Read and respond (G2) by Mark Jason

Ethics Task (OPTION 1) Reminder:

mark_jason_raffles — 2024-11-15 06:03:07 UTC

Post your reflection (at least 75 words) after reading the two articles (Laika & 5 Little Monkeys). Refer to the following guide questions: (1) How do ethical considerations shape what knowledge we choose to pursue or preserve (e.g., scientific experiments, cultural traditions)? (2) Can tolerance sometimes conflict with ethical principles? How do we navigate situations where respecting cultural traditions might perpetuate harm? (3) Is there a moral obligation to revisit and potentially discard cultural artifacts or scientific practices if they are rooted in unethical or harmful histories? (4) Can recognizing the ethical issues in these stories help us become more responsible and principled knowers?

Ethics Task (OPTION 2) Moral Machine Reflection (Guide Questions)

mark_jason_raffles — 2024-11-15 06:03:07 UTC

Post your reflection (at least 75 words) (1) Were there any Moral Machine scenarios where your decision surprised you? What did this reveal about your own ethical beliefs?

(2)If faced with a similar situation in real life, do you think you would make the same decision? Why or why not?

(3)Did any scenario make you question whether there is always a “right” choice in ethical dilemmas?

Laika & Five Little Monkeys

mark_jason_raffles — 2024-11-15 06:03:07 UTC

International Day of Tolerance (Optional Read)

mark_jason_raffles — 2024-11-15 06:03:07 UTC

Ethics Task (Option 2, Question 3)

2024-11-15 07:13:23 UTC

There are some scenarios that made me wonder about the right or wrong choice. For instance, there are scenarios where we pick between a group of people disregarding the light signals or a larger group. In a way it seems right to pick the rule breakers since it was the consequence of their own actions, but it also seems wrong to choose the larger group since it would cause more deaths. In both cases there are pros and cons. Additionally, it also made me question about the value placed between seniors and younger children.

Ethics Task (OPTION 2) - Chloe H, Edelynn

2024-11-15 07:13:33 UTC

3) When answering the moral machine, the first impression we had was doing it based on personal preference and ideal moral standards. These are saving those who have more "value" and possible benefit to a greater number of stakeholders. Here we used the utilitarian theory. However, later on, we concluded that when considering subjects such as a self-driving car, the quiz gives us a choice to let the car continue driving or make a turn. Here we are to question whether or not we are worthy to make that decision of saving or killing off someone thereby deciding their value. Hence, we concluded that we are not individuals who should decide the value of an individual's life because if we were to be within moral standards, every life would have the same value. Therefore, we chose to let the car on its direction and move forward with each one.

Option 1, Question 3 (Daniel)

2024-11-15 07:13:39 UTC

Yes, there is a moral obligation to revisit old cultural artifacts, despite these old nursery rhymes potentially being rooted in unethical or harmful histories. A nursery rhyme mainly functions to support language and communication skills, build confidence and prepare children for reading and writing as they get older, so the place where it comes from should not be a strong enough reason to discard these artifacts. Furthermore, these artifacts act as historical treasures that display how people back then perceived certain ideas.

2024-11-15 07:13:44 UTC

Chloe Lin and Vivian (Option 1)

There were a few scenarios in the Moral Machine experiment where our choices surprised us. For example, we found ourselves sometimes prioritizing saving individuals based on their age or profession, like choosing to save a child over an elderly person or a doctor over a athlete. Similarly, we also prioritized humans over animals. This revealed that we may subconsciously place value on potential future contributions to society or prioritize individuals with perceived higher societal roles. It made us reflect on how biases and utilitarian thinking influence ethical decision-making.

Ethics Task (Option 2)

2024-11-15 07:14:00 UTC

Michelle & Gaby

Yes, most of the scenarios made us question whether there is always a "right" choice in ethical dilemmas. This was further amplified in the scenarios involving elders. We wonder if there is any "right" decision morally in these types of dilemmas. Many may argue the decision of who to save, but in the ethical or moral stance, none of the options can be deemed wholly moral as in the end, any choice will lead to the death of others.

Bianca & Caitlin

2024-11-15 07:14:30 UTC

Option 1, Question 3:

Yes, we think that there is a moral obligation to reconsider and potentially discard cultural artifacts or scientific practices with unethical or harmful histories. Historical context plays a significant role in shaping societal values, and many practices or artifacts were created in eras with less awareness of human rights or ethical standards. Revisiting these aspects ensures that we uphold current ethical principles, promote justice, and respect for those harmed by past injustices. Additionally, it allows societies to reflect on past mistakes, fostering growth and reinforcing values aligned with modern humanity, inclusivity, and ethical integrity.

Did any scenario make you question whether there is always a "right" choice in ethical dilemmas?

yipeeeee — 2024-11-15 07:14:53 UTC

Situations like the Trolley Problem or the Moral Machine is created to test the ethical reasoning of the individual taking it, as well as inspiring healthy debate and conversation, not to condemn people for their decision. In the case of the Moral Machine, involving self-driving cars, a new dilemma is introduced: In a situation where the machine automates the direction, is the driver to blame, the victim, the machine, or the manufacturer? Despite that, the scenario shows the person capable of steering the direction of the car. It boils down to the question if inaction could be judged -- it can -- but the introduction of a scapegoat (the machine) makes it easier to pass the blame on others. It's crucial to know that the Trolley Problem will always be unethical from one perspective or the other, and should be seen as a tool of self-measurement and discussion, not a judgement.

Ethics task option 2 question 2 (Brandon)

2024-11-15 07:14:58 UTC

If I were to face a similar scenario in real life, I would probably make the same decisions. However, in real life, there are usually more than just two options available. This means that, given the opportunity, I would likely try to find a way to avoid commiting a hit and run. In such situations, I would be driving around the pedestrians, ensuring their safety while making thoughtful and careful decisions.

Option 2

2024-11-15 07:15:33 UTC

Kenneth, Davis

Question 2. Yes, because I believe our choices reflect our moral code. For example, the most deaths I caused was that of the elderly, and the one that I save the most are the children. This may indicate that I value the lives of the young more than that of the old.

Question 3, option 1 Max

2024-11-15 07:16:45 UTC

Yes there was a moral obligation to revisit and potentially discard cultural artifacts or scientific practices if they are rooted in unethical or harmful histories. Some artificats respect human dignity, and help promote social justice

Clarence - Option 1, Question 2

2024-11-15 07:18:22 UTC

Ethical standards often restrict scientific research that could harm humans, animals, or the environment. Such as the example with Laika, people condemned the use of animal testing and ethical standards regarding animal testing were called into question. Scientific advancements that could cause harm to humans or the environment could also be restricted due to the harm it can cause if misused. In all cases, knowledge that is pursued should take into consideration the harm it could cause.

Ethics Task (Option 2)

2024-11-15 07:18:37 UTC

3) Yes, a lot of scenarios made me question whether there is always a right choice in ethical dilemmas. Usually, people would choose based on my own moral ethics and values. For example, when debating about whether to save the elderly or children, I personally felt that children had much more to live for. Others, though, may feel that children are still very young and that the older people were a better choice to save. So, overall, ethical dilemmas are usually different for each person, depending on their own opinions.

Angel & Audrey K reflection on ethics task option 2 number 3

2024-11-15 07:18:58 UTC

There are some scenarios that made us question whether there is always a "right" choice in ethical dilemmas. For instance, the scenarios involving saving either the elders or athletes. Such a scenario made us puzzled whether to kill someone who is about to die soon (the elderly) or the young athletes who have many opportunities if we let them live. In an ethical stance, killing either would be wrong. Whichever we choose, it would still be morally wrong as we are putting someone's life at stake.

How do ethical considerations shape what knowledge we choose to pursue or preserve (e.g., scientific experiments, cultural traditions)? | Gerald DP1.1A

2024-11-15 07:19:01 UTC

Ethical considerations shape what knowledge we choose to pursue or preserve because it influences the actions that we take as an individual. For example, if we think that sending a dog to space in a hustled pod is fine, then it will lead us to us doing such action without properly considering the safety and health of the dog like Laika. However, if we think that such action is unethically irresponsible, then our conscience will hold us back from doing such actions.

Ethics Task Option 2 - Cathleen and Yao

2024-11-15 07:21:52 UTC

In the moral machine, we were surprised to see that the both of us saved more cats by sacrificing humans. This revealed a lot about our own ethical beliefs as it reflects our unconscious bias towards animals. Ironically, we have more sympathy towards animals than our fellow human beings. It also gave us a gender preference which I think was not right. It was very inaccurate as we would randomly choose who to kill in some situations. Additionally, we saw that we have a bias to kill off older people instead of the younger ones. This could be due to the belief that the kids and younger people still have a lot of things that they could experience in the future. Compare this to the old people who have already experienced a lot. However, if faced with a similar situation in real life, we would not make the same choices. The situation in this moral machine is unrealistic. If this happened in real life, we would stop the car in order to save every creature.

Option 2, Question 3

2024-11-15 07:21:53 UTC

All of the scenarios within that moral machine reflection made me go into both an ethical and a moral dilemma. Why? In this case we weren't able to save people. We were forced to choose who to save based on their age, and overall backgrounds. I questioned everything because all in all, killing is a bad thing, and the fact that I had to choose which one to spare, it was really hard. Should people die for breaking rules?

Option 1 Question 3 (Joel S)

2024-11-15 07:23:14 UTC

There is indeed a moral obligation to revisit and potentially discard cultural artifacts or scientific practices if they are rooted in unethical or harmful histories. Societies evolve, and so do ethical standards. Practices or artifacts tied to exploitation, discrimination, or injustice can perpetuate harm or inequality if not reconsidered. By re-examining these legacies, society acknowledges past wrongs, learns from them, and ensures current practices and values reflect principles of respect, equity, and justice.

Sally Option 1

2024-11-15 07:23:37 UTC

Sally:

Question 1:

Laika's story had a lot of controversies surrounding the dog's rights to live. Some people do not find it ethically wrong because they underestimate the life of a dog. When people have this mindset, they choose to pursue and preserve the normalization of intentionally killing animals in science experiments merely because "animals have less of a worth than human being". Therefore, people's thoughts on what is ethically right or wrong can influence and shape what they deem as a normalized knowledge.