I realise that, even with the way I have titled this blog entry, I have shown bias on the matter of schools "spying" on students. However, my aim is to assess this situation as methodically and unemotionally as possible, in order to eliminate any emotional or otherwise bias. So, here goes!
THE SITUATION
The IT Manager at my school created a false facebook account, with a false name and identity, in order to befriend other St Peter's students and essentially keep tabs on the stuff they were posting on facebook. This blog will discuss the ethical (or otherwise) nature of this behaviour.
THE DISCUSSION
There are really only two positions to take on the actions of the St Peter's IT Manager: That the behaviour is ethical, or that it is not. Here is an argument for each side.
The Behaviour is Ethical
A school must protect both its students and its reputation. In order to do that, school's must keep an eye on the behaviour of the students who have a stake in that reputation. So, if the students must essentially be spied on to keep them and the reputation of the school safe, why shouldn't they?
Surely it is ethical to monitor the facebook profile comments and pictures etc. of the school's students to achieve saftey for both the students and the schools reputation. Such a small sacrafice in terms of privacy and honesty is worth the potential disaster such actions divert.
In a tossup between privacy/honesty and student safety/reputation, surely safety and reputation wins.
The Behaviour is Not Ethical
Every human has a number of basic rights that are afforded to them no matter what the circumstances. Privacy is one such right, and a school should not be able to breach this right, even if it's reputation could be at stake. Plain and simple.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
The above discussion is based on the assumption that the IT Manager of the school is using a false profile to befriend other students just to see if they are doing or saying anything they shouldn't - which is what he is doing.
However, if there was already some kind of indication that the student or students in question had said or done something on their facebook page that put the school or themselves in danger, would the actions of the St Peter's IT Manager be ethical then?
CONCLUSION
It is my judgement that the IT Manager (or anyone else, for that matter) spying on students on facebook by creating a false identity and befriending them, is unethical. Every human has a right to privacy, and nothing, school or otherwise, has a right to breach that - at least not without some indication of wrongdoing.
The philisophical side of the above discussion is all very well and good, but in practice the kind of spying discussed goes on every day. I can't see change coming there - schools, employers and other people will continue to use facebook as a means to assess their student/potential employee or whatever else.
Hopefully, this breaching of privacy will not become any more prominent or serious.
+1.1.jpg)
February 08, 2011
February 07, 2011
TOK Journal #15, Date of Writing: 01/02/10, Topic: Absolute Distinctions Between True and False
As a practice task for my TOK class, we were all given an essay topic to plan individually. Here are my thoughts on the topic, after discussion with Bradley Joubert. They are a little disjointed, but interesting none the less...
TOPIC: "There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false."
-I could discuss the difference between reletive and absolute certainty.
-Is absolute certainty impossible? Is it only reletive certainty that can be achieved?
-Reletive certainty always has an aspect of doubt to it. Does the possibility of doubt about something, no matter how small the posibility, mean that absolute truths are impossible and thus there can be no absolute distinctions between true and false?
All of my thinking so far, though, has been dependant on the assumption that truth is particular to the individual. This assumption itself, however, can be bought into question.
Wikipedia's Epistemology page states that "...epistemology defines knowledge as being of the truth..." This would indicate that knowledge cannot exist without truth. From the definition, one can extract that truth is particular to the individual - otherwise, how is it possible that knowledge can exist, even when it is based on what we now know to be incorrect?
An example of this kind of knowledge would have been of people "knowing" the earth was flat. Back many years ago, this knowledge was justified, true and belived. According to Plato's definition of knowledge, it is possible for knowledge (a justified, true belief) to exist, even if the "true"ness of that knowledge changes from person to person.
This is all a fairly shaky foundation, but a foundation none the less, for drawing the conclusion that, in fact knolwedge is particular to the individual.
So, now that we can assume that knowledge and therefore truth is particular to an individual, and we know that no human can be absolutely certain of anything (only reletively certain), it can be said that there are no absolute boundries between truth and falsity.
This proves correct when truth is particular to the individual due to the unattainability of absolute certainty as discussed above. Because there is always room for error, there is always a hazy line between true and false - nothing is absolute.
Does this theory prove correct for the idea of "universal truths" as well? Assuming we define "universal truth" as something that is true independant of human input, perhaps not. Why? Because maybe certainty, reletive or absolute, is something manufactored by humans. but, thats another discussion. For now, adios!
TOPIC: "There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false."
-I could discuss the difference between reletive and absolute certainty.
-Is absolute certainty impossible? Is it only reletive certainty that can be achieved?
-Reletive certainty always has an aspect of doubt to it. Does the possibility of doubt about something, no matter how small the posibility, mean that absolute truths are impossible and thus there can be no absolute distinctions between true and false?
All of my thinking so far, though, has been dependant on the assumption that truth is particular to the individual. This assumption itself, however, can be bought into question.
Wikipedia's Epistemology page states that "...epistemology defines knowledge as being of the truth..." This would indicate that knowledge cannot exist without truth. From the definition, one can extract that truth is particular to the individual - otherwise, how is it possible that knowledge can exist, even when it is based on what we now know to be incorrect?
An example of this kind of knowledge would have been of people "knowing" the earth was flat. Back many years ago, this knowledge was justified, true and belived. According to Plato's definition of knowledge, it is possible for knowledge (a justified, true belief) to exist, even if the "true"ness of that knowledge changes from person to person.
This is all a fairly shaky foundation, but a foundation none the less, for drawing the conclusion that, in fact knolwedge is particular to the individual.
So, now that we can assume that knowledge and therefore truth is particular to an individual, and we know that no human can be absolutely certain of anything (only reletively certain), it can be said that there are no absolute boundries between truth and falsity.
This proves correct when truth is particular to the individual due to the unattainability of absolute certainty as discussed above. Because there is always room for error, there is always a hazy line between true and false - nothing is absolute.
Does this theory prove correct for the idea of "universal truths" as well? Assuming we define "universal truth" as something that is true independant of human input, perhaps not. Why? Because maybe certainty, reletive or absolute, is something manufactored by humans. but, thats another discussion. For now, adios!
January 20, 2011
TOK Journal #14, Date of Writing: 16/12/10, Topic: Initial Thoughts on TOK Essay
**NOTE: I started this journal entry quite some time ago, but never got around ti finishing it. Here it finally is!**
Here are my initial thoughts about the TOK topics for the TOK essay. I just jotted down a few ideas about each topic and ended up eliminating six, considering four and prefering one in particular. Have a read!
1. Knowledge is generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge.
Essentially reason vs. logic and imagination. Would discuss what happens when Critical and Creative thinking interface in what is considered to be a very logical AOK - mathematics - and perhaps the arts, which is creative, and analyse the part that both critical and creative thinking have to play in these two subjects, and how they compliment / clash with each other. A possible topic.
2. Compare and contrast knowledge which can be expressed in words/symbols with knowledge that cannot be expressed in this way. Consider CAS and one or more areas of knowledge.
A very broad essay topic, and seemingly clear for structure, but possibly difficult when it comes to deep TOK-style thinking. I think I will be stearing clear of this one.
3. Using history and at least one other area of knowledge,examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection.
There are two reasons I will not do this topic: Firstly, I do not take history, and second, the answer seems simple to me. Knowledge is defined (by plato) as a justified true belief and all of these three elements can be gained simultaniously through history. There is not enough meat to this topic!
4. When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?
This question seems somewhat difficult to answer to me because the answer to this question would seem to depend upon the situation. At a glance, I would say the answer would be when the four WOK's overpower what one might interpret as instinct, but I will still be staying away from this topic.
5. What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
Perhaps a flawed question - this question assumes that the sciences are convincing - they may not be to all people. For this reason, I will not be choosing this question.
6. 'It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts'. To what extent would you agree with this claim?
This is a good potential topic because there are a great number of examples that could argue either side. It is essentially a question of width of knowledge vs. depth, but are these two things mutually exclusive?
7. 'The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know'. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.
When I first read over the 10 TOK Essay topics, this one really stood out to me. It invites the researcher to discuss the extent to which our knowledge is limited to our ability to describe and communicate it. The most likely topic for my essay.
8. Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the ToK diagram.
This topic really interests me - it asks, what are the arguments for and against faith? To what extent can knowledge founded upon faith be accurate? Not sure which AOK I would use for this one though...
9. As an IB student, how has your learning of literature and science contributed to your understanding of individuals and societies?
Although this would be another interesting topic, I think this would turn into a social studies kind of report as opposed to a TOK essay, and thus I will not be doing this topic.
10. 'Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well-supported as those provided in mathematics.' To what extent would you agree?
The "different methods of justification" mentioned here would probably be the WOKS. However, I don't really understand the rest of the question, so I am stearing clear :)
------
To conclude, I have eliminated: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. I am considering: 1, 6, 7 and 8, and particularly like number 7. I am going to think on these topics some more before I get back to school and try to come up with a choice between two topics at the very least, if not an outright decision on a topic.
Here are my initial thoughts about the TOK topics for the TOK essay. I just jotted down a few ideas about each topic and ended up eliminating six, considering four and prefering one in particular. Have a read!
1. Knowledge is generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge.
Essentially reason vs. logic and imagination. Would discuss what happens when Critical and Creative thinking interface in what is considered to be a very logical AOK - mathematics - and perhaps the arts, which is creative, and analyse the part that both critical and creative thinking have to play in these two subjects, and how they compliment / clash with each other. A possible topic.
2. Compare and contrast knowledge which can be expressed in words/symbols with knowledge that cannot be expressed in this way. Consider CAS and one or more areas of knowledge.
A very broad essay topic, and seemingly clear for structure, but possibly difficult when it comes to deep TOK-style thinking. I think I will be stearing clear of this one.
3. Using history and at least one other area of knowledge,examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection.
There are two reasons I will not do this topic: Firstly, I do not take history, and second, the answer seems simple to me. Knowledge is defined (by plato) as a justified true belief and all of these three elements can be gained simultaniously through history. There is not enough meat to this topic!
4. When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?
This question seems somewhat difficult to answer to me because the answer to this question would seem to depend upon the situation. At a glance, I would say the answer would be when the four WOK's overpower what one might interpret as instinct, but I will still be staying away from this topic.
5. What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
Perhaps a flawed question - this question assumes that the sciences are convincing - they may not be to all people. For this reason, I will not be choosing this question.
6. 'It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts'. To what extent would you agree with this claim?
This is a good potential topic because there are a great number of examples that could argue either side. It is essentially a question of width of knowledge vs. depth, but are these two things mutually exclusive?
7. 'The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know'. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.
When I first read over the 10 TOK Essay topics, this one really stood out to me. It invites the researcher to discuss the extent to which our knowledge is limited to our ability to describe and communicate it. The most likely topic for my essay.
8. Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the ToK diagram.
This topic really interests me - it asks, what are the arguments for and against faith? To what extent can knowledge founded upon faith be accurate? Not sure which AOK I would use for this one though...
9. As an IB student, how has your learning of literature and science contributed to your understanding of individuals and societies?
Although this would be another interesting topic, I think this would turn into a social studies kind of report as opposed to a TOK essay, and thus I will not be doing this topic.
10. 'Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well-supported as those provided in mathematics.' To what extent would you agree?
The "different methods of justification" mentioned here would probably be the WOKS. However, I don't really understand the rest of the question, so I am stearing clear :)
------
To conclude, I have eliminated: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. I am considering: 1, 6, 7 and 8, and particularly like number 7. I am going to think on these topics some more before I get back to school and try to come up with a choice between two topics at the very least, if not an outright decision on a topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)