Humanity's Grand Challenges

equirement as uploaded.

Three Principles for Ethical Decision-Making

• EndsBased thinking. Known to philosophers as utilitarianism, this principle's maxim is, Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It demands of us a kind of cost-benefit analysis, determining who will be hurt and who will be helped, and measuring the intensity of both. It Is the staple of public policy debate: most legislation, these days, is crafted with this utilitarian test in mind. At the heart of this principle is the assessment of consequences, a forecasting of outcomes. Philosophers typically refer to utilitarianism as a teleologlcal principle, from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "issue" because you cannot determine the greatest good without speculating on probable futures. Utilitarianism examines possible results and picks the one that produces the most blessing over the greatest range.

• Rule-Based thinking. Often associated with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, this principle is best known by what Kant called the categorical imperative. He out it this way: “Act only on the maxim Iguidelinel you want everyone else to follow." In other words, behave in such a way that your actions could become a standard for everyone else to follow." Rule-based thinkers ask, "If everyone in the world followed the rule of action I am following, would it produce the greatest, worthiest character?’ This mode stands directly opposite utilitarianism. Arguing that we cannot know all the consequences of our actions (as the ends-based principle asks us to), the rule-based thinker says, ‘Never mind the outcomes: stick to your principles and let the chips fall where they may." Based firmly on duty—on what we ought to do rather than what we think might work—it is known among philosophers as a deontological principle, from the Greek word deon, meaning "obligation” or "duty*.

• Care-Based thinking. Putting love for others first, this principle's most famous maxim is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It partakes of a feature philosophers call reversibility. Reversibility test your actions by putting yourself in the other person's position and imagining how you would feel if you were the recipient, rather than the perpetrator, of those actions. In our culture, this idea is often associated with Christianity, but in fact it is nearly universal among human societies. It appears in every one of the world's great religious teachings. For example, among the Yoruba of Nigeria, it is said, *One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." While philosophers have disputed its standing as a practical principle, it is for many people the first rule of ethics they learn and has provided moral glue for communities over the centuries.

In this assignment I would like to draw on your experience as a ‘knowledgeable social actor’ in order to reflect on “Humanity's Grand Challenges”.  Please note, there are a number of different lists of the Grand Challenges of our time. For example, the National Academy of Engineering includes access to clean water and the engineering of better medicines, as well as the enhancement of virtual reality and the need to development carbon sequestration methods as key challenges. Other lists frame the grand challenges as questions: How do societies create effective and resilient institutions, such as governments? How can we aggregate information possessed by individuals to make the best decisions? How can we understand and respond to environmental change? Still other lists, such as the Grand Challenges in Global in Global Mental Health, narrow the field of inquiry to action items that might ‘remove barriers’ and lead to greater health equity across the globe.

Given that this is a geography class with a diverse audience, I have purposefully provided a broad list of “unsolved Challenges” facing the globe’s population. Below are ten challenges that if left unaddressed/not secured have the potential to increase economic, geopolitical, technological, societal, or environmental risk.

Grand Challenges

Democratic Governance

Access to Education

Food Security

Public Health

Income Disparity

Sustaining Biodiversity

Access to Water/Water Security

Energy Production/Provision

Physical Security

Climate Change

Starting with a new document, please complete the following tasks.

Task #1 Create a ranking of the grand challenges

Please create a list, ranking the ‘challenges’ in what you determine is an appropriate order of  GLOBAL importance. I would also like you to draft a rationale of why you created your particular ranking scheme (i.e. Which of the grand challenges did you identify as requiring immediate attention? Which of the challenges did you rank as being the least critical? Which of the challenges did you struggle to place? Why?)

Task #2 Create a Radar Graph

While useful, a ranking system doesn’t always illustrate the importance that individuals place on certain ‘variables’. To help depict the ‘weight’ you apply to each of the grand challenges I would like you create a radar graph that assigns a number of points to each of the grand challenges. Working with 75 total points, please assign points to each of the grand challenges based on your designated importance. Please do not award any ‘challenge’ more than 10 points. You may award 0 (zero) points to a challenge if you wish but you may not allocate more than 75 total points. I have provided a random example below.

I have provided an excel sheet for you to input your selections. To make a radar graph in Excel highlight the grand challenges and the points you awarded (see left image below) and then using the insert tab, find the radar graph symbol  and select the basic radar graph (see right image below). After you have created your radar graph please be sure to insert it into your assignment document.

Task #3 Consider the ethical principles you used to craft your ranking and graph
What ethical principles or moral philosophy did you apply to create your ranking and radar graph? (I recognize that this is not a course in meta-ethics (the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice), normative ethics (the study of ethical action), or applied ethics (attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations) – but what I would like for you to do is to consider the difference(s) between approaching the ‘grand challenges from an ‘ends-based principles’, ‘rules-based principles’’ and ‘care/case-based principles’ approach (see attached handout for descriptions of each of these principles). Did you use the same logic when awarding points/ranking each of the grand challenges? Why or why not? Please take the time to explain your logic.

Task #4 Articulate the ethical implications of your ranking

Each of the grand challenges you are considering influence people in different ways and at different scales.  No matter how you answered Tasks 1-3, there will be trade-offs, and some people will benefit at the expense of others. Please reflect on how your ranking might be altered if you shifted scales by addressing the following question:  

4a) If you were considering only the challenges in the context of Virginia, would you still have the same ranking and weights? Please explain why or why not using a few examples?

Task #5 Rethink the initial list of grand challenges

If you had the occasion to replace a grand challenge on the list with a new one, what would you remove and what would replace it with? Please explain your logic.