Select a controversial issue of your choice (the world is your oyster… anything that people might reasonably… or not? debate). How might people’s differing ethical evaluations be understood or explained? And how might interdisciplinary analysis help us understand and untangle these differences?
According to your book, people tend to make ethical decisions based on one or more of the following:
“They can perform consequential analysis, asking whether the act benefits the world more than it hurts it. (People might, of course, disagree about the likely consequences of an act, but then we can apply interdisciplinary strategies to try to achieve greater consensus about likely effects.)
They can follow certain rules, such as the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated in their position), or adherence to certain rights.
They can celebrate certain virtues, such as honesty or courage, and act always in accord with these
They can do what their intuition tells them, avoiding acts that make them feel guilty
They can follow tradition, doing what members of their group(s) do in such situations.”
