April 8th post by Thomas Luminoso

In the assigned reading there were many questions of moral decision-making. Many of the religious laws that were stated were stated very plainly as to the rules you must follow in order to be a good person. I found that the Religious law was quite far from say, something like virtue ethics and the golden mean. That’s because something like the golden mean tells you that there is more leniency and balance with your moral decision making while the Bible tends to be cut and dry with what is right and wrong. For this reason I find Biblical morals to function more like duty based moral, where you have a set of rules that you are suppose to follow and if you don’t you are sinning. A very clear example of this is Exodus 20:1, which states the Ten Commandments. The commandments are very clearly stated as to how you are suppose to act, for example, “ You shall have no other God before me”. This is very clearly stated; there is really no way to manipulate the rule in any way. What I do find to be interesting is that people who read the bible tend to read it many different ways. Some read the text with a more “Golden mean” way of thinking. For example, one might say that a child stealing candy from a candy store isn’t that same thing as someone robbing a bank and therefore one is more of a sin than the other. Others may interpret this rule as more plain writing and follow it as stated with no leniency in practice.

An example of a more utilitarian form of ethics can also be found within one of the assigned Bible readings. In the story of the Pharaoh telling the midwives to kill all of the baby Hebrew boys the midwives decide that it was best for the most number of people to not kill the babies. They follow a more duty-based form of ethics because they aren’t doing it because of their duty to Religious Law. However, they are also doing it because they want to help the people around them. Even though them saving the boys were going against the laws of the Pharaoh they decided to follow their own moral code.

From what I’ve concluded from these readings the Bible tends to display duty based moral code based off of religious law. However, the writing itself can be related and used by looking at it from different moral codes such as Utilitarianism and Virtue ethics, as I had mentioned above.

Biblical Texts

The different passages in the assigned Bible reading each display different forms of ethical arguments on how we should decide what is morally right. As each of them are in the Bible, any believer could be backed up in how they choose to make moral decisions. The articles gave us different ways to think about why we choose the ethical patterns we do, whether based on virtues, duties, or consequences.

In Matthew 5:17-48, virtue ethics are represented through the reasons behind our actions as humans. As explained in the article, Jesus taught us not to do wrong based on what was in our hearts. It seems to be a set of teachings that should guide us in what we should think about an action before doing it.

Exodus 20:1-17 reinforces duty-based ethics. The "external source of authority," as the article describes it, lays down rules and guidelines by which we should direct our lives. It is meant to instill a sense of obligation which we can use to judge our moral character and decisions. It reminds me of the common phrase, "What Would Jesus Do?" (although the passage took place before His birth.) If it's set for us in the Ten Commandments, we can remind ourselves of how to behave based on what God has commanded of us.

I find the difficulty of consequentialism for Biblical scholars particularly interesting. Although I've argued that consequentialism seems the most logical way to decide moral decisions, I myself tend to see things more black and white, based on a virtue ethics point of view. The way our online reading discussed Exodus 1:8-22 was especially enlightening to me. I've tended to be of the belief that the way you look at a situation can change whether one's actions were morally right. The Pharaoh would have seen the midwives' actions as wrong, because they disobeyed their external source of authority. A virtue-based ethics opinion could either see their lying as wrong, or their obedience to God as right. A consequentialist would see their actions as right because the end results justified the means of getting there.

Romans 7:14-25, finally, resonates with me the most, as I'm sure it does other readers. What the article described as the internal struggle of our own morality is something that each of us deal with. We long to lead upright lives, and are disappointed in ourselves when we do not live up to expectations, either set by us or by God. It's another interesting aspect to the moral debate when we think about how aware we are of our own limitations and downfalls.

The final article, "The Hebrew Women are not like the Egyptian Women," cast some light on the strength of the women in Exodus 1:8-22. Their fear and respect of God was greater than their fear and respect of the Pharaoh. They were brave in their actions and obedient to God, and for all of this they were rewarded. Although this passage can back up consequentialism, as I discussed above, it also shows that their personal motivations behind their actions was rooted in their hearts, and therefore also backs up virtue-based ethics.

The readings this week were particularly interesting in showing how different Bible passages make arguments for different classic categories of ethics. They each have their logic and foundations, and it definitely depends on each person and their situation in life to determine how they choose to decide what is morally right.

Biblical Passages for Normative Ethics

For this week’s reading, four passages from the Bible were read to evaluate normative ethics.

The first passage was from Matthew 5:17-48, and it was Jesus speaking to a crowd of people going through the Ten Commandments. Jesus was trying to get us, as listeners/ readers, to reinterpret the Ten Commandments. As I was reading through this, I felt like Jesus was trying to get across that no sin is greater or lesser than the other. He wanted us to realize that even ‘internal sins’ are just as bad as violent external crimes. This relates to normative ethics because Jesus is describing how we ought to act. This particular passage begins with duty-based ethics, and then goes into virtue ethics. When he begins saying one of the Ten Commandments, for example Do Not Murder, he says yes, murder is bad, but it goes beyond that. This is when he discusses virtue ethics because he is talking about how our internal sins reflect our character. In virtue ethics, there are specific traits that can be used to describe a good character, and Jesus is using the Ten Commandments to describe these traits.

The next passage lists the Ten Commands again, but it is very straight forward. This passage falls under the duty based ethic category of normative ethics. All of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses to tell his people are listed out in very simple sentences, with no exceptions. This is duty based ethics because a higher authority is telling us to obey them and there is no way around disobeying them.

Exodus 20:8-22 was the next passage that was read. Pharaoh saw that the Israelites were increasing in number and would soon overpower his own forces. In Pharaoh’s mind, the best way to solve this problem was to turn the Israelites into slaves, and suppress them. The end result of this would be that his crown would be saved, the land would still be his, and his Egyptian people would also be saved. This is consequentialist ethics because the end result favored all Egyptians and the Pharaoh, which is the Pharaoh’s mind was a good end result. This plan was not working well enough, so Pharaoh ordered that all Hebrew boys that were born must be thrown into the Nile. These midwives did not obey the Pharaoh yet instead they obeyed the Ten Commandments, which said Do Not Murder. This viewpoint of the passage is duty- based ethics. It can also be interpreted as the midwives knew that the end result would be more beneficial if they obeyed God and not the Pharaoh. This viewpoint is consequentialist ethics.

The last passage that was read was Romans 7:14-25, and it describes our sinful human nature. This passage just falls under normative ethics in general, which is defines as how humans ought to act. Within all of us is a sinful nature, meaning we really cannot decide to do good on our own. If you are wanting to be good and wanting to be more like Jesus, then we begin to fight our own human nature. Only God can help us conquer this sinful driving force within all of us, and he can help us act more and more like Jesus. This passage really describes the internal moral struggle that we all face.

Source Code

This week, the Source Code was watched to help us learn more about normative ethics. Captain Colter Stevens was killed while flying a helicopter in Afghanistan, but his brain and part of his body was saved for the purpose of Source Code. Source Code was created to be a way to perform time reassignment, and they put their resources to use to evaluate a horrible train crash that was caused by a bomb. Colleen Goodwin was the one instructing Stevens through his eight minute missions back into the train as Sean, a man who was killed because of this crash. They were able to revisit the crash over and over again to hopefully prevent the future arrack.

The main character, Stevens, was at first just concerned with himself. He wanted to know why he was there and what happened with his men from Afghanistan. He was even using the eight minutes in the train to research who source code was and what happened to him. As he learned more and more information about himself, he finally began thinking of others. He tried many times to find out who the bomber was or even to just try and save one person, Christina. Because of Stevens behaviors, I would say that his attitude towards this situation changed after time which in turn changed his ethics. In the beginning, when he was concerned with himself, he was displaying ethical egoism. This is a type of consequentialist ethical standpoint were the action is good if it only benefits the one acting. So Stevens was only doing things to benefit himself in the beginning and he wasn’t thinking of the other people. When Stevens’ behaviors changed, he was displaying another form of consequentialist ethics; Stevens was displaying ethical altruism. Ethical altruism is when everyone except the one acting benefits, and that’s exactly what Stevens wanted. He wanted to try as hard as he could to save the people on the train as well as other people from a future attack. After that he wanted his life support to be turned off, and he didn’t ask for any recognition for his actions.

Another main character was Dr. Rutledge, the one who was in charge of Source Code. He displayed utilitarianism, which is another form of consequential ethics. He wanted the sum of his actions to be good, so he still did things that were wrong but the good actions outweighed them. I think Dr. Rutledge wanted to help fight terrorism, but he also wanted to make a name for himself. He began to use Stevens as just another piece of equipment in his lab, but in his mind it would help even more people than just the one he was harming.

Lastly, Goodwin displayed duty-based ethics in the beginning. She would just listen to everything that Dr. Rutledge told her to do in regards to Stevens. She would always make sure with Dr. Rutledge that Stevens could know the information she wanted to give him, or that it was okay to continuously put him back into the train. But after a while, Goodwin began to feel bad for Stevens and she went against her boss, Dr. Rutledge, to help Stevens. She realized that Stevens was a human, just like her, and not another piece of equipment like how Dr. Rutledge viewed him. In the end, I think that both Goodwin and Stevens did the right thing.

March 31st, 2016 source code

            The complications of moral decision making is a major theme in the development of our characters. This makes for a moral paradox due the ambiguous nature of what is right or wrong. What it seems to come down to in this film is whether the value of one human life is more important than the life of millions.  Through the rationalization of each individual we can see different representation of normative ethics.

            When looking at Captain Colter Stevens as a character, you could say that he mostly represents Ethnic Altruism; which is a form of consequentialism, which says that any action to benefit you is wrong and any action to benefit others is right. This fits his character the most because even though he knows that he wont be benefiting at all personally in letting them use his body, he decides to help them find the bomber anyway. When looking at Colleen as a character you seem more of the instability in the more decision making, it becomes more complicated. For her she must rationalize whether the deceiving of Captain Stevens is worth saving all those lives. She does follow through with deceiving Captain Stevens, which means she falls more in the category of Utilitarianism, which is Kant’s theory that we should do what is best for the most amounts of people. Even though Captain Stevens will continue to have to use his body without his knowledge, she would be saving many lives. Even when looking at more morally ambiguous character such as Dr.Rutledge, he can justify his actions through normative ethics. More specifically he fits into the mold of Ethical egoism. This is the theory that an act is morally right if the total good of any action is favorable towards the agent of the act.  In Dr.Rutledge’s case he fits this criteria in that if the program shows good results then he will get recognition for his program, which we can tell to be of ultimate concern based of his choice to not tell Captain Stevens that they were going to wipe his mind and restart it again instead of letting him die. While Colleen justified this action because it helped the most amounts of people, Dr, Rutledge justified it due to the personal reward that it will bring him. Even though they both produced the same end result.

What can then be concluded by this movie is that the end result of any given moral decision can produce the same result using different normative ethics. They each used the same category of consequentialism but had different focuses in their moral code. Captain Stevens used Ethnic altruism, Colleen used Utilitarianism, and Dr.Rutledge used ethnical egoism. We can also conclude that some of them don’t really line up with our on individual values based of the disproval of certain characters.

Source Code

The film Source Code argues that we don’t have to right to make decisions for others.  What is real or morally right for some people is not necessarily the same for others.  The different characters in the movie display different forms of normative ethics, and while they each believe that their actions are morally right, their motivation behind the actions is what defines the ethics of each.

Captain Colter Stevens chooses to do what is best for others, even if it kills him.  Throughout the movie he trusted his instincts, and used his intuition to save himself, the train passengers, and the rest of Chicago.  His character embodies the protagonist set of morals in the storyline.  In this film, that appears to be consequentialist ethics.  There is a strong “the end justifies the means” mentality present throughout.  Because Colter was right, and people lived, the means to get there were seen as acceptable.  If the outcome had been different, we may have agreed more with Rutledge’s views.

Another interesting aspect of Colter’s motivation was his growth throughout the film.  In the beginning, he wanted to know about himself, his body, his life, his father, etc.  As he grew to know the people on the train, he cared about them, and was willing to give up his life in order to save all of them.

There is also the question of free will and the free sharing of information, which ties back into our first perennial question.  We are meant to believe that Colter should be given information about his state of life.  Because we (the audience) are in Colter’s shoes, we see from his perspective, and want to know more information ourselves.  Goodwin clearly agrees with this ideology.

Goodwin believed that the lives of the many outweigh the life of one.  Although Colter and Rutledge shared this ideal, it was for different reasons.  She strongly resonated with Colter’s values, and worked with him at the potential expense of his life in order to make sure that others would survive, and that he would be honored in his last wishes.  By the end of the film, she was less like Rutledge and more like Colter.

Rutledge is somewhat seen as the antagonist, although in many other scenarios we would not see him as such.  After all, his goal is to save lives.  However, in the process of doing so he belittled Colter’s need for knowledge of his condition and respect for his wishes.  His motivations were more selfish: he was willing to use a broken man as a tool and a weapon.  The payout was his brainchild, the Source Code, getting funding and being exalted himself as a genius.

Rutledge’s morals were surface-level for the right reason: ending terrorism, saving lives, etc.  But his true intentions were focused on the success of Source Code.  In our group meeting, we discussed how he treated Captain Stevens as an object in the war against terrorism.  He didn’t respect his wishes or his belief that he could save the train passengers.  Goodwin may have been like this in the beginning, but by the end she had realized what she believed was morally right, and risked her job for the good of Stevens, just as he risked his life for the passengers.

Christina was an intriguing character, the only one of the main cast who was unaware of Source Code and Colter’s actual intentions while on the train.  She is relatable to us, seen as “normal,” and yet retained her kindness, intelligence, and honesty, even in the midst of the craziness surrounding the potential bombing of the train, and even in the midst of her being kept in the dark of what Colter was doing.

The article made several good points in the balance of what was morally right, when it asked, “Is it morally justified to lie to Colter and keep him alive so you could use him on other missions that possibly could save millions of lives… Is it better to respect the dignity of one person and let him die or is it better to use the person against his will so that his life could help millions of others?”  This is the main conflict throughout the film, and though either option is admirable, each has its flaws as well.  I believe they could have easily switched places had Rutledge been the main character.  Ethics are definitely all about one’s perspective on the given situation.

Another important conflict was whether the “alternate timeline” was actually alternate, or if the “time reassignment” could actually change the past.  Although they were all fighting for the same cause, what Colter believed was right (saving himself and the train along with Chicago), Rutledge believed was impossible.  He thought Colter would die and Source Code couldn’t be used to save future people).  There’s also the moral question of what happened to the real Sean Fentress.  These are discussed less so than some of the major conflicts of the film, but each one contains a balance of options, each with its own pros and cons.  This reinforces my belief that one’s moral values heavily rely on their perspective of the situation.

Group Meeting #4