n the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a “symposium” was a banquet held after a meal, an “after party” of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals and engaging conversations on the topics of the day.
For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks.
It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand or evaluate the issue.
This week, you will consider how virtue ethics applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a virtue ethics approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way a virtue ethicist would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation
Would you target enemies for assassination, if it meant there would be innocent civilian casualties?
The Gatekeepers is a documentary film about the Israeli state intelligence security service. It was difficult to pick out a single moral hazard in this film (which is chock full of them), but one that stands out is the planned bombing of a Hezbollah leadership meeting in Lebanon. The Israelis knew that a large number of their enemy would be gathered together in a single location, and that this was an ideal opportunity to take out many individuals at once. The Israelis knew the location of the building, but they did not know what floor of the building the men they were after would be meeting on.
For instance, if the targeted men were to meet on the bottom floor, then the Israelis would have to use a super sized bomb, one that would likely cause extensive civilian casualties in the surrounding area. However, if they used a smaller munition bomb, they could ensure no civilian deaths, but they would only be able to kill their targets if the targets happened to meet on the top floor of the building.
The Ethical Dilemma: You’re targeting your enemies to be killed. To ensure they are taken out, you have to use a bomb size which increases the possibility of civilian casualties. You can ensure no civilian casualties, but you will not be guaranteed to take out all of your enemy.
How would Virtue Ethics apply to this issue?
Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Bridgepoint Education.
