Critical thinking is an important part of being interdisciplinary. Without it, IDS would not be beneficial, but simply a fall-back major for someone who can make up their mind. Using critical thinking skills is something that is going to get you where you want to be in life, not just graduated with a degree you’ll never use.
When using the Virtual Philosopher, how did it score your responses and what insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning? Being confident in your critical thinking is important, and everyone should have the chance to focus on it without interruption. Fortunately for you, you are given this opportunity through IDS. Also, how does the outline of your critical thinking disposition match with the application of it in doing the Virtual Philosopher?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the liver recipient, I decided that it was best to do a lottery to decide who would get the liver transplant. The reason I picked this, is because I believe that each human life is as valuable as others. These people all have something they can give, even the homeless alcoholic. You never know, he could have a life changing experience from getting a new liver. You can't judge him on his past. The same is for all the patients; you never know what a new liver will do for them, so they should all have an equal chance for survival.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Virtual Philosopher, all of my answers were consistent. I don't believe you should lie to your friends, I don't believe it's okay to kill innocent people, and I strongly believe that every human life is valuable.
When using the Virtual Philosopher, the results turned out that I was very inconsistent with my responses. I didnt lie to my friend even though I justified lying, I also threw the large man overboard, even when I agreed that murder was wrong in any case. I wasnt thinking about a situation like the boat when I answered the first question. I decided to give the liver to the AIDS researcher, because in the long run a cure to AIDS is going be more beneficial to the world than a homeless man, a mother, a child, or $100 Million.
ReplyDeletePhil,
ReplyDeleteAt first I was thinking that I should also give the liver to the AIDS researcher, but then I thought, she is already 60 years old, and I'm sure that her colleagues know her research and could continue it even if she was to die. I also thought that the $100 million would be beneficial to the medical community. I tried to think this way for all of the recipients. The way I saw it, everyone had something to give. So they should all have an equal chance to live.
-Kassi Keyes
On the virtual philosopher assignment I scored a consistent, consistent, and an inconsistent. On the Lying one I said that sometimes lying is justifiable, and I actually had a situation in mind that was very similar to the one they gave in the quiz. So I was consistent on that. On the Lifeboat one I got a consistent but I cant remember right now what the ethical question was about that one. Finally, for the liver transplant situation I got an inconsistent because I said that all lives were equally worth saving but then I chose to save the child. The reason I chose him was because he was a kid so he had the most life ahead of him, and he was the one who was going to die first without a transplant. Plus, there was still a chance that another organ would come in before any of the other people would die. So I guess I should change my stance on that, it looks like I think that some lives are more worth saving than others.
ReplyDeleteI used the same thought process as Kassi did when it came to the AIDS researcher. I figured that she couldn't possibly be the only person to know the information and research that she had been doing. Plus, since she was the oldest I figured she was the most likely to have lived the longest most fulfilled life out of all of them.
ReplyDeleteCody,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking at first that it might be a good idea to save the child too, but it said that if he didn't get the transplant he would die; which made me wonder what if the transplant doesn't work? What if his body rejects the new liver, or he is too sick for a new liver to matter? I wouldn't want to just throw away a perfectly good liver. There are pros and cons to all of the situations, so I just decided to let "fate" choose and do the lottery.
Cody and Kassi,
ReplyDeleteThat's good thinking with the AIDS researcher... I remember when I used the Virtual Philosopher I did not think of that. It was a little while ago that I did the assignment, but I also remember getting surprisingly stressed when being faced with these types of decisions, even though they were all hypothetical. I kept going back and forth between answers trying to find the best and most fair possibility. Very stressful to me.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteI just realized that you used the same thought process as Cody and Kassi in terms of the AIDS researcher. Good job with that. I didn't mean to leave you out of the comment above!