Discussion Questions (Two Parts)
Part I: Select one of the following questions to answer
1) How might reasoning processes be used to achieve unethical goals? What examples of this have you witnessed in your personal or professional lives?
2) Paul and Elder (2012) argue that ethical values are universal in nature. Why? Do you agree with their assessment here?
3) How do you assess religious ideals as a source of value and ethics? How would Salin, Saiful, Manan, Khadijah, Kamaluddin, & Nawawi (2017) argue for specific types of religious ethics as a means to think critically? Why might Norenzayan (2014) challenge their thinking?
Part II: Read and critique the Final Portfolio Outline of at least two peers.
What suggestions do you have to clarify the topic?
Using the principle of charity, what missing premises or necessary ideas can you spot in their outline?
What academic sources can you provide to help in expanding their critical reasoning?
Requirements for Discussion Boards
Use the required readings to analyze and engage the discussion board questions.
Your initial post should be roughly 200 words (plus or minus 10%). Each subsequent post should be 100 words (plus or minus 10%).
Include one or two scholarly sources that are not required or recommended for the HUM 101 course. The CSU-Global Library (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. is a good place to find these sources.
Format your discussion, including all in-text citations and references, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing & APA (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Each discussion board post (including follow-up posts) should include scholarly citations and references.
Paul and Elder (2012) argue that ethical values are universal in nature. Why? Do you agree with their assessment here?
According to Elder and Paul (2012), ethical values are universal. For any value to be regarded as being universal, it has to have the same worth or equal value across the world or at least for almost every person in the world. The value has to be worth across all the spheres of human life, including human preference, morality, traits of human beings, human work, and social order. When all the people in the world, or a majority of people, find a value important and valuable or when all people have enough reason to believe that it has value, then the value can be regarded as universal. Elder and Paul (2012) believe these definitions to be true for ethical values, hence they state that they are universal. I agree with this statement since a majority of people in the world find ethical values important and necessary. Isaiah Berlin defined universal values as “…values that a great many human beings in the vast majority of places and situations, at almost all times, do in fact hold in common, whether consciously and explicitly or as expressed in their behaviour…”(Cherniss & Hardy, 2004).
Schwartz (2005) conducted a review of research on corporate codes of ethics and came up with a set of universal moral values after consideration of corporate code of ethics, global code of ethics, and business ethics literature: respect, trustworthiness, responsibility, caring, fairness, and citizenship. This research supported the claim by Elder and Paul (2012) that ethical values such as trustworthiness, respect, and responsibility are universal in nature. These values were all identified in the three types of sources reviewed in the research by Schwartz (2005).
Cherniss, J., & Hardy, H. (2004). Isaiah Berlin.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Critical Thinking: Competency Standards Essential to the Cultivation of Intellectual Skills, Part 4. Journal of Developmental Education, 35(3), 30-31.
Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Journal of Business Ethics (Issue 1-2 ed., Vol. 59). Kluwer Academic. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3403-2