Transcript The Value of Value Transparency in Teaching Applied Ethics

The Value of Value Transparency
in Teaching Applied Ethics
1
DIANA BUCCAFURNI
AAPT CONFERENCE
JULY 30, 2010
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Department of Psychology and Philosophy
Sam Houston State University
[email protected]
Starting Assumptions
2
1. The principle of student autonomy: students
should be able to freely investigate and adopt moral
viewpoints that align with their moral viewpoints,
not those of their professor.
2. The normative analytic objective: a goal of
philosophical applied ethics is that students are
able to develop analytic abilities in the way of being
able to construct, analyze, and evaluate
philosophical arguments.
The Claim
3
 Explicit disclosure of professors’ moral values
(value transparency) is pedagogically valuable
in teaching applied ethics.
The functions of value transparency:
1. Value transparency is integral to respecting student
autonomy.
2. Value transparency facilitates the normative
analytic objective.
Naïve Value Neutrality
4
Naïve Value Neutrality
(NVN)
 Instruction in the
university classroom
ought to be entirely
value free.
 No values of an
instructor should be
brought into the
classroom.
Justification for NVN
 Course material should
be presented in an
impartial, objective
manner.
 Students should be
evaluated in a similar
manner.
 An instructor’s values
should not compromise
two above goals.
The Problem with Naïve Value Neutrality
5
The Problem
 Does not account for
the reality of a
professor’s pedagogical
values that are inherent
to course design.
 Such values are a good
thing!
The Conclusion
 It is not charitable to
suppose this is what
VN defenders have in
mind.
The Target: Informed Value Neutrality
6
 Neutrality with respect to substantive moral
values.
 Value neutrality allows for non-moral value
judgments to direct course design.
Justifications for Informed Value Neutrality
7
 Impartiality and objectivity
 Fairness in evaluating students on merit
only
 Protecting students from indoctrination
 Protection of student autonomy
Value Transparency
8
 Value transparency protects student
autonomy in ways that informed value
neutrality cannot.
 Value transparency facilitates the normative
analytic objective in ways that informed
value neutrality cannot.
Value Transparency in Research Ethics
9
 Claim: value transparency in science
publication protects reader* autonomy.
 If value transparency can operate in the
research context to protect autonomy, it may
operate in other relevantly similar contexts
to protect autonomy.
Value Transparency in Research
10
 Authors submitting manuscripts for review are
required to disclose all actual and perceived
conflicts of interest.
 Default is disclosure in questionable cases.
 The International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE): uniform manuscript disclosure
standards.
Justification for Disclosure
11
According to the ICMJE:
“Public trust in the peer-review process and the credibility of
published articles depends in part on how well conflict of
interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial
decisionmaking. Conflict of interests exists when an
author (or author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has
financial or personal relationships that inappropriately
influence (bias) his or her actions...These relationships vary
from being negligible to having great potential for influencing
judgment.”
Justification for Disclosure
12
 According to the ICMJE statement disclosure lends
confidence to the scientific process so that a reader’s
belief in the truth of the published conclusions is
justified.
 Disclosure (should) call attention to external
influences that may prejudice the impartiality and
objectivity of results.
 Thus, disclosure should caution readers that results
may be influenced by values other than truth.
Disclosure and Autonomy
13
 Respect for autonomy requires truthfulness and
consent that is voluntary and informed.
 Disclosure of factors that may influence the truth of
research outcomes is necessary for autonomous
decisionmaking.
 Disclosure policies contribute to respect for
autonomy insofar as they contribute to conditions
required for autonomous decisionmaking.
An Example
14
 Scientific research as an important tool for
decisionmaking.

GlaxoSmithKline (maker of Avandia) funds a study on
Avandia.
 Awareness of parties that may have an interest in
research outcomes allows* decisions to be made in
view of such interests.
 * necessary condition
Value Transparency in the Classroom
15
 Professor is value transparent with respect to her
moral values on topics discussed in the course.
 This disclosure allows students to be aware of the
professor’s bias/filter through which she views the
issues.
 This awareness can be integral in a student’s selfreflection on whether she endorses or rejects moral
viewpoints, arguments, theories, etc. on the basis
of reasons she finds plausible and values
with which she identifies.
Shortcomings of Value Neutrality
16
 Value neutrality requires self-monitoring. Value
transparency offers a third-personal accountability
that value neutrality does not.
 We have some reason to think that first personal
self-monitoring won’t work because biases often
operate at the edge of our awareness.
The Normative Analytic Objective
17
 With value transparency, students can critically
evaluate an instructor’s disclosed viewpoints with
more philosophical rigor.
 An increase in the “performance bar” for students.
 Graduate school example of assignment design based on
transparency.
 Value transparency in the aim of focusing on the logic of the
argument (not the substantive conclusion only) in class
discussion and in course assignments.
Other Potential Benefits
18
 External accountability to students for fairness and
consistency in evaluation.
 Challenges for the Professor
 Philosophically rigorous defense of viewpoints contrary to
disclosed values
 Philosophically rigorous criticism(s) of viewpoints/values
endorsed.
 These two challenges above can apply to students
too; (approximate) reciprocity of expectations?
Selected Bibliography
19













American Association for University Professors. (2006, October 26). Retrieved July 2010, from AAUP Website:
http://www.org
Angell, M. (1996). The Case of Helga Wanglie: A New Kind of Right to Die Case. In T. L. Veatch, Ethical Issues in Death
and Dying (pp. 373-375). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Baumgarten, E. (1982). Ethics in the Academic Profession: A Socratic View. The Journal of Higher Education , 282295.
Benjamin, A. C. (1962). The Philosophy Instructor: Teacher or Preacher? The Journal of Higher Education , 409-416.
Camenisch, P. F. (1986). Goals of Applied Ethics Courses. The Journal of Higher Education , 493-509.
Churchill, L. R. (1982). The Teaching of Ethics and Moral Values in Teaching: Some Contemporary Confusions. The
Journal of Higher Education , 296-306.
Gostin, R. C. (1996). Futility: A Concept in Search of a Definition. In T. L. Veatch, Ethical Issues in Death and Dying
(pp. 357-361). Upper Saddle River : Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Harris, G. (2010, June 28). Diabetes Drug Linked to Higher Heart Risk. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from The New York
Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/health
Intemann, I. d.-M. (2009). How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. The FASEB Journal , 1638-1642.
Speck, J. R. (2007). Teaching Controversy: Advocacy, Indoctrination, and Neutrality in the Classroom. In J. R. Speck,
Rights and Wrongs in the College Classroom: Ethical Issues in Postsecondary Teaching (pp. 23-56). Bolton: Anker
Publishing Co., Inc.
Spicer, R. M. (1996). Futile care: Physicians Should Not Be Allowed to Refuse to Treat. In T. L. Veatch, Ethical Issues in
Death and Dying (pp. 392-400). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2010, from
http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html
Youngner, S. (1996). Who Defines Futility? In T. L. Veatch, Ethical Issues in Death and Dying (pp. 353-356). Upper
Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.