IB EXTENDED ESSAY: How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion

IB Extended Essay

Philosophy

How Moral Pluralism

Contributes to Diversity

and Social Cohesion

Name: Pinnapa Phetcharatana

School: Vienna International School

Candidate Number: 00014-082

Supervisor: Madame Fella Hacini

Date: November 23, 2010

Word Count: 3,718

Abstract

The concept of moral pluralism emerged as result of a shift from modernist to

post-modernist beliefs. Attempts to establish common universal laws in order to seek

rational order were abandoned since the impact of globalization in the past few centuries

has resulted in more liberal views and a more differentiated community. Post-modernists

have moved away from classical absolutist beliefs towards a more open-minded approach

to defining morality. However, it is important to consider the degree of reality of this

ethical pluralistic concept when applied to an evolving and diverse world. To what

extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral

cohesion in society?

This essay discusses several aspects of moral pluralism, including the plurality

and conditionality of values that encourage the use of moral intuition, which promotes a

wider definition of what is ‘good’; the incommensurability and incompatibility of values

that hinders the creation of a rational moral ranking; and the acknowledgement of social

and cultural differences that may result in a more tolerant and flourishing society. Flaws

and limitations of the theory are also taken into consideration in order to provide an

unbiased outcome.

Pluralism promotes freethinking in the ethical sense since it does not attempt to

provide a fixed definition for morality. It further dismisses dogmatism as individuals are

encouraged to make use of moral intuition while taking into account appropriate limits.

Upon the demonstration that moral pluralism will lead to stronger social cohesion, there

is still the danger of the fracturing of morality and increased skepticism resulting from the

plurality of views, which may lead to a state of anomie. It is important that society

defines and establishes clear limits in regard to human rights in order to prevent the

dangers that threaten morality.

Word count: 290

Table of Contents

“How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion”

Introduction 1

Essay Body 2-13

Conclusion 14

Works Cited 15

Appendix 16-19

IB Extended Essay Pinnapa Phetcharatana 23/11/10

Philosophy Candidate #: 00014-082

1

Introduction

The emergence of the postmodernist era has brought about a strong skepticism

towards universal morals. Critics claim that universal morality is disintegrating. Among

the majority of them were modernists who conformed to the “grand narrative”- a historical

story of ideologies and principles in different cultures and traditions that communicate

themes and values. However, the grand narratives were gradually dismissed as ideologists,

philosophers and social scientists realized the futility of seeking a common universal

ground in the moral sense. Deep differences in cultures and social structures call for a

more contingent and non-absolutist narrative, and this awareness ultimately gave birth to

the concept of moral pluralism. Bearing this in mind, it is important to consider the extent

to which the monistic view of morality should be dismissed, and more importantly, the

extent to which pluralism should be adapted effectively to ensure a flourishing society. To

what extent is the meta-ethical theory of pluralism reasonable to guarantee moral

cohesion in society? This essay will discuss and analyze different aspects of moral

pluralism in regard to how it may contribute to higher social tolerance and diversity.

Certain limitations of the theory will also be addressed in order to achieve an equitable

conclusion.

As a result of society’s confusion about its own values, “moral dilemmas” occur

since there is no longer a “rational foundation for moral convictions.”1 What used to be the

solid core of morality is now uncertain, and everything concerning ethics suddenly

1 Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 7



2

becomes questionable.2 Should moral value be defined through deontology, where duty

and obligation are prioritized and ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ are determined within an act

itself? Or would it be more appropriate to consider the ethical value in the actual outcome

of an action? Deontology and consequentialism are two clashing concepts that both appear

to serve as epitomes of morality; they are the basis for making moral decisions. However,

the theories should not be binding since different types of ethical situations require

different approaches. Perhaps what is ‘right’ may not always be ‘good.’ In light of the

extremes, the thesis has paved way for moral pluralism- an alternative that allows for open-

minded judgment in ethical situations. Pluralism asserts that there are no objective truths

and encourage the acceptance of a multitude of beliefs and values.3 It further leads to the

awareness of the fact that there exists no such rational system of ranking for these values.4

The inevitability of conflicting moral values that result due to the subjectivity serve to

bring about greater social tolerance for different ideas and conceptions of life, while

ensuring that limits exist in order to avoid abusing the contingency of values.

Unlike primary values that are universally known and predetermined (such as love

being regarded as a benefit or humiliation as harmful), secondary values differ depending

on societies, traditions and historical periods.5 Individuals prioritize their values in regard

to their social roles and personal beliefs. For example, a doctor is required to save lives, so

he places life above all other values. On the other hand, a soldier’s duty is to fight for his


3 McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”

4 McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”




3

nation, even if this means killing. One sees life as a higher priority, while another dedicates

oneself to patriotism. Different roles call for different rankings of values, and often, the

values come into conflict. What is regarded as beneficial to one may be considered harmful

to another. Moral pluralism brings awareness to the “vast individual differences that

emerge above the level of the values we are bound to hold in common [primary values].6”

Tolerance towards various culture and social groups may be encouraged by open-

mindedness towards new behaviors and opinions.

Values are conditional since they depend on social roles, individual preferences,

religious beliefs and many other factors that have affected one’s upbringing. However,

moral absolutists deny this, arguing that this extreme conditionality will lead to the

disintegration of morality as a result of a lack of norms. Kant’s deontological theory, for

example, defines morality through the intentions of the agent rather than the consequences

of actions. The will or motive of these actions must correspond to a particular given set of

ethical codes that determine the ‘rightness’ of a certain act. This means that one is always

required to obey a certain ‘moral’ rule despite how absurd it may seem given the

circumstances. If a murderer were to ask a man where his wife and children are, Kantian

ethics would suggest that it is the man’s duty to speak the truth. Lying, in this case, is

considered to be intrinsically ‘immoral,’ despite that by doing so may save lives. This

example serves to highlight the idealism in the absolutism-based Kantian deontology in the

sense that it attempts to bring an outright, rational order upon a situation that calls for a




4

deeper examination. It is important to consider that maybe what is morally right may not

always be the best choice. In order to prevent growing moral conflicts, absolutists believe

that there should be one overriding value in which all other values become automatically

subordinate to. This overriding value ultimately rules over other values in all moral

situations regardless of circumstances. If justice were an overriding value, for example,

then in conflicts between justice versus life, freedom or any other positive value, the value

of justice would preside over all- meaning that lives and liberties must be sacrificed for

justice. This notion brings convenience when resolving moral dilemmas; the overriding

value automatically takes precedence over the value it conflicts with. In Kant’s case, this is

shown through the universalization of moral codes: “Always act in such a way that you can

also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law.”7 This can be

drawn back to the concept of the grand narrative introduced previously where there is an

attempt to provide a logical justification for the ranking of values. Nevertheless, the

absurdity of this absolutist theory lies in the fact that it does not provide a justification for

why all other values must be positioned subordinate to the overriding value. Why are some

values placed below other values, when they all seem equally moral? What determines the

overriding value? These questions have been left unanswered.

Perhaps there can be no fixed, rational ranking of values, since differences in social

roles, religious beliefs, desires, and environments allow for the existence of equally moral

values, in spite of how they may all conflict with each other. Moral pluralism, on one hand,

7 Kay, “Notes on Deontology”



5

will lead to unresolved conflicts among values because it allows for the interpretation of

values. During this stage of questioning, one would find oneself in a vicious circle until it

has been realized that more than one value can hold the same “ranking”- that there are

plural and equal values. The meta-ethical notion thus encourages society to become

conscious of the differences in preferences, i.e. secondary values, promoting less

prejudiced opinions and more open-mindedness.

Previously, the moral absolutist theory has been put to question. How is it possible

to place values into a universal system of ranking when there are countless factors that lead

to many different concepts of a good life? The monistic theory takes into account the

‘right’ type of life (deontology) while pluralists promote the ‘good’ life. More importantly,

pluralism recognizes the incompatibility and incommensurability of values as the reason to

why a rational ranking system cannot exist.8 Values are incompatible if they are mutually

exclusive and cannot be realized at the same time; for example, one cannot pursue both

independence and an active role in politics since they contradict each other; being

politically active requires taking into account the views of society whereas complete

independence excludes all social intervention. Incommensurable values are unrelated and

cannot be compared nor ranked on the same plane, such as vegetarianism versus

nationalism, cleanliness versus wisdom and so forth. The incompatibility of these qualities

makes the ranking of values impossible. Australian ethical philosopher John Kekes argues,

“On what grounds could any value be regarded as invariably overriding if the values it is




6

supposed to override are so utterly unlike it as to exclude the possibility of comparison

between it and them?”9 It appears that the attempt to rationalize by ranking values into a

fixed order involves arbitrary decisions that may lead to an inconclusive and fallible

outcome.

Absolutism favors the overriding value, claiming that the only exception to which

this value can be violated is that if it is for the best interest of the value- meaning “to

strengthen the value itself.”10

This may be considered doctrinaire in the sense that there is a

quality of permanence placed upon it. If life were an overriding value, the only condition

that would allow this value to be violated is to preserve another life. This is a case where

the overriding value comes into conflict with itself. If absolutists allow an exception in

which the overriding value can prevail over itself, the value appears to cancel itself out

rather than being strengthened. The absolutist theory provides a convenient solution for

moral conflicts by letting overriding values take precedence over subordinate values,

despite how unreasonable the outcome may be. Nonetheless, in situations where the same

value conflicts with itself (such as to sacrifice a life in order to preserve another life) the

idea of an overriding value loses its effectiveness as it cannot no longer be referred to as

the authority value, and this leaves one to make arbitrary decisions.

Since pluralism allows the conditionality of values, it promotes subjectivity in the

sense that there can be different and changing rankings of morals depending on the





7

situation and/or people involved. Yet, the complete reliance on subjectivity is dangerous;

subjectivity in this case should be valid only within a certain band with appropriate limits.

Under pluralism, one is encouraged to allow the guidance of moral intuition and reasoning

rather than having to conform to a universal set of moral rankings. For instance, if an agent

were to be faced with a moral dilemma in which he/she would have to steal a person’s boat

in order to save a drowning person, then the conflicting, incompatible values involved are

justice (to not steal) and benevolence (to save a life). A conducted survey11

reveals that the

majority is willing to violate justice in this situation in order to prevent harm after having

realized that a boat can be compensated for while a life cannot. Moral absolutism does not

provide a spectrum broad enough to reach this explanation as well as other reasons to why

a person might place certain values above others. It simply refers to an authority value that

presides over all, regardless of the situation, and often the best outcome is not achieved.

Pluralism fosters moral intuition, which allows one to realize, with reason, that

there can be exceptions to moral guidelines, such as in a case where one value may take

priority over another. Exceptions depend upon the agent and how he/she perceives the

definition of a moral duty. Referring back to the example above, it is apparent that this

type of intuition requires an understanding of the ethical features in any given situation.12

The agent realized the importance of life and harm-prevention over stealing and mentally

constructed a ranking of values in light of the situation occurring, leading him to perform

11

See survey attached. 12

Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross”



8

his “actual duty”13

of stealing the boat to rescue the drowning person. Yet even so, had he

believed that another person’s property should not be violated and thus decided to not steal

the boat, then he would be acting in favor of justice. Both options are equally correct and

moral in the deontological sense; the agent is acting upon either the values of justice or

harm-prevention, which are both considered intrinsically good, irrespective of his act’s

outcome. A consequentialist, on the other hand, would have decided to rescue the man in

order to prevent an injury or possible death, even if it required him to violate others’ rights.

However the consequentialist would first have to define the “best outcome” that would be

brought about by the act, and commonly it is the maximization of utility- “the greatest

good for the greatest number of people.” The consequential and deontological theories are

two common views from a broad selection that moral pluralism allows one to adopt. Yet,

there is one problem: the views cannot always be applied consistently. Suppose that there

is a person who takes money belonging to the wealthy and gives it over to the poor. How

can one measure this act’s degree of morality? Consequentialists, namely utilitarianists,

will claim that the act is moral since the pleasure and welfare gained by the poor is greater

in proportion to the loss suffered by the wealthy; while deontologists believe otherwise

because they consider stealing to be intrinsically immoral. A survey was conducted among

the same people, and it suggests that majority chooses to not steal in the first place because

they regard stealing as morally wrong.14

When asked why they had not taken this point

into consideration in the first example, they responded that this situation cannot be

perceived in the same way because it involves acting immorally towards a third party that

13

Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross” 14

See survey attached.



9

would have otherwise been uninvolved (the wealthy population) and that there are other

moral means of earning money for the poor without having to steal, such as through

donations and job-training.15

Other responses suggest that they have based their choices on

moral intuition, claiming that they can ‘just know’ that stealing would not be the right

thing to do in this type of situation. More than fifty percent of this deontology-supportive

majority includes people who have chosen the consequentialist option in the first example.

Thus it appears that there is a lack of consistency in settling on certain views, which

perhaps results from varied judgments and situations and, not to mention, the very limited

scope confined by each of the views.

As a result of the conditionality of values, the lack of consistency in making

decisions is an inevitable feature of pluralism. Pluralism calls for the use of moral intuition

and reasoning in order to achieve consensus. In such situations, absolutists would have

simply allowed the overriding value to preside with little regard to neither the consequence

nor the degree of morality intrinsic to the act itself.16

However, there are more

complications in resolving conflicts among pluralists since some values are equally moral

and reasonable and may be questioned. It is easy for society to fall into deep skepticism

that may lead to a negative kind of nihilism. If all values were open to be interpreted and

questioned, society may then be drifting closer to the theoretical epochè where all

judgment is suspended.17

Would pluralism deteriorate morality, as the disintegration thesis

15

See survey attached. 16

Kekes, “The Morality of Pluralism,” pg. 23 17

Encyclopedia Britannica



10

suggests? Pluralists must find the appropriate means to tackle moral conflicts without

inducing increased skepticism.

In a political society, for instance, policy-makers debate over common

controversial issues such as the legalization of euthanasia or marijuana. Reaching a

consensus would not be easy since controversies often involve a battle between conflicting

values that appear to be equally moral. In most cases, one side may have to compromise by

violating certain morals in order to reach an agreement, or the two opposing sides may

wish to establish a new common ground that appeals to the same morals. Yet, both cases

result in a stronger unity in which new views are being accepted, taking into consideration

society’s diversity and thus enhancing social tolerance.

The origins of the two opposing ideas of pluralism and absolutism become evident

when they are observed in terms of the battle between the bigger ideas of modernity and

postmodernism. Grand narratives, as previously mentioned in the introduction, appear to

lie under the general concept of moral absolutism. According to twentieth-century French

philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard, a grand narrative is somewhat an attempt to maintain

“totality, stability, and order” by concealing conflicts and disorders that are evident in any

particular society.18

The dogma of this notion becomes evident; one may feel coerced to

accept that certain ‘disorders’ are ultimately ‘wrong,’ and that ‘order’ is ultimately

18

Klages, “Postmodernism”



11

appropriate and rational.19

Conformers to the grand narrative strive to establish an

objective, universal truth without realizing that their ideas emanate from subjectivity.

Human knowledge, whether derived innately or through the senses, is limited in

comparison to all the knowledge that exists on this world- so how is it possible to seek a

general truth for the justification or impeaching of actions? Postmodernists thus have

introduced a replacement for grand narratives, known as ‘mini-narratives.’ Similar to

pluralism, mini-narratives are not committed to achieving universal truth as they only serve

to provide conditional explanations regarding individual events.20

Since this concept does

not attempt to generalize the immense diversity of the human race, but rather enables

society to examine situations from a variety of perspectives, it may further encourage the

ridding of prejudices and the acceptance of different ideas and customs. On the other hand,

grand narratives are criticized for potential bias and unreliability since it may be that

hierarchies and other authority figures in history have brought their own influences upon

them, altering its context to fit with the views of the time. As a result, once society starts to

become aware that grand narratives, just like government-based laws and policies, have

been created by humans that are capable of err and obscured judgment, and that the

subjectivity in establishing ‘truth’ is inevitable, there will be a greater inclination to accept

a multiplicity of different, smaller-scale narratives.

The strongest arguments that are posed against pluralism challenge the very basic

fundamentals of the theory itself: its plurality and conditionality that have so easily served

19

Klages, “Postmodernism” 20

Klages, “Postmodernism”



12

to exonerate groups that have engaged in evidently unmoral practices. Dr. Alister

McGrath, Lecturer in Theology from Oxford University, questions the pluralist theory in

his work, Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism: “Behind all the rhetoric

about ‘openness’ and ‘toleration’ lies a profoundly disturbing possibility- that people may

base their lives upon an illusion, upon a blatant lie, or that present patterns of oppression

may continue, and be justified, upon the basis of beliefs or outlooks which are false.”21

Can these illusions and lies be justified? After all, pluralism allows different conceptions

of what is perceived as ‘good,’ so would it be right to believe that everything and anything

can be permitted? When referring back to the crimes against humanity that have occurred

in the past, such as the Nazi regime or the Pol Pot genocide, it is difficult for one to accept

that the initiators held a perfectly rational mental state. Humans have been convinced that

they were ‘right,’ and this led to wars, genocides, slavery and racism.22

Consider the Hindu

custom of burning a widow alive after the death of her husband or the ritualistic sacrificing

of children in order to propitiate Gods.23

It is true that these practices may be considered

‘right for them,’ nevertheless it would be absurd to let them pass unquestioned.24

The

conditionality of pluralism, in this case, is a liability. Such an open-ended theory calls for

certain limits to be set in order to exclude certain views that are evidently morally

unacceptable.

21

McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism” 22

Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind” 23

McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism” 24

McGrath, “Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism”



13

The boundaries may serve to protect the basic primary values of life25

and should

thus be defined by human rights. As previously mentioned, actions and practices that are

known to be ‘evil’ such as child sacrifice, female circumcision or torture should not be

passed unchallenged since they all involve the violation of fundamental human rights.

There are also several values that are distinctly known to be ‘good’ in a variety of contexts,

such as justice and the protection of life from harm. Although these values appear to be the

most virtuous of all values, yet under pluralism, they are not overriding because all values

are said to be conditional. It is even possible that the seemingly moral values may be

reasonably violated in extreme cases where “the extraordinary and the abnormal may

occur.”26

This is why it is important to clearly define limits in order to eliminate potential

risks that the broadness of pluralism brings about.

An example of an attempt to establish boundaries within reasonable grounds can be

observed through the concept of prima facie duties. Nineteenth century Scottish

philosopher Sir William David Ross introduces this concept of obliging to duties that must

also be taken into priority unless reasonably triumphed by other duties.27

Clear examples

of prima facie duties include fidelity, gratitude, harm-prevention and justice.28

Thus, for

example, one ought to prevent harm in all cases unless there are stronger values that may

overtake harm-prevention. Prima facie duties are not to be confused with the absolutist’s

rational ranking of values because there is no specific order in which the duties are ranked,

25



Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross” 28

Garrett, “A Simple and Usable Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D. Ross”



14

and each value is not binding. Moral intuition and reasoning is heavily relied upon (refer

back to the example of the drowning man), and is determined by one’s moral upbringing

and background. Pluralism urges the use of moral intuition that will allow one to look

beyond dogmatic beliefs, moving towards a more sensible outcome.

Conclusion

On the surface, moral pluralism may appear to lead to skepticism and social

confusion as it accepts a variety of views and does not provide ‘truth’; it simply denies the

existence of any fixed universal rule or rules that attempt to justify certain actions.

However, by doing so, pluralism eliminates the possibility of being led into dogmatic

beliefs that attempt to impose rational order and further serves to encourage higher social

tolerance as it heeds the diversity of moral codes. However, bearing in mind that moral

pluralism is an open-ended theory, society must become aware of the responsibility of

establishing boundaries concerning the extent to how much an action can be justified.

There must be certain limits that serve as the stable, unchanging core for morality,

particularly in regard to the fundamental human rights. If this can be achieved, then

pluralism is less likely to harm the ‘morality’ of society and lead to the so-called

disintegration of morals. Pluralism, against a backdrop of democracy, urges society to look

past fixed, a priori rules and guidelines, whether in the form of religious codes or a set of

government policies, in order to develop a strengthened moral intuition that will ultimately

lead to a more socially tolerant and flourishing society that unites under one re-established

common ground.



15

Works Cited

Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York:

Simon & Schuster, 1987. Print.

Garrett, Jan. "A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory

Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross." 10 Aug 2004. Web. 25

Aug 2010. <http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm>.

Kay, Charles, D. "Notes on Deontology." Web.

22 Nov 2010. <http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm>.

Kekes, John. The Morality of Pluralism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Print.

Klages, Mary. "Postmodernism." University of Colorado, Web. 11 Oct 2010.

<http://www.bdavetian.com/Postmodernism.html>.

McGrath, Alister E. "Understanding and Responding to Moral Pluralism."

Web. 17 Jul 2010.

"epoch!." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 22 Nov 2010.

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/190459/epoche>.



16

Appendix

Below is a survey conducted among 64 individuals in order to investigate which options

were most popular in an ethical dilemma.

1. You see a drowning man waving for help. Next to you is an expensive speedboat

belonging to a family. What do you do?

Username Answer

sophiek2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

hugob2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

javiern2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mariaflorenciac2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

tanjak2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

margheritam2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

chrisz2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

annag2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

laurianes2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

natalieh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

marie-louiseg2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

alexanderr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

andream2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

laurah2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

denisp2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

jacopoz2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mikes2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

thomasr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

amilap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

rouzbehm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

lisbethh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

pinnapap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

josephh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

masatakaf2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

ondrejs2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

sharont2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

sabinat2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

miland2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

annam2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

nathaliem2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

christophh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

radikah2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

christosv2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

da-youngl2011 Walk away because you don't want to be involved. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

juliand2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

sarap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

evgenyr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

beattak2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.



17

davidar2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

tjeripot2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

dimitriosg2011 Watch the man drown because you don't want to steal the boat. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

dbancroft Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

michelleq2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

maximiliant2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

po-weiy2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

manuelh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

corneliab2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

pilarh2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mariap2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

danielw2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

paulaisabell2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

tayof2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

manuelm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

andreasr2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

lok-szel2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

surbhik2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

alia2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

faisala2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

ranih2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

davidd2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

felicitask2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

leonidm2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

jung-hyunl2011 Steal the boat in order to save the man. Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

davidr2011 Walk away because you don't want to be involved. Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

Summary

2 people out of the 64 surveyed have decided to walk away because they do not wish to be

involved in the situation.

1 person out of the 64 surveyed has decided to watch the man drown because he/she does

not wish to steal the boat.

61 out of the 64 surveyed have decided to steal the boat in order to save the drowning

man’s life

2. What is your view on a person who steals money from the rich and gives it to the poor?

sophiek2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

hugob2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

javiern2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mariaflorenciac2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

tanjak2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

margheritam2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.



18

chrisz2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

annag2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

laurianes2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

natalieh2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

marie-louiseg2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

alexanderr2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

andream2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

laurah2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

denisp2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

jacopoz2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mikes2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

thomasr2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

amilap2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

rouzbehm2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

lisbethh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

pinnapap2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

josephh2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

masatakaf2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

ondrejs2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

sharont2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

sabinat2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

miland2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

annam2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

nathaliem2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

christophh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

radikah2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

christosv2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

da-youngl2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

juliand2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

sarap2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

evgenyr2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

beattak2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

davidar2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

tjeripot2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

dimitriosg2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

dbancroft Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.



19

michelleq2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

maximiliant2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

po-weiy2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

manuelh2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

corneliab2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

pilarh2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

mariap2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

danielw2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

paulaisabell2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

tayof2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

manuelm2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

andreasr2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

lok-szel2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

surbhik2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

alia2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

faisala2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

ranih2011 Moral; because the poor people need the money whereas the wealthy people don't.

davidd2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

felicitask2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

leonidm2011 Moral; because it won't make a difference to the wealthy, whereas it means a lot to the poor.

jung-hyunl2011 Immoral; still considered stealing, which is bad.

davidr2011 Immoral; poor people need to find ways to make their own living.

Summary

29 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral since it is considered

stealing, which they believe is a bad action in itself.

10 people out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be immoral because they believe that

poor people need to find more proper ways to make their own living.

20 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the benefit

gained by the poor people is greater than the loss experienced by the wealthy.

5 out of the 64 surveyed consider this act to be moral because they feel that the money is a

necessity for the poor people, whereas the wealthy do not need it.

IB EXTENDED ESSAY: How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion

Documents

Transcript of IB EXTENDED ESSAY: How Moral Pluralism Contributes to Diversity and Social Cohesion