Lessons: Ethical thinking through debate
Applying ethical frameworks is one thing...
.... getting to know what you truly think as an individual and be able to verbalise why you think that, contributes hugely to having a voice and the confidence to express it. Practically, within the reflective project, students not only have to be able to apply ethical thinking to evaluate different perspectives on an ethical dilemma in a balanced way; they also need to be articulate their own voice in the main project and express how their thinking has been challenged and changed in the RPPF.
Aim: Through debate of an ethical dilemma, students vocalise their instinctive course of action and reflect on the ethical dimension of different class responses.
This group of lessons allows students to explore different ethical frameworks and consider what they really think. Maybe they will discover they lean towards a pragmatic approach when considering ethical issues? Or maybe they lean towards thinking the end always justifies the means?
Step 1: Exploring Utilitarianism with the Trolley dilemma
a) Introduce the Trolley problem by playing just the first minute of this video. Establish explicitly how this is an ethical dilemma: the CLASH of ethical principles where there is no clear solution.
b) Ask students to write down instinctively how they would act on a piece of paper (this can be anonymous) and hand in.
c) Depending on the group size and dynamic, ask students to discuss in pairs or small groups what they would do.
d) Use the last 3 minutes in reflection of your debate and pause as appropriate to check understanding and thoughts with students.
e) Ask the students to reflect in their RRS of how their understanding has developed; did their decision stay the same throughout or did they change it as the problem developed? As you explore more ethical dilemmas, you can revisit this and students can reflect how their thinking has changed.
In addition to the video above, this is another video from Dr. Todd May, that explores the ethical dilemmas in the comedy 'The Good Place'; here specifically utilitarianism and the trolley dilemma which the four characters come across. As said above, one of the characteristics of being in heaven is the inability to swear and words are immediately altered to something much tamer and nonsensical. There are further sources below that explore the trolley dilemma as well.
Step 2: Group work - Applying the frameworks to the scenario
Exploring understanding of key ethical frameworks;
The Trolley problem
- What questions would be asked from a teleological, deontological or consequentialist perspective?
- What course of action might this lead to?
Teacher's notes on possible responses
Examples of questions posed might be:
Virtue ethics: What do I want? How should I be? What does my character tell me to do? What is good for me?
Deontological: What is the right action? What does reason and moral law tell me is the right thing to do? Are my motives good?
Consequentialist (utilitarian): What would be the best outcome? What would be the best for the most number of people? What would be best for the good of society?
Situation ethics: In this situation, what does my love of God and of people tell me to do? What will be the moral consequence
of my action/s?
Identifying ethical dilemmas
Case studies: teaching notes
Debates to consider
Consider 'The 10 biggest moral dilemmas in science' from the New Scientist and apply the process explored above. The purpose of this exercise is for students to acknowledge a gut instinct before explicitly acknowledging that there will be other points of view to be open-minded about irrespective of whether one agrees.
(Depending on your context, do apply caution on appropriate topics and remember that these resources are built with a global outlook and respect for diverse cultural outlooks).
For each question, map out a brief response using this routine. This is intended to be given very much a surface treatment. Below you will find explained the Harvard Project Zero thinking routine in more detail but the gist is here.
1. First glance: What was the first impression you had about this?
2. Perspective Taking: From what other points of view could this be perceived? What would one say from those points of view?
3. Same and Different: What are the similarities? Differences? How is this case the same and different at the same time?'
Should we impose population controls? Should we edit our children's genomes?
Should we give other animals rights? Should we abandon privacy online?
Should we stop science? Should we colonise other planets?
Thinking routines to promote ethical thinking and debate
Students can have it drilled into them that they must question what they see but they do not necessarily know how to ask questions or what questions are worth asking. The key to thinking routines such as these below, attributed to and adapted from Harvard Project Zero, and why they work so well is that it is never presumed that the student knows what questions to ask. Most importantly is to remember the word 'routine' - these are habits of mind, to be visited often so the structure becomes a familiar process. With this familiarity, comes confidence, clarity of communication and enhanced critical thinking.
Same and Different
This is a Harvard Project Zero thinking routine that helps students go beyond superficial observations of similarities and differences. It is an excellent routine to carry out for students to appreciate that ethical dimensions, issues and dilemmas are not black and white or contain polar opposites: often the truth is murky and grey with subtleties and degrees of difference.
'Choose a debate, incident or object in which opposing views are clearly apparent or images that look different but are grouped together.
1. First glance: What was the first impression you had about this?
2. Perspective Taking: From what other points of view could this be perceived? What would one say from those points of view?
3. Same and Different: What are the similarities? Differences? How is this case the same and different at the same time?'
Varying the activity
1. As a whole class activity, especially with a bigger class size, once the thinking routine has been established, different groups can be given a specific and relevant stakeholder from the initial prompt, to develop and research further. The evaluation of similarities and differences can be done as a whole class where their responses to stage 3 above can be expanded upon and more and more complexities developed.
2. On an individual level, students can carry out this activity when using a specific article they are utilising for the ethical issue they are researching. The identification of specific stakeholders, visibly recording the different points of view and recording similarities and differences should be a habitual part of their research process. Students might consider recording their ideas in a venn diagram to help them visualise this process.