Morality and Politics of Justice Project
My art piece was an interactive puzzle for the audience to complete to see how genetic engineering can ensure we give the best life for our children. The left hand picture shows the poster before the audience fills it in. The middle picture shows it completed. The right hand picture shows the filled in pieces flipped over, where the audience gets to see what kind of baby they created. This aims to show that without genetic engineering we don't know what kind of life we are going to give our child and how genetic engineering takes the mystery out of the process.
Final Op-Ed
Project Reflection
The goal of this project was to learn about moral philosophers and philosophies and question what justice is. We learned about Deontology, Utilitarianism, Libertarianism and John Rawls' Justice as Fairness. Deontology studies why we act upon the things we do, arguing that the only moral acts we do are the ones done for the right reasons. Utilitarianism argues that we ought to do everything for the greater good and the maximization of happiness. Libertarianism focuses more on the needs of the individual and not of the whole. It argues towards a world with minimal governmental influence. Finally, John Rawl's Justice as Fairness holds high the value of equality. Although somewhat unrealistic (using the Veil of Ignorance- which makes people unbiased when deciding on laws) it supports a more fair society.
After learning all of these different perspectives on justice, we applied the philosophies to different moral dilemmas (such as the trolley car dilemma), and researched how each philosophy applies to all controversies. The tricky thing is that when you look at an issue through the lens of each philosophy, they all seem to have the right answer. Each has an understandable point of view. This was the challenging part for me. If all of them seem right, which one is ultimately correct? In order to reach a conclusion for the problems we faced, we had to take a side and stick with it. Using our new knowledge, we each chose a controversial current issue and created an op-ed and accompanying art piece. We also learned about pathos, ethos, and logos, which are forms of rhetoric, and learned how to appropriately apply them to our art piece. The project was less about finding a solution to our topics and more about how we got to our conclusion. I chose to study genetic engineering with the utilitarian perspective that it will greatly benefit our society and will increase the happiness of the whole.
The main lesson I learned throughout this project was that there are two sides to every story. Sure, I knew that before, but that saying took new meaning during this time. During my research I found for every argument for my perspective, there was an equally persuasive argument against it. Same with choosing a philosophic standpoint: I would choose to focus on one perspective, but all I could think about was the other three perspectives I was missing out on. Eventually I had to come to the conclusion that I am never going to satisfy each point of view. Every penny has two sides, but to say that tails is better than heads or vice versa just because that's what one believes seemed a little unintelligent. I also learned how complicated our justice system really is. There isn't so much a thing as a solution, simply one perspective that was more persuasive than the others. This issue also presented itself when I was compiling my op-ed. I found it troubling that I was forced to choose a side because I thought that each perspective was correct in its own way. It was almost like I couldn't compare the two on the same scale, like judging the tastiness of apples based off of the tastiness of bananas. In the end, I came up with a satisfactory compromise, but I also learned that there are very few circumstances in which a compromise can be agreed on.
In my opinion, I think my project was strongest in finding a resolution. As previously stated, in the end of my op-ed, after acknowledging both perspectives, I found a way to merge the two with a compromise. This compromise will hopefully satisfy either argument for or against genetic engineering. For the majority of my op-ed I battle the drawbacks of genetic engineering with the benefits. In the end, I proposed that, "genetic engineering become banned UNLESS it benefits the child... through this proposition we would be able to aid in creating a better future for our children through modifying troubling genes, but it also allows the non-GMB's to remain socially acceptable."
However, I think my project struggles with taking a firm perspective. As stated above, I found a compromise between the two conflicting perspectives, but through that I failed to show my perspective, where some would argue is the point of the op-ed. To refine this, I would aim to put more of a firm perspective in my op-ed and clarify my point of view.
If I had one more week to refine my work, I would spend it refining my art piece. I created a puzzle for the audience to put together, and even though it was successful, it looked a little unprofessional. It was made out of cardboard, so the puzzle pieces weren't super durable or well made. I would spend the additional time make the puzzle out of something sturdier and making sure the pieces looked professional and were easy to use. As with anything, nothing is truly complete, and there are always refinements that could be done. However, I am proud of all the work I put into this project and I know I can look back on it and be proud at all I did.
After learning all of these different perspectives on justice, we applied the philosophies to different moral dilemmas (such as the trolley car dilemma), and researched how each philosophy applies to all controversies. The tricky thing is that when you look at an issue through the lens of each philosophy, they all seem to have the right answer. Each has an understandable point of view. This was the challenging part for me. If all of them seem right, which one is ultimately correct? In order to reach a conclusion for the problems we faced, we had to take a side and stick with it. Using our new knowledge, we each chose a controversial current issue and created an op-ed and accompanying art piece. We also learned about pathos, ethos, and logos, which are forms of rhetoric, and learned how to appropriately apply them to our art piece. The project was less about finding a solution to our topics and more about how we got to our conclusion. I chose to study genetic engineering with the utilitarian perspective that it will greatly benefit our society and will increase the happiness of the whole.
The main lesson I learned throughout this project was that there are two sides to every story. Sure, I knew that before, but that saying took new meaning during this time. During my research I found for every argument for my perspective, there was an equally persuasive argument against it. Same with choosing a philosophic standpoint: I would choose to focus on one perspective, but all I could think about was the other three perspectives I was missing out on. Eventually I had to come to the conclusion that I am never going to satisfy each point of view. Every penny has two sides, but to say that tails is better than heads or vice versa just because that's what one believes seemed a little unintelligent. I also learned how complicated our justice system really is. There isn't so much a thing as a solution, simply one perspective that was more persuasive than the others. This issue also presented itself when I was compiling my op-ed. I found it troubling that I was forced to choose a side because I thought that each perspective was correct in its own way. It was almost like I couldn't compare the two on the same scale, like judging the tastiness of apples based off of the tastiness of bananas. In the end, I came up with a satisfactory compromise, but I also learned that there are very few circumstances in which a compromise can be agreed on.
In my opinion, I think my project was strongest in finding a resolution. As previously stated, in the end of my op-ed, after acknowledging both perspectives, I found a way to merge the two with a compromise. This compromise will hopefully satisfy either argument for or against genetic engineering. For the majority of my op-ed I battle the drawbacks of genetic engineering with the benefits. In the end, I proposed that, "genetic engineering become banned UNLESS it benefits the child... through this proposition we would be able to aid in creating a better future for our children through modifying troubling genes, but it also allows the non-GMB's to remain socially acceptable."
However, I think my project struggles with taking a firm perspective. As stated above, I found a compromise between the two conflicting perspectives, but through that I failed to show my perspective, where some would argue is the point of the op-ed. To refine this, I would aim to put more of a firm perspective in my op-ed and clarify my point of view.
If I had one more week to refine my work, I would spend it refining my art piece. I created a puzzle for the audience to put together, and even though it was successful, it looked a little unprofessional. It was made out of cardboard, so the puzzle pieces weren't super durable or well made. I would spend the additional time make the puzzle out of something sturdier and making sure the pieces looked professional and were easy to use. As with anything, nothing is truly complete, and there are always refinements that could be done. However, I am proud of all the work I put into this project and I know I can look back on it and be proud at all I did.