Case Studies: Ethical dynamism and Critical thinking

Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude Case Studies

Introduction

In ethics, case studies have always been a subject to multiple interpretations with sometimes reasonable or even overlapping justification. Moreover, given in a sequential manner sometimes they force the aspirant to take completely opposite ethical stands in consecutive case studies. Further, a particular justification works in one situation but with contextual variation, its existence is challenged. How to deal with this, is a question of ethical dynamism and the critical thinking it demands.

Issue of Ethical dynamism

Modern societies are rapidly changing societies, and their moralities are rapidly changing as well. Thus, dynamism is a nature of ethics, yet it is essential to have a sound framework of ethical reasoning.
The introduction of new medical technology, the creation of the Internet, and the globalization of our economies have confronted us with many new moral problems and challenges. Similar problems and challenges may be expected to arise in the next fifty years.
Observations such as these are standard in ethics textbooks and articles by moral philosophers. However, ethical theorists have so far little reflected on the increasingly dynamic character of our morality as such.
Whenever this is mentioned, it is usually regarded as an argument for our need of ethical reflection on new problems and, therefore, for the inclusion of ethics in every curriculum.
Whenever it is addressed more explicitly, it is usually presented as an example of the problem of moral pluralism in modern societies.
Yet, there are some specific problems and challenges that the dynamic character of our society and our morality poses to moral philosophy as well as to moral thinking in general.
How can we learn to adapt and develop continuously our moral views and ethical theories?

Building Critical Thinking

Thus, it is essential to device certain logics that promote critical thinking and help with development of solid grounding before a justification can be given for an ethical choice.
Given below, an ethical framework is being devised in the form of some questions which one can ask oneself before taking an ethical decision out of the given scenarios.

The Right Questions to ask	Critical Question Summary
What are the issues and the conclusions?	Before you can evaluate an author’s argument, you must clearly identify the issue and the conclusion. How can you evaluate an argument if you don’t know exactly what the author is trying to persuade you to believe? Finding an author’s main point is the first step in deciding whether you will accept or reject it.
What are the reasons?	Once you have identified the issue and the conclusion, you need to understand why an author has come to a certain conclusion. Reasons are the why. If the author provides good reasons, you might be persuaded to accept her conclusion. However, right now, we are simply concerned with identifying the reasons. Identifying reasons is the next step in deciding whether you should accept or reject the author’s conclusion.
Which words or phrases are ambiguous?	Once you have identified the author’s argument, you need to identify key words or phrases within that reasoning that might have alternative meanings. More importantly, you need to determine whether the author explicitly uses one of those definitions. If she does not, and if one of those meanings alters your acceptance of the conclusion, you have indentified an important ambiguity. Identifying ambiguous words and phrases is the next important step in determining whether you will reject or accept the conclusion.
What are the value and descriptive assumptions?	When you identify assumptions, you are identifying the link between a reason and the author’s conclusion as well as ideas that must be taken for granted for certain reasons to be believable. If the linkage assumptions are flawed, the reasons do not necessarily lead to the conclusion. Consequently, identifying the assumptions allows you to determine whether an author’s reasons lead successfully to a conclusion. You will want to accept a conclusion only when there are reasons that are trustworthy and logically lead to the conclusion. Thus, when you determine that the link between the reasons and conclusion is flawed, you should be reluctant to accept the author’s conclusion.
Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?	Once you have identified the reasons, you will want to determine whether the author used any reasoning tricks or fallacies. If you identify a fallacy in reasoning, that reason does not provide good support for the conclusion.
How good is the evidence?	When an author offers a reason in support of a conclusion, you want to know why you should believe that reason. By identifying the evidence offered in support of a reason, you are taking another step in evaluating the worth of the reason. If the evidence that supports the reason is good, the reason better supports the conclusion. Thus, you might be more willing to accept the author’s conclusion if the author offers good evidence in support of a reason, which in turn provides good support for the conclusion.
Are there rival causes?	While an author might offer an explanation for why certain events occurred, other explanations might be plausible. When you try to identify rival causes, you are finding alternative explanations for an event. If you can identify alternative explanations, you must decide whether you should believe the author’s explanation or one of the other explanations. If the author does not provide reasons for why you should accept her explanation over other explanations, you should not be willing to accept her explanation, and, ultimately, her conclusion. Thus, looking for rival causes is another step in deciding whether to accept or reject an argument.
Are the statistics deceptive?	Authors often provide statistics to support their reasoning. [In fact, 9 out of 10 do…just seeing if you are paying attention.] The statistics appear to be hard evidence. However, there are many ways that statistics can be misused Because problematic statistics are used frequently, it is important to identify any problems with the statistics so that you can more carefully determine whether you will accept or reject the author’s conclusion.
What significant information is omitted?	When an author is trying to persuade you of something, she often leaves out important information. This information is often useful in assessing the worth of the conclusion. By explicitly looking for omitted information, you can determine whether the author has provided you with enough information to support the reasoning. If she has left out too much information, you cannot accept the reasons as support for the conclusion. Consequently, you should choose to reject her conclusion.
What reasonable conclusions are possible?	When you are deciding whether to accept or reject an author’s conclusion, you want to make sure that the author has come to the most reasonable conclusion. An author often oversteps his reasoning when he comes to a conclusion. By identifying alternative reasonable conclusions, you can determine which alternative conclusions, if any, you would be willing to accept in place of the author’s conclusion. This step is the final tool in deciding whether to accept or reject the author’s conclusion.