- Messages
- 1,117
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 404
- #1
Thread Owner
So, a couple weeks ago, I wrote an ethics paper on "Virtue Ethics" system of decision making.
Basically, what this system tell us is to think of the pros and cons of each possible outcome (1 being I dont tell the teacher of the suspected error, or 2 I tell the teacher i suspect an error is made), then choose the outcome which will negatively effect the least amount of people in the long run.
An example of this would be back in the time of World War II, Sir Winston Churchill who was the Prime Minister of the United Kindom was faced with a huge ethical decision.
His team managed to "crack" the Nazi code that was being broadcast to Nazi forces across Europe. By cracking this code, Churchill was able to decipher their message, and foil their plans. Now, should Churchill make this public that he knew about their code? What would be the longterm effects?
While deciphering their first code, Churchill learned of a planned Nazi attack on a small UK town. It had a few thousand inhabitants and was peaceful. The Nazi's were planning on invading this town as an entranceway into the UK. Churchill had to options; the first would be to use this new found knowledge and prevent the attack, which the Nazi party would then know their code had been cracked, OR Churchill could allow the invasion to happen as if he didnt know anything, and continue deciphering messages that could prove to aid in ending the war.
History tells us that Churchill let the attack happen. Many lives were lost and it was a large hit for the UK. However, the Allies still had the upperhand advantage in being able to decipher the NAzi's messages without their knowledge. Many historians claim that this decision saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run, and ended the war sooner than anticipated, all because the Allies were able to stop major Axis attacks before they happend. Yes, thousands of lives were lost in order to maintain secrecy about the code deciphering, but many more lives were spared because of this decision. I am sure many would agree, Churchill made the right and "Ethical" decision.
NOW, onto my issue...
I submitted my research paper and Churchill was a key player in my writing. WHen i went to check my grade on my paper today, i was shocked to see my mark of 27/15 for it. Right away I thought this must be a mistake and I began using "Ethical Thinking" skills learned from this course.
I immediately sent an e-mail to my professor explaining why I thought this was an error, and even used my knowledge from the research paper to back up why I made this decision. It was just another opportunity to prove I did the work, and I know the material. I havent heard a response from the professor yet, but I am eagerly awaiting...
My two options were; email the professor about the error and risk losing some of the marks, or keep it a secret and hope nobody finds out and possibly face harsher consequences down the road.
What would you have picked? I sent the email. Would you have done the same?
Basically, what this system tell us is to think of the pros and cons of each possible outcome (1 being I dont tell the teacher of the suspected error, or 2 I tell the teacher i suspect an error is made), then choose the outcome which will negatively effect the least amount of people in the long run.
An example of this would be back in the time of World War II, Sir Winston Churchill who was the Prime Minister of the United Kindom was faced with a huge ethical decision.
His team managed to "crack" the Nazi code that was being broadcast to Nazi forces across Europe. By cracking this code, Churchill was able to decipher their message, and foil their plans. Now, should Churchill make this public that he knew about their code? What would be the longterm effects?
While deciphering their first code, Churchill learned of a planned Nazi attack on a small UK town. It had a few thousand inhabitants and was peaceful. The Nazi's were planning on invading this town as an entranceway into the UK. Churchill had to options; the first would be to use this new found knowledge and prevent the attack, which the Nazi party would then know their code had been cracked, OR Churchill could allow the invasion to happen as if he didnt know anything, and continue deciphering messages that could prove to aid in ending the war.
History tells us that Churchill let the attack happen. Many lives were lost and it was a large hit for the UK. However, the Allies still had the upperhand advantage in being able to decipher the NAzi's messages without their knowledge. Many historians claim that this decision saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run, and ended the war sooner than anticipated, all because the Allies were able to stop major Axis attacks before they happend. Yes, thousands of lives were lost in order to maintain secrecy about the code deciphering, but many more lives were spared because of this decision. I am sure many would agree, Churchill made the right and "Ethical" decision.
NOW, onto my issue...
I submitted my research paper and Churchill was a key player in my writing. WHen i went to check my grade on my paper today, i was shocked to see my mark of 27/15 for it. Right away I thought this must be a mistake and I began using "Ethical Thinking" skills learned from this course.
I immediately sent an e-mail to my professor explaining why I thought this was an error, and even used my knowledge from the research paper to back up why I made this decision. It was just another opportunity to prove I did the work, and I know the material. I havent heard a response from the professor yet, but I am eagerly awaiting...
My two options were; email the professor about the error and risk losing some of the marks, or keep it a secret and hope nobody finds out and possibly face harsher consequences down the road.
What would you have picked? I sent the email. Would you have done the same?
