Integrating Ethical Perspectives Into Non-Ethics Courses: From Confession, Digression, or Distraction to Method of Analysis
Dr. Alex London
One source of a common reluctance to discuss ethical issues in non-ethics courses is the perception that such discussions threaten or weaken the integrity of the course. Often, such worries are exacerbated by a sense that such discussions amount to an invitation for class members to confess personal views that may cause the course to diverge too far from the course material. They are also exacerbated by the idea that any such discussion requires the insertion of a separate unit on the subject matter of ethics. In this session we will discuss an approach that integrates the discussion of ethical issues into a course by treating ethics not as a distinct subject matter, but as a distinct point of view from which the aspects of the subject matter of a course can be discussed in a reasoned manner. After sketching the broad outlines of the moral point of view, we will discuss two cases. First, we will investigate how this approach might illuminate the discussion of an undercover sting operation in a small town. Second, we will investigate how the moral point of view might illuminate a discussion of Huck's relationship with Jim from the novel Huckleberry Finn .

Normative Arguments and the Apparent Conflict of Values
Dr. Tom Powers
Cases or problems that make for interesting ethical discussion often support a variety of conclusions that will seem “reasonable” to students. While the discussion may flourish, some students will be left with the impression that, since there are so many reasonable answers to a particular ethical problem, maybe “there is no right answer” in principle. When repeated discussions lead to open-ended problems, some students may also develop a reluctance to apply skills of critical reasoning to normative arguments, thus mistaking moral skepticism for tolerance. It is therefore quite important to show that rational criticism, as a skill, applies in normative as well as in descriptive domains. A first step is simply to distinguish the normative from the descriptive claims that surround an ethical issue. Beyond that, it is helpful to tease out broader value commitments or principles that underlie most students' views on ethical issues. Finally, it is crucial to apply standards of coherency by connecting positions on related issues, and thus to show students that their value commitments are at the same time rational commitments. We will look at two cases that provide opportunities to apply standards of rational criticism and coherency: the Ford Pinto case, in which Ford was sued for manufacturing the “exploding” Pinto automobile, and the so-called “hacker ethics” that motivates some computer enthusiasts who write viruses and infiltrate computer systems.

Alex John London is assistant professor of Philosophy and executive member of the Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics at Carnegie Mellon University . He is also an affiliated faculty member of the Center for Bioethics and Health Law at the University of Pittsburgh . Before joining Carnegie Mellon in 2000, he was a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Minnesota 's Center for Bioethics and he received his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Virginia . Professor London is also one of only 7 faculty listed by name as "among the best professors at CMU" in Choosing the Right College: The Whole Truth About America's Top Schools , 2001.

Tom Powers is  currently National Science Foundation Research Fellow in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Virginia . He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy form the University of Texas at Austin in 1995. His research interests are now mainly in computer ethics and the Philosophy of Technology.