T.O.K essay 2 - “In gaining knowledge, each area of knowledge uses a network of ways of knowing.“ - Plan

Intoduction

• Define "network" and what does the use of this word imply?
• What are you going to consider in this essay?
• Which two areas of knowledge (from Ethics, The Arts and History)

Body


Cross reference your two areas of knowledge with the 8 WOKs: language, emotion, faith, reason, faith, memory, intuition, sense perception and imagination


E.g:


Ethics

• The way others communicate with me both verbally and non-verbally helps shape my moral knowledge. Anger and praise help me to know that my moral reality is somewhat dependent on others’ reactions.
• I can imagine what a world where violence and theft are tolerated would be like, and therefore I know that they are immoral.
• Emotion; do we learn to tell the difference between right and wrong because of the way doing good or doing bad makes us feel?
• I can remember a teacher telling me “God first, others next and yourself last”
• Do we know what moral reality  is because we use reason as a way of knowing? If I do this, then this will happen, and this makes me choose a course of action? (consequentialist)
  
  
  
  

Area of knowledge 1:

Area of knowledge 2:

Which ways of knowing are important in each?

Why are some ways of knowing more reliable than others?

Which ways of knowing interlink with another and goes this make accurate gaining of knowledge more reliable?

Compare the two areas of knowledge and the ways of knowing they rely on.

Differences and why?

Similarities and why?

Conclusion

Is there ever a case where one way of knowing is enough?

To what extent do you agree with the tittle and why?

T.O.K Ethics essay 1 - Plan

Can we know for certain what is right or wrong?

Introduction

• The title implies that we undergo moral reasoning to decide what is right or wrong
• We appeal to a commonly agreed moral principle for example “cheating is wrong”
• Consistency in moral principles is not always easy and there are many reasons for this

This essay will consider to what extent it is possible to be certain what is right or wrong and examine the reasons for inconsistency in ethics

Moral relativism

• The society in which we grew up can determine our values (give examples of views on adultery/polygamy in different cultures)
• We do have shared humane values (emotion/intuition) such as limitation of violence and protection of property.
• Reflected in laws of the land (but laws vary – examples of cannabis legality – indigenous population view of what is a crime and what is acceptable – capital punishment – legalised murder)
• So ethical relativism exists across cultures and laws. Statement “murder is wrong” – medical ethics; grey areas such as abortion and euthanasia

Moral absolutes

• Attempts to know what is right/wrong through theories and logic.

Kant – can tell if it the right thing by using generalisation argument (what if everyone did it?) if the answer is chaos in society then it’s the wrong choice. Moral absolutes aren’t reliable – lying is wrong as if everyone lied society would fall apart but sometimes a lie can be justified

Utilitarianism – you should do whatever causes the maximum happiness to the greatest number. However does not take into account individual rights and lays great store by happiness and pleasure (trolley problem/medical quandaries)

• You should do what is of benefit to you (self-interest theory) but does not take into account altruism or empathy
• Religion sets out moral absolutes which can form a moral code but religious moral codes do not take into account the change of views/increased tolerance (homosexuality, place of women in society, female priests/bishops)  

Historical perspective – what was a crime in early/mid -20^th century no longer a crime (suffragettes, homosexuality)

Conclusion

Our personal knowledge and intuition may help us form ethical opinions and we may use reason as well. Differs from person to person and culture to culture. Even though we may have shared core values these cannot be absolute. Cultural and legal differences, historical perspective and religious differences cause ethical variation. Moral absolutism is not possible