Week 4 – Discussion 2-Social Science homework task

Week 4 – Discussion 2-Social Science homework task

Number of Pages: 2 (Double Spaced)

Number of sources: 2

Writing Style: APA

Type of document: Essay

Academic Level:Undergraduate

Category: Sociology

Language Style: English (U.S.)

Order Instructions: Attached

Week 4 – Discussion 2

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

If you are having trouble starting this video, please access it here.

Video transcript can be accessed herePreview the document.

In 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.

You must post on at least two separate days, must include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words.

Your instructor may include additional requirements, so be sure to pay attention to the prompt.

This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 3% of your final grade.

Ashford University | PHI208 SYMPOSIUM

As mentioned in the week 1 video, weeks 2, 3, and 4 will have a symposium discussion. The word “symposium” is a Greek word that refers to 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. The word also happens to be the title of the classic text by Plato, whose work you read last week. As you can probably guess, that work features a group of men who take the idea of engaging conversation to a whole new level and practically compete against one another in a sport of wit and words.

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 impossible these days to turn on the news or log on to social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these symposiums, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and any resources associated with it. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand, or evaluate the issue.

https://ashford.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/PHI+208+Resources/0_47h5zryy

Technology, Privacy and the Flourishing Modern Life

This week, we are going to be considering the role and function of technological devices in our modern lives, and how the Aristotelian concept of flourishing might be brought to bear on this.

We will be considering a specific device (the plans for which have been discontinued) called ‘Aristotle’. It was an interactive tech device that was designed for children, but discontinued amid privacy concerns.

For the symposium, I want you all to refrain from presenting your own personal views, but rather to apply the perspective of Aristotelian virtue ethics to this issue.

Please begin by reading the following article from the Washington Post : Link (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

This symposium 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 an Aristotelian 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 how Aristotle might approach the issue of the increasing role of technology (especially interactive technology for children, as with the example) and how this would enhance or impede our striving for an excellent / flourishing life.

Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way an Aristotelian virtue ethicist would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach. In addition to this, here are some possible other questions to consider:

Would different virtue ethicists disagree about how to act here? Why or why not?

Would the virtue ethics theory encounter contradictions or ambiguities in applying its model to this situation? What might those contradictions or ambiguities be?

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.

You must post on at least two separate days, must include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words.

POST LINK TO READ:

Mattel has canceled plans for a kid-focused AI device that drew privacy concerns

Hayley Tsukayama

Aristotle, a smart-home hub aimed specifically at kids, made by Mattel’s Nabi brand. (Nabi)

This post has been updated.

Mattel said Wednesday that it will not move forward with plans to sell a kid-focused smart hub after new executives decided it did not “fully align with Mattel’s new technology strategy,” according to a company statement. Children’s health and privacy advocates this week petitioned the toy giant not to release the device, which they argued gave the firm an unprecedented look into the personal lives of children.

In a statement, Mattel said that it had decided internally not to take the product to market after a new chief technology officer, Sven Gerjets, joined the company in July. Gerjets, Mattel said, reviewed the product and decided “not to bring Aristotle to the marketplace as part of an ongoing effort to deliver the best possible connected product experience to the consumer.”

Aristotle was designed for a child’s room. It could switch on a night light to soothe a crying baby. It was also designed to keep changing its activities, even to the point where it could help a preteen with homework. And the device would learn about the child along the way.

Objections to Aristotle were twofold. For one, the existence of a home hub for kids raised questions about data privacy for a vulnerable population. It also triggered broader concerns about how quickly companies are marketing products to parents without understanding how technology could affect early childhood development.

[Apple is opening up amid privacy questions about Face ID, personal data collection]

The product drew attention from Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who sent Mattel a letter last week asking the toymaker for more information on how it will store and retain data it collects on children. Mattel has said it will protect the Aristotle data with high-level encryption and will not sell that information to advertisers — in compliance with children’s data privacy laws.

But privacy concerns weren’t the only issue. “My main concerns about this technology — apart from the privacy concerns that [Markey and Barton] are trying to address — is the idea that a piece of technology becomes the most responsive household member to a crying child, a child who wants to learn, or a child’s play ideas,” said pediatrician Jennifer Radesky, who wrote the American Association of Pediatrics’ 2016 media guidelines for children 0-6 years of age. (Radesky was not involved with the campaign to persuade Mattel to stop Aristotle sales.)

[Privacy advocates try to keep ‘creepy,’ ‘eavesdropping’ Hello Barbie from hitting shelves]

Aristotle may be gone, but it would have been one of many products firms are marketing to make the parenting world more high-tech. Kid-focused tablets and apps have been around for years, and parents have made their own decisions about the proper place for technology in their children’s lives. But devices are increasingly moving into areas that are far more personal — or more intrusive. There are smart cradles that can rock your baby for you. There’s a smart cushion to calm colicky infants by cradling them while playing a recording that mimics a parent’s heartbeat.

Experts say little is known about the effects of tech devices on early childhood development, and it will take time to figure that out. But child privacy and child development experts are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with where the tech is heading.

Last year, Mattel faced pushback from those worried about the surveillance possibilities of “Hello Barbie,” a talking version of the classic doll that learns about its human playmates by recording their voices over time via WiFi. Through play sessions, the doll learns facts such as the name of the family dog. It then incorporates this information into conversation. The thought that a doll would be slowly collecting information on a child alarmed many privacy advocates, who labeled the toy “creepy.” The product didn’t sell well at launch after poor reviews, many of which mentioned the privacy concerns.

Several privacy advocates and physicians, organized by nonprofit groups the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Story of Stuff Project, signed a petition asking Mattel not to release Aristotle, which was set to hit stores next year. It had 15,000 signatures.

“We commend Mattel for putting children’s well-being first and listening to the concerns of child development experts and thousands of parents who urged them not to release this device,” said Josh Golin, executive director for the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “This is a tremendous victory for everyone who believes children still have a right to privacy and that robots can never replace loving humans as caregivers.”

Required Resources

Text

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

Chapter 5: Virtue Ethics: Being a Good Person

5.1: Introduction

5.2: What Is Virtue Ethics?

5.3: Virtues and Moral Reasoning

5.4: The Nicomachean Ethics

5.5: Objections to Virtue Ethics

Conclusion & Summary

Primary Sources: Selections from Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, Translated by W. D. Ross

Recommended Resources

Text

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

Chapter 5: Virtue Ethics: Being a Good Person

Going Deeper: Pleasure and Pain: Aristotle Versus Utilitarianism

Going Deeper: The Situationist Critique

Article

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2016, December 8). Virtue ethics. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

This resource is an excellent overview of virtue ethics, including some of the major criticisms and how virtue ethicists have responded to them. This article may assist you in your Week 4 Discussion and Week 4 Symposium.

Accessibility Statement does not exist.

Privacy Policy does not exist.

Multimedia

Annas, J. (2014, March 26). Episode 57: Julia Annas discusses virtue ethics (M. Teichman, Interviewer, & D. Jagannathan, Interviewer) [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2014/03/26/episode-57-julia-annas-discusses-virtue-ethics/

A leading classical philosophy scholar and virtue ethicist discusses virtue ethics in an informative and interesting interview. This podcast may assist you in your Week 4 Discussion and Week 4 Symposium.

Accessibility Statement does not exist.

Privacy Policy does not exist.

You may also like...