Ethics as part of mathematical reasoning in sharing

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2023.27.15360

Keywords:

mathematical reasoning, sharing, ethics

Abstract

There is a greater need in today‘s society, to understand and critically discuss how the limited resources of our planet are allocated. Often, mathematical models are used in connection with resource allocation problems, and a common view is that mathematics in itself is neutral. In this article, we challenge this view of mathematics as a neutral practice through an analysis of possible solutions to a sharing task. The tasks come from a research project aiming to study how mathematics can support ethical reasoning and ethical arguments can support different mathematical solutions when sharing a resource. In ethical reasoning, three components are addressed: Information, Coherence, and Engagement. We show that ethical reasoning is part of mathematical reasoning in all the solutions to the task, independent of whether the dividend is treated as indivisible or divisible.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References

Aziz, H., Caragiannis, I., Igarashi, A., & Walsh, T. (2022). Fair allocation of indivisible goods and chores. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 36(1), 1-21.

Birhane, A., & Sumpter, D. (2022). The games we play: critical complexity improves machine learning. Computers and Society. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.08922

Buell, C., & Piercey, V. (2022). -Ethics in Mathematics: Foreword. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 12(2), 3-6.

Correa, J., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1998). Young children's understanding of division: The relationship between division terms in a noncomputational task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.321

Eriksson, H., Hedefalk, M., & Sumpter, L. (accepted). The tension between division and fair share. In H. Palmér, C. Björklund, E. Reikerås & J. Elofsson (Eds.), Teaching Mathematics as to be Meaningful – Foregrounding Play and Children’s Perspectives: Results from the POEM5 Conference, 2022. Gothenburg.

Eriksson, H. & Sumpter, L. (2021). Algebraic and fractional thinking in collective mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108, 473-491. doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10044-1

Ernest, P. (2020). Mathematics, ethics and purism: an application of MacIntyre’s virtue theory. Synthese (Dordrecht), 199(1-2), 3137-3167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02928-1.

Griffiths, M., & Murray, R. (2017). Love and social justice in learning for sustainability. Ethics and Education, 12(1), 39-50, https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2016.1272177

Hedefalk, M. & Sumpter, L. (forthcoming). Young children’s ethical reasoning about sharing: an analytical tool to address different types of arguments. (submitted, under review).

Hedefalk, M., Eriksson, H., Markkanen, P., & Sumpter, L. (2022). 5 year olds in between of sharing and division. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 39.

Lin, D., Wambersie, L., & Wackernagel, M. (2021). Estimating the Date of Earth Overshoot Day 2021. Nowcasting the World’s Footprint & Biocapacity for.

Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

Öhman, J., & Sund, L. (2021). A Didactic Model of Sustainability Commitment. Sustainability 13(6), 3083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063083

Samuelsson, L. (2020). Etik i utbildning för hållbar utveckling–Att undervisa den etiska dimensionen av en kontroversiell fråga. [Ethics in education for sustainability – To teach the ethical dimension of a controversial question]. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(4), 1-22.

Samuelsson, L., & Lindström, N. (2020) On the Practical Goal of Ethics Education: Ethical Competence as the Ability to Master Methods for Moral Reasoning, Teaching Philosophy, 1-22.

Skovsmose (2020). Mathematics and ethics. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa, 8 (18), 478-502.

Stemn, B. S. (2017). Rethinking mathematics teaching in Liberia: Realistic mathematics education. Childhood Education, 93(5), 388-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1367230

Sternberg, R.J. (2012). A model for ethical reasoning. Review of General Psychology, 16 (4), 319-328.

Suksompong, W. (2021). Constraints in fair division. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 19(2), 46-61.

Sumpter, L. & Hedefalk, M. (2023). När dela lika är olika [When fair share is unequal]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 20(2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.23865/nbf.v20.256

Sumpter, L. & Hedefalk, M. (2015). Preschool children’s collective mathematical reasoning during free outdoor play. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 1-10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.03.006

Sumpter, L. (2016). Two frameworks for mathematical reasoning at preschool level. In T. Meaney, O. Helenius, M.L. Johansson, T. Lange & A. Wernberg (Eds.) Mathematics Education in the Early Years: Results from the POEM2 Conference, 2014, (pp. 157-169). Springer.

Toulmin. S. (2003). The uses of argument. (updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https//doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005a

Tväråna, M. (2018). Theories of justice among eight-year-olds: Exploring teaching for an emerging ability to critically analyse justice issues in social science, Nordidactica 2018:4, ISSN 2000-9879

Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191-198.

Downloads

Published

2023-07-27

How to Cite

Sumpter, L., & Sumpter, D. . (2023). Ethics as part of mathematical reasoning in sharing. Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Science, (27), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2023.27.15360

Issue

No. 27 (2023): Prometeica - nº 27 (07/2023 - 10/2023)

Section

Articles - Dossier

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Lovisa Sumpter, David Sumpter

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright: Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Sciences is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

 

Copyright maintenance

Prometeica allows the author (s) to keep their copyright without restrictions.

Prometeica allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction.

Similar Articles

> >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.