One of the things that struck me so much during our discussions this week is the degree to which the ethical theories we discussed narrow our views of the world and how we react to current events. After this realisation and the discussion in class surrounding the example of the police providing the FBI with access to part of their systems in an attempt to decrease acts of terrorism, I found that some of my classmates were more able to solve the dilemma using certain theories which I myself had not considered, and have since taken it upon myself to attempt to look at dilemmas and conflicts around the Bucknell campus and the world today. While I found that I was able to reorient my personal set of morals and way of thinking in order to think and solve problems using a particular theory, there were several which I found particularly difficult to wrap my head around and get in the mind set of. The most challenging one for me was the divine command theory. I believe that this particular theory proved to be so challenging for me due to the fact that while the moral values laid out in most religions are core beliefs which are consistent throughout most societies, I was unable to justify these morals on the basis of religion. Having studies so many religions throughout my academic career, I found it difficult to think of a religion which was able to resolve the ethical dilemmas I came across without having violated the core moral values for personal gain throughout history. This then lead me to the realisation that, like the laws which govern robots in Asimov’s The Bicentennial Man, there is a hierarchy within moral values, which, more often than not throughout history, has shown to value individual gain above all else. Thus, if people are able to justify their actions in response to the ethical dilemmas they might face by relying on the justification of some ethical theory, and possess a hierarchy of moral values geared towards self-advancement, it stands to reason that we be unable to solve even the smallest problem, let alone an ethical dilemma.
In addition to our discussion of ethics, I found our discussion of the Bicentennial Man to be quite thought provoking. In particular, I thought it interesting how Asimov chose robots and a futuristic society as a medium through which he might comment on the social issues of the time. For example, during the 1950’s, when Asimov’s short story came out, the civil rights movement was beginning to gain momentum, and just as colour of skin was becoming a hot topic in the United States, so was it a topic of focus in the story. Time and again Asimov mentioned Andrew’s “skin”, that being his bronze complexion. And while the story was written sixty years ago, the topics raised are still applicable, not only in the United States, but around the world. One such item is the extent to which Andrew is willing to shed his previous identity and all of who he was, except his brain, in exchange for an organic android body which more closely represented a human form. This changing of appearance is happening all around the world where white is still seen as the superior being to the extent that, particularly women, are willing to change their natural hair and bleach their skin in an attempt to get a leg up in society by seeming more white. As upsetting as this notion is, it is not occurring in isolate cases, and while the United States may claim to be discrimination free with regards to race, that is simply not the case.