There were a few ideas from this class that I found more interesting than the rest. The first is Kantian Deontology. The core beliefs struck me as somewhat inhumane when reading about how the truth matters more than saving a life. This might be a grossly oversimplified conclusion, but it is one of the key points of the belief system. I don’t know if this is a healthy takeaway, but it reinforced my belief that a fancy word or phrase does not mean something is very deep or complex. The concept of Kantian Deontology was familiar to me. The biggest thing that changed was learning the phrase “Kantian Deontology.” I am not claiming to be a philosophical expert, but I want to remember that I am capable of having deep, nuanced conversations, whether or not I know the technical term for a belief system or line of thinking. 

I do not have the words to describe it, but the case study from the privacy module showed me how inconsistent moral subjectivity can be. For the sake of this class, I am not claiming that moral subjectivity is wrong; rather, I am pointing out that it requires a level of consistent thinking that not many realize. I saw many of my peers claiming that morality is subjective while making objective judgments. For example, it is a contradiction to say that humans are born with intrinsic rights that should be respected, only to state later that morals are subjective and that right and wrong change based on culture. One who believes that morals are subjective has to admit that their beliefs are just opinions and that human rights are just opinions they have based on their culture. Again, I am not arguing whether or not this is right or wrong, but from a subjective viewpoint, the statement that morals are subjective is subjective and therefore can not be absolute. I feel similarly about contractarianism as I do about the privacy module. Contractarianism relies on unspoken agreements to drive society. I agree that many of our public interactions do not require us to lay out our expectations, however, contractarianism lacks any ground to assert something as right or wrong. My belief in objective morality deepened as I realized that living a life of subjective morality is nearly impossible. I do want to remember to be consistent in my beliefs regardless of the situation. 

The ethics of care tool aligned the most with what I believe. The ethics of care justifies partiality to those with whom we have interdependent relationships. It does not disregard the greater society, instead, it highlights how care ethics can apply to a broad spectrum of social interactions because of their interdependent nature. Though it may seem obvious, this tool helped me see that not all philosophies are “stuck up” for lack of a better term. I came into this class assuming that many things we would discuss would be old philosophical ideas that ramble on with no point. I quickly learned that this was not the case. Though many of the ethical tools are not new, the modern application of each one helped me see that there is a lot of value in understanding these perspectives. The ethics of care tool helped me understand more about societal norms by viewing them as a means by which we show care. 

The last position that I want to talk about is how important it is to disagree healthily and constructively. This class deals with philosophical perspectives that I only agree with partially or disagree with completely. That being said, I had to separate feelings and facts while having nuanced discussions. For example, I agree with many points from utilitarianism. However, I know that I could not live that belief out consistently if the choice to switch a train to a different track would kill my fiancé as opposed to three random people. That being said, I could have a conversation with a utilitarian and not write them off completely just because I do not agree with their entire belief. As I stated previously, I believe that the extent of Kantian beliefs is inhumane to me. However, if I were speaking to someone with Kantian beliefs, I would not disregard them as inhumane or refuse to listen to their reasoning. I believe that it is important to have a dialogue with people you disagree with to challenge your thinking and beliefs. I want to carry this same attitude regardless of who I am speaking to because that is how common ground is found and perspectives change.