Ethics, Morality, and Responsibility

It's very interesting to read and hear the different perspectives on what is ethics. I will now share mine:

For me ethics is simple. It is linked to (1) awareness of your own actions and the consequences they have (and might have) --in the other human being, in yourself, and in your surroundings-- and (2) the responsibility for your actions and amendments if necessary. Note that when you act, you have thought before committing the act...

I see the term morality as the particular code of ethics bounded to a certain religion. Thus the word "ethics", without (any other word accompanying it) are more universal aspects to preserve life, harmony, and consensus between people.

And in the context of engineering, ethics has traditionally been linked to the set of codes belonging to, for example, the IEEE or any other engineering professional organization. It should also include the simple ethics I mentioned before.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/

Recalling our friend, Nel Noddings --why we don't send her a Christmas card? She will get happy and we'll exercise Utilitarianism-- we see that Noddings use the terms 'moral' and 'ethics' interchangeably (p. 151).

I liked some aspects of Kantianism, but not all. For example, I liked that Kant see ethical agents "constrained not to do things that will interfere with the free agency of other" (p. 159); however I must interfere if I see that the person is trying, for example, to suicide. I must interfere if an infant, child, person with a severe mental illness is being the recipient of harm by other with more strength.
If I do not have the physical conditions to stop the situation, I have the responsibility (ethics) to either call the police, or scream, or notify someone else, or do something to stop that. The other aspect I liked is his approach to do "the right (procedural aspects of ethics) rather that the good (the context or ends sought in ethical action)" (p.158). Of Utilitarianism, I liked the idea of "sensitive thinkers" (p. 160).

Going back to my simplistic definition of ethics, I see that it might fit more with Dewey, because "Dewey put much more emphasis on the responsibility of individuals and institutions than is usual in utilitarianism. For Dewey, the primary criterion of ethical behavior is willingness to accept responsibility for the full range of anticipated outcomes" (p. 163).
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
--I cut here to prevent myself from writing an essay --

Philosophy of education in society

When we look through the philosophers from Plato/Socrates to Dewey, their ideas are all basically determined by their society and background. On the one hand, their visions are limited by the situations of the societies. Plato cannot talk about how to facilitate education using internet or multimedia. On the other hand, their ideas must be suitable and helpful to their societies. For example, the responsibility of taking care of the family and the children is not solely women’s task in today’s society. Then the education of women which is advocated to be equal to men’s becomes prevalent. Women can contribute as much as men do. Why do not let them contribute?

At the same time, the philosophy of education can affect the format and principles of education a lot. Dewey’s theories performed very important roles in constructing American education. No one can imagine how American education would be if there was another Dewey who favored another way of education which is also suitable to the society.

If someday our world is like the one in Wall-E: super developed, organized, and programmed. How should the education be?

Noddings chapter 2: Dewey’s Rejection of Truth

It seems strange that the author should celebrate Dewey’s rejection of truth as the foundation of his philosophy. She does note, however, that this rejection was an act of the will. That is, he was unwilling to be dependent on unobservable entities outside of himself. But if we look at it objectively, we should be able to see that his willing truth away can not make it so. The traditional philosophers, from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle up through Thomas Aquinas all recognized that the idea of truth is intimately connected to the very idea of existence. Truth is that which really exists, whether any given person recognizes it or not. The purpose of inquiry is to learn what this truth really is, not to create it in our own image. The world existed long before Dewey was born, and it continues to exist without him. To assert that knowledge is bigger than truth is a logical absurdity, since the knowledge of any one person is inherently limited. No one can know all the truth there is to know, and given the ease with which individuals can make mistakes, there is always the chance that what we think we know is wrong. But regardless of how many people know a particular truth, that truth still remains. To base an entire philosophy on rejecting truth, as Dewey and his followers seem to do, can only lead to conclusions that are no longer based on reality.

Noddings tries to illustrate this idea by setting up the false dichotomy of the faulty math rule. But even in doing so, she acknowledges the importance of truth by rejecting the faulty rule because it does not give correct (i.e. true) answers. In fact, that is how the truth is demonstrated. The teacher who believes in truth does not simply tell the student the rule is wrong, but demonstrates that it gives false answers, then rejects it for one that gives true answers. In fact, this was the approach that Aquinas was famous for. He first posed the objections and proved them to be false before demonstrating what the truth had to be. Any philosophy of education (or anything else, for that matter) that is not based on truth can only lead to confusion.