sometimes behave more like artists than the rational, objective beings they are sometimes painted to be. This is not necessarily something bad.]]> 2022-02-14 00:37:17 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2045104824 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2049777540 2022-02-16 00:25:08 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2049777540 https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2049779209 Thinking about Math as an AOK is not my strong suit, but I'll try. I would answer that they don't face more challenges than other disciplines, it's just that the challenges are different than those disciplines (AOK) for which empirical evidence is the most important. Both math and ethical judgements, I would say, do not rely on empirical evidence. They are similar in that sense, they rely more on deductive thinking, than inductive thinking, which is more proper of the natural sciences and the human sciences. I would say then, that a similar challenge that I can think of is that both, relying on deductive reasoning as a form of support, they rely on premises (assumptions) that at one point can not in themselves be argued for or supported. There are both in Math and Ethics some foundational premises that need to be accepted to start doing ethics and start doing math. 
We can transfer this question to the empirical sciences, by adding to the question "do mathematical and ethical judgements have similar challenges to scientific judgements." I'd say they would be more different than similar, although since science also relies in deductive thinking, at one point, if pushed enough, would face the same challenge to basic metaphysical assumptions sciences have. The thing is though, most people don't push sciences that far back.]]> 2022-02-16 00:26:31 UTC https://padlet.com/msinclair/lo8yw7a2ikw4o5c8/wish/2049779209