IGNOU MPYE 002 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23, IGNOU MPYE 002 Ethics Free Solved Assignment 2022-23 If you are interested in pursuing a course in radio production and direction, IGNOU MPYE 002 can be an excellent choice. In this article, we will take a closer look at what IGNOU MPYE 002 is all about and what you can expect to learn from this course.
Important Links : Handwritten Hardcopy
IGNOU MPYE 002 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23 is a course offered by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) under the School of Journalism and New Media Studies. As the name suggests, it is a course on “Production and Direction for Radio.” The course is designed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of radio production and direction and covers various topics related to this field. IGNOU MPYE 002 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23
IGNOU MPYE 002 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23
Q1. What is discourse ethics? Evaluate the rules of argumentation in discourse ethics given by Habermass.
Discourse ethics is a theory of moral reasoning developed by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. It aims to provide a framework for ethical decision-making that is based on rational dialogue and mutual understanding among participants in a discussion.
At its core, discourse ethics holds that moral judgments should be based on the outcomes of a rational dialogue rather than individual preferences or authority. This means that moral norms must be grounded in universal principles that are agreed upon by all participants in a discussion, and which are justified through the process of discourse.
Habermas identifies four rules of argumentation that are essential to discourse ethics:
- Truthfulness: Participants must strive to be truthful in their statements, and must not deceive others or present falsehoods as if they were true.
- Normative validity: Participants must base their arguments on valid and relevant moral norms, and must be prepared to justify those norms through rational dialogue.
- Sincerity: Participants must express their own views honestly and openly, without trying to manipulate or deceive others.
- Mutual respect: Participants must treat each other as moral equals, and must be willing to listen to and consider the views of others.
These rules are designed to ensure that discussions are conducted in a fair and open manner, and that all participants have an equal opportunity to contribute their views and arguments. They are intended to promote rational dialogue, rather than emotional or coercive appeals, and to provide a basis for consensus-building among participants.
In summary, discourse ethics is a theory of moral reasoning that emphasizes the importance of rational dialogue and mutual understanding in ethical decision-making. The rules of argumentation identified by Habermas are essential to this approach, as they provide a framework for fair and open discussion that is grounded in universal moral principles.
Q2. What are the objections of Karl-Otto Apel against previous moral theories? Discuss.
Karl-Otto Apel was a German philosopher known for his contributions to discourse ethics, which is a theory of morality that emphasizes the role of rational communication in ethical decision-making. Apel was critical of previous moral theories, particularly those based on natural law and utilitarianism, because he believed that they were insufficiently grounded in rationality and intersubjectivity.
One objection that Apel had to natural law theory was that it relied on the assumption that there is a fixed human nature that can be discovered through reason. Apel argued that this assumption was problematic because it ignores the fact that human beings are historical and cultural beings, and that their understanding of morality is shaped by their social context. Apel believed that any moral theory must take into account the historical and cultural dimensions of human experience in order to be truly rational.
Apel also objected to utilitarianism, which is a moral theory that emphasizes the maximization of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. Apel argued that utilitarianism was insufficiently grounded in rationality because it treated individuals as mere means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. According to Apel, any moral theory must respect the dignity and autonomy of individuals, and must recognize that ethical decisions must be made through rational communication among equals.
In summary, Apel’s objections to previous moral theories centered around their failure to adequately account for the historical and cultural dimensions of human experience, and their insufficient grounding in rationality and intersubjectivity. Apel believed that any moral theory must be grounded in rational communication among equals, and must respect the dignity and autonomy of individuals.
Q3. Give answer of any two questions in about 250 words each.
a) “Violence is morally wrong.” How would intuitionist, realist and relativist analyze this moral statement?
Intuitionist, realist, and relativist are three different moral theories that approach moral statements and beliefs from different perspectives. Here’s how each of them might analyze the moral statement “violence is morally wrong.”
- Intuitionist: An intuitionist would argue that the moral statement “violence is morally wrong” is self-evident, and that we can know it to be true based on our intuition or “moral sense.” According to intuitionism, moral truths are objective and exist independently of our beliefs or cultural practices. Therefore, an intuitionist would argue that the statement “violence is morally wrong” is objectively true, regardless of any individual or cultural beliefs to the contrary.
- Realist: A realist would also argue that the statement “violence is morally wrong” is objectively true, but for different reasons than an intuitionist. A realist believes that moral truths are based on some objective reality or feature of the world, such as human nature, the nature of the universe, or the will of a divine being. Therefore, a realist might argue that the statement “violence is morally wrong” is true because violence goes against some fundamental aspect of human nature or violates some natural law.
- Relativist: A relativist, on the other hand, would argue that the truth of the statement “violence is morally wrong” is dependent on the cultural or individual context in which it is made. According to relativism, there is no objective or universal moral truth, and morality is shaped by cultural or individual beliefs and practices. Therefore, a relativist might argue that in some cultures or situations, violence might be morally permissible or even required, and that the statement “violence is morally wrong” is not universally true.
b) Evaluate the idea of war in the light of Deontology and Utilitarianism.
Deontology and Utilitarianism are two ethical theories that provide different perspectives on the idea of war.
Deontology is an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of moral duty and obligation. It states that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. According to deontology, an action must be judged based on whether it follows a universal moral principle. War can be evaluated from a deontological perspective by examining whether it is a justifiable action according to universal moral principles.
On the other hand, Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of the consequences of an action. According to utilitarianism, the moral value of an action is determined by its ability to promote the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. War can be evaluated from a utilitarian perspective by examining whether it leads to a net increase in happiness or pleasure.
Deontological evaluation of war: From a deontological perspective, war can be evaluated based on whether it follows the principle of just war. Just war theory states that war can only be justified if it meets certain criteria, such as having a just cause, being declared by a legitimate authority, and being waged with proportional force. If a war meets these criteria, it can be considered a just war and therefore morally justified. However, if a war does not meet these criteria, it would be considered morally wrong.
Utilitarian evaluation of war: From a utilitarian perspective, war can be evaluated based on its overall consequences. If a war results in a net increase in happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people, it can be considered morally justified. However, if a war results in a net decrease in happiness or pleasure, it would be considered morally wrong.
In evaluating the idea of war from a utilitarian perspective, it is important to consider both the short-term and long-term consequences. While a war may bring about some short-term benefits, such as the removal of a tyrannical regime or the acquisition of valuable resources, the long-term consequences may be far more damaging, such as the loss of human life, economic devastation, and social upheaval. Therefore, a utilitarian evaluation of war must take into account both the immediate and long-term consequences.
In conclusion, both deontology and utilitarianism provide different perspectives on the idea of war. Deontology emphasizes the importance of moral duty and obligation, while utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of the consequences of an action. A deontological evaluation of war focuses on whether it meets the criteria of a just war, while a utilitarian evaluation focuses on whether it leads to a net increase in happiness or pleasure. Ultimately, the evaluation of war depends on the ethical theory being used and the specific circumstances of the war being evaluated.
c) What do you understand by Right to Life? Discuss the idea of dignified life in the context of cultural relativism and realism
The right to life is a fundamental human right that implies that all individuals have the right to live, to not be unlawfully killed, and to have their lives protected by law. The right to life is enshrined in various international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The idea of a dignified life refers to the belief that every individual has the right to live with dignity and respect, free from degrading treatment or discrimination. It encompasses a wide range of factors that contribute to a person’s well-being, such as access to basic needs, education, healthcare, employment, and social support.
Cultural relativism is the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood and judged within the context of their culture, rather than from an external perspective. In the context of the right to life and the idea of a dignified life, cultural relativism would suggest that what is considered a dignified life may vary depending on the cultural context in which an individual lives. For example, in some cultures, the idea of a dignified life may be closely tied to family relationships, whereas in others, it may be more focused on individual achievement.
Realism is a philosophical position that emphasizes the objective reality of the world and the importance of empirical evidence and rationality in understanding it. In the context of the right to life and the idea of a dignified life, realism would suggest that there are objective standards for what constitutes a dignified life, and that these standards can be identified and applied across cultures. Realists would argue that the right to life and the idea of a dignified life are universal, and that cultural differences should not be used to justify violations of these rights.
In conclusion, while cultural relativism and realism offer different perspectives on the idea of a dignified life in the context of the right to life, both highlight the importance of understanding the cultural and historical context in which an individual lives, while also acknowledging the universal nature of human rights.
d) Compare human order with moral order.
Human order and moral order are two distinct concepts that operate on different levels of society and individual behavior.
Human order refers to the social and cultural structures that govern our everyday lives, including laws, regulations, customs, and traditions. These structures are created by humans and are often designed to promote stability, predictability, and efficiency in society. Examples of human order include legal systems, economic systems, political institutions, and social norms.
Moral order, on the other hand, refers to the ethical principles that guide human behavior and decision-making. It is based on the idea that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of whether they are legal or socially acceptable. Moral order is often associated with religious or philosophical teachings, which provide a framework for understanding what is good or bad, just or unjust, virtuous or immoral.
While human order and moral order are related, they can sometimes come into conflict. For example, a legal system may be designed to promote the human order by enforcing rules and punishing those who break them, but these rules may not always align with the principles of the moral order. In such cases, individuals may be faced with a moral dilemma, where they must choose between following the law or following their conscience.
Overall, human order and moral order are both important for maintaining a functioning society, but they operate on different levels and serve different purposes. Human order provides the structure and stability necessary for society to function, while moral order provides the ethical guidelines that help individuals navigate complex moral decisions.
4. Give answer of any four questions in about 150 words each.
a) Write a note on the D. Ross’s idea of human duties.
b) Write a note on Cultural Relativism.
c) Write a note on the social responsibility of media.
d) Write a note on MacIntyre’s virtue ethics.
e) Evaluate moral realism in the light of Bio Ethical issues.
f) Write a note on moral intuitionism?
g) Write a short note on the Levinas’ idea of moral responsibility.
Q5. Write short notes on any five in about 100 words each.
c) Distributive Justice
d) Situation Ethics
f) Free Will
g) Virtue Ethics
h) Hypothetical Imperative
GET Handwritten Hardcopy
All Over India Delivery
WhatsApp – 8130208920