Ethics Chapter 2 PDF

Chapter 2 Ethical Theories and Principles (week 3 & 4) 2.1 Teleological and Deontological Theories 2.2 Utilitarian Theory of Ethics 2.3 Kant’s Ethics of Duty Theory 2.4 Theory of Rights 1 2.1 Teleological and Deontological Theories...

Chapter 2 Ethical Theories and Principles (week 3 & 4) 2.1 Teleological and Deontological Theories 2.2 Utilitarian Theory of Ethics 2.3 Kant’s Ethics of Duty Theory 2.4 Theory of Rights 1 2.1 Teleological and Deontological Theories Moral philosophers have classified two types of ethical theories, teleological and deontological. Teleological theories hold the rightness of actions is determined solely by the amount of good consequences they produce. These theories are also referred to as consequential theories. Deontological theories, on the other hand, deny that consequences are relevant tio determining what we ought to do. Rightness of action is due to the nature of actions or the rules from which they follow. These will include divine commands from God, i.e., religious principles. Deontological theories are therefore also called non-consequential theories. One of the most influential and prominent teleological ethical theories that has survived through the centuries is the utilitarian theory of ethics or utilitarianism. It is a theory applied widely by economists to make rational economic decisions for a society’s well- being, defined objectively in material contexts rather than from spiritual perspectives. 2.2 Utilitarian Theory of Ethics Utilitarianism provides an answer to the basic practical question; what ought man do? The answer is: man ought to act in a way so as to produce the best consequences possible – the common good, i.e. utility. Utility refers to satisfaction or pleasure that people receive from consuming a good or service (Tucker, 2010). According to utilitarianism, our obligation or duty in any situation is to perform the action that will result in the greatest possible balance of good over evil. a) Goodness is an inherent trait of a human well-being. Whatever makes human beings generally better off or that which benefits them, is good; whatever makes them worse off or that which harms them, is evil. 2  b) Utilitarianism attempts to evaluate all of the good and bad consequences of an action, whether the consequences arise after the act or during the act. c) In the process, utilitarian advocates will develop some alternative actions to weight the good and bad consequences of each act, before deciding on the best action to take d) The more good consequences for the majority, the more ethical the decision or action will be. However, if the difference in the consequences of alternative actions is not great, some utilitarian advocates will not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. e) This theory seems to support moral relativism. The rightness of actions thus depends on the good and bad consequences of the actions and the situations that prevail in the process. Moral right is, thus, defined in terms of an objective; for the material good. Roots of Utilitarianism: Betham and Mills Utilitarian originated from two scholars, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and his student, John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). They were followers of Adam Smith, the Father of Modern Economics. While Bentham and Mill defined the principles of utilitarianism, it was Smith’s tutor at Glasgow University, Professor Hutcheson, who first coined the phrase, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number’, which became the fundamental principle behind utilitarianism. Utilitarianism thus assesses moral action on the basis of consequences and goal orientation- how far a decision maximizes the net utility, where all individuals affected by the action may expect. 3 Principles of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism principles include four distinct theses: Theses of Utilitarianism Principles Description of Theses 1. Consequentialism The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences 2. Hedonism Pleasure and only pleasure (absence of pain) is ultimately good. This thesis relates to individual happiness and satisfaction in the consumption of goods and services 3. Maximalism The right action is one that has not merely some good consequences, but also the greatest amount of good consequences, even when the bad consequences are also taken into consideration. 4. Universalism The consequences to be considered are those of everyone. Based on this thesis, we have to consider the impacts of our actions on the majority (the masses) Forms of Utilitarianism There are two form of utilitarianism, as follows, Classical Utilitarianism In classical utilitarianism (developed by Bentham), an action is judged to be right by virtue of the consequences of performing that action. This results in two things. First, pleasure is taken to be the ultimate good while evil is the opposite of pleasure. i.e. pain. Classical utilitarianism requires consequences to be measured in some way, so that the pleasure and pain of different individuals can be added together and the results of different courses of action compared. “An action is right of and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone.” 4 Second, classical utilitarianism is silent on compliance to codes and rules. Telling a lie or breaking a promise is right if it has better consequences than any alternative course of action (Boatright, 2012). As mentioned earlier, this theory seems to support moral relativism rather than moral objectivity. It depends greatly on human judgment and rational thinking (weighing the good and bad consequences of an action). It also seems to set aside established religious principles that are embedded in society, since there is no need to follow established codes or rules in determining the rightness of actions, other than the four theses mentioned. Rule Utilitarianism Bentham’s classical utilitarianism theory caused controversy. The ‘over-freedom’ and rationalization of moral actions seemed to challenge established religious rules and cultural norms within the conservative English environment of that era. After being challenged by the community, Mill refined Bentham’s principles to save his teacher. Mill tried to clarify the limitations of Bentham’s theory by referring to it as rule utilitarianism (developed by Mill). “An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules the general acceptance of which will produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone.’ Mill’s principles relates to the importance of complying with rules while assessing the rightness of actions. It seems to give firmer ground to the rules of morality and role obligations. However, it does not specify what rules one should conform to. Presumably, it includes man- made and God-made rules and principles. Again, individuals have to make their own moral judgments to determine the rightness of actions, and indicator of moral relativism. In sum, both classical and rule utilitarianism focus on the consequences or results to determine the rightness of an action. However, classical utilitarianism emphasizes results only regardless of compliance to rules, as long as the consequence of the action gives happiness for everyone. 5 Strengths of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is in accordance with much of our moral reasoning. The fact that an action would provide some benefit or cause some harm is generally a morally relevant reason for against performing it. It is result-orientated. It provides a relatively precise and objective method for moral decision-making since we are trying to evaluate the good and bad consequences before acting. Classical utilitarianism is simple to apply and provides an easily understood decision procedure. Assuming that the goodness of consequences can easily be measured and compared, a teleological decision-maker needs only to determine the possible causes of action and calculate the consequences of each one. Rule utilitarianism gives a firmer ground to rules of morality and to role obligations, which are problems to all teleological theories. It also eliminates the difficult task of calculating the consequences of each individual act. Utilitarianism reasoning has also found favour among economists, who use the assumption that individuals seek to maximize their utility or welfare to explain and predict a wide range of economic phenomena, such as prices and allocation of resources. Many of the microeconomic theories have been developed based on utilitarian principles. For example, profit maximation, marginal analysis, Theory of Comparative Advantage, etc. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism While utilitarianism has substantial advantages, it also has its weaknesses. The theory does not give an account of the rights we have and what is deemed just and fair, which an ethical theory is expected to give. More criticisms of the Utilitarianism Theory of Ethics have been listed by Abdullah and Mohamad Zainol Abidin (2011), revealing its limitations as a man-made theory. Limitations of Theory Explanations of Limitations 1 Individual happiness is the main objective Individual happiness and satisfaction cannot in life. rationally be the main objective or sense of purpose in life. Critics have listed a number of noble people who have had to sacrifice 6  their own happiness, in order to do good deeds. 2 The theory is degrading to human beings. The theory degrades humans to the level of animals because it suggests that the only goal in life for people is attaining pleasure. 3 The theory promotes objectivity rather The theory is silent on the sprituality aspects than subjectivity to be objective and scientific. It only emphasizes the physical human needs since its emphasis is material well-being. Human beings, however, are unique creations of god with intelligence, feelings and emptions. Morality certainly revolves not only within physical contexts, but also spiritual aspects of a human life, since humans consist of the body and the soul. Their essence is the soul. 4 The theory encourages selfishness The theory propagates that one should be concerned only with maximizing one’s own happiness. 5 The theory is self-serving The principle will be abused in order to serve particular interests of the person making the decision. 6 The theory is unattainable It is near impossible to always act for the sake of the general happiness of society. 7 The theory is too time-consuming It is impossible to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain implied by each alternative course of action, and then come to a conclusion based on the utilitarian calculus. 7 2.3 Kant’s Ethics of Duty Theory Immanuel Kant’s (1724 – 1804) influential work on ethics entitled, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics, was first established in 1725 (Boatright, 2012; Abdullah and Mohamed Zainol Abidin, 2011) before the rise of utilitarianism in England (Boatright, 2012). The opening of his work reads: ‘Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world which can be good without qualification, except a Good Will.’ ‘Will” is the uniquely human capacity to act from principle. It is the power of the mind to do something and to make things happen. Kant is convinced that our moral actions cannot be guided by our practical experience. In other words, it is impossible to determine what people ought to do by studying what they in fact do (Abdullah and Mohamad Zainol Abidin, 2011). Human actions must therefore be rationalized based on human intelligence and will power. According to Kant, people have a duty towards fellow human beings. ‘An action is morally right if an only if the actor is motivated by good will.’ It is thus not a matter of the individual weighing up consequences. According to Kant, the basis of a moral act rests on a duty that one has to perform, for the purpose of good will. An act has to be intentionally good as a duty to be performed for fellow human beings, regardless of the consequences. Nothing is good in itself, except good will. Goodness of the will hence depends on the use of them. For example, some students who are brilliant with computers hacked into the university’s security system to acquire the final examination papers in advance. Such an act, while clever and bold, is committed for the wrong reasons. The act is not motivated by good will; it is in fact a wrongful act, as it amounts to cheating in the final examination. Kant opines that only an action done for rational, principled reasons from a sense of duty has moral worth. If our actions stem from a sincere obligation to perform a duty towards others, then our act has moral worth. Based on the perspective of Kant’s ethics, the purpose or intent of an act seems to differentiate it as a good or bad act. If the purpose is for good will, out of a sense of duty to help others, the act has moral worth. However, if the intent is mainly to popularize an 8 organization in the public’s eye, for example, then the moral worth of the act is questionable. The main intent then seems to be achieve a business goal: the increasing of profits to fulfil organizational interests by building the organization’s corporate image in society. This act neither promotes good will nor helps fellow humans as a duty. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives Acting based on good will out of a sense of duty. Utilitarianism states that consequences or results will determine the moral judgment, but Kant believes that reasons alone can give us the absolute moral truth and discover our sense of duty. Kant’s categorical imperatives are: First Categorical Imperative Act only according to that maxim by which you can; at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Second Categorical Imperative Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as only a means. An ‘imperative’ is a command or duty, whereas ‘categorical’ means ‘that is without exception’. In understanding the First Categorical Imperative, the maxim is defined as ‘a saying that express a general truth or rule of behaviour’. Kant’s First Categorical Imperative combines two criteria for determining rightness or wrongness of moral actions – universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability gives the interpretive meaning that ‘the person’s reason for acting must be reasons that everyone could act on at least in principle’ (Velasquez, 2012). Reversibility carries the meaning that ‘the person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that the person would be willing to have others use, even as a basis of how they treat him or her’ (Velasquez, 2012). Kant’s First Categorical Imperative seems to reinforce that our moral actions should not be guided by our own inclinations, but guided by a sense of duty to the universal law. An action is morally right for a person in a certain situation if and only if the person’s reason for carrying 9 out the action is a reason that he/she would be willing to have every person act on in any similar situation. An act is morally right if and only if we can will it to become a universal law of conduct. One’s absolute moral truth must be logically consistent, free from internal contradiction. Example: Robin Hood, stole from the rich to give to the poor. This is considered wrong, because stealing is a universally accepted wrongful act. If Robin Hood were to place himself in the shoes of the rich he robbed, Robin Hood would certainly not have committed the act – he himself would not like his possessions to be stolen by others. Kant’s First Categorical Imperative simply requires us to place ourselves in the shoes of the receiving party before acting. If the action is going to cause pain rather than happiness to others, then the action is not ethical. We should not commit such an act on others. It calls for us to put aside our self-interests. It also requires us to reason out and assess whether the act is universally accepted as good. Next, according to Kant’s Second Categorical Imperative, an action is morally right for a person if and only if in performing the action, the person does not use others merely as a means for advancing his/her interests, but also both respects and develops their capacity to choose freely for themselves. ‘Never treat human beings as a means to an end’ Kant’s view is that people, unlike things, ought never to be misused. For example, employees may be hired for their labour, skills, knowledge and abilities, but they must always be treated with respects as human. Strengths of Kant’s Ethics Kant’s theory has survived through the centuries due to the following strengths. 1. The First Categorical Imperative provides firm rules to follow in moral decision-making. No matter what the consequences may be or who does it, some actions arealways wrong for example lying, cheating, greed, etc. This view is certainly congruent with religious dimensions and supporters of moral objectivism. 10  2. The Second Categorical Imperative emphasizes the importance of the humanistic dimension, not using/treating other humans as a means to an end, but as and end themselves. This principle is consistent with human rights principles. 3. The theory also highlights the importance of motivation and acting on principles out of a sense of duty towards fellow human beings rather than fulfilling one’s self-interest. 4. Kant’s duty principles are certainly consistent with the Islamic concept of a vicegerent on earth (khalifah). Man is directly informed of their role – to be a leader/guardian in the universe. He has specific duties and responsibilities to accomplish as a khalifah. Weaknesses and Criticisms of Kant’s Ethics Kant’s theory has also been criticized by moral scholars, despite its strengths. 1. What exactly has moral worth? Kant’s advocating view that an act based on self- interest has no moral worth seems to be too extreme a view. Its seems to suggest that theory requires us to disregard personal emotions and feelings. Many moral theorists, especially advocates of moral relativism feel that Kant is too severe on this point. Humans practically will always want to fulfil self-interests since they are individualistic by nature. 2. Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of rightness? Kant said moral rules are without exception when, in reality, humans may not follow them and act on the contrary. The categorical imperatives may not holistically cover all aspects of life. 3. What does it mean to treat people as means? It is not clear when people are really being treated as ends and merely as means. Because at times, individuals freely choose to do it to fulfil commitments without being forced by other people. It is thus not right to say that under such situations, they are exploited and treated as a means rather than as an end. Despite the criticisms, Kant’s ethics yield two important findings: 1. It introduces the principle of universalizability and emphasizes respect for any human being. The universalizability principle states that as a matter of logic, we must be consistent in the judgments we make. There should be no double standards in our actions for it may lead to bias and disrespect towards others. 11  2. Kant’s ethics provides a strong foundation for rights. Individual human rights must be acknowledge and is inviolable. Kants’ ethics certainly complements Islamic ethical values, especially those related to benevolence, kindness and being helpful (ihsan), respect and justice (adl). 2.4 Theory of Rights Rights play an important role in business ethics; what more in moral issues. The political struggles in Syria, the survival of Rohingya Muslims in Myammar, the future of Gaza Palestinians and the cries of women activists to promote gender equality are enough to explain the emphasis placed on human rights in today’s global environment. In the business environment, employers, employees, consumers, the general public, etc., each have their own rights. Employees have their rights to be treated fairly by employers for the services provided in the production of goods and services. Employers also have their rights to minimize cost of production by retrenching redundant staff during an economic crisis to sustain business. In the marketing arena, consumers have their rights to enjoy quality and safe products. Likewise, producers and manufacturers also have their rights to produce the kind of goods that reap maximum profits for the high risks taken. Practically, everyone is claiming for their rights nowadays. The concept of rights, though humanistic, can be confusing and manipulative of not well- understood because everyone claims that they have rights. We may realize that rights can be conflicting and the claim of a right by a party is frequently the beginning of an ethical debate rather than an end. (Boatright, 2012). Nevertheless, ‘right’ is an important ethical concept that needs to be appropriately understood within individual as well as social contexts. Conceptualizing Rights All religions acknowledge that humans and non-humans have rights. The concept of rights is certainly closely linked to justice and fairness. However, in order to focus on rights as ethical concept, ethical scholars have attempted to separate the concepts of rights and justice although they are closely related. 12 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 set forth basic human rights for all people. But what are rights? Rights can be explained as entitlements to something. To have rights is to be entitled to act on our own or to be treated by others in certain ways without asking permission of anyone, To have rights is to be free and independence of someone’s good will. In other words, it gives a person freedom to act in the manner she deems fit without having to follow some terms and conditions laid down by others. Conceptually, rights may be classified into legal and moral rights, specific and general rights, and negative and positive rights (Boatright; Velaquez, 2012). The following sums up the various types of rights. Legal and Moral Rights Legal rights are those which have been recognized and enforced as part of a legal system or law. For example, the Employment Act 1955 in Malaysia lays down provisions to protect workers from being exploited by employers. The defined legal rights of employees are out of a legal system which states employees’ rights to ensure justice and fairness. In contrast, moral rights are those entitlements that we ought to have out of general ethical rules or principles. Moral rights do not have to depend on the existence of a legal system to determine the individual right. For example, the right to be treated with respect by others is a moral right of any human being. ie Although Mr Q is a street-sweeper who cleans the street, he has a moral right to be respected as a human right. We treat him well by acknowledging his contribution and supporting him in any way. It challenges his right if we to mistreat or humiliate him because he is undertaking a low income job in the streets. It is a moral right to act fairly towards everyone irrespective of differences out of respect for human dignity. Moral rights is synonymous with natural or human rights. Specific and General Rights Specific Rights relate to and involve identifiable individuals or parties such as in contracts and agreements. It creates mutual obligations, duties and commitments between the parties. For 13 example, when we sign a sales and purchase agreement to buy a house, there are specific rights that are defined for both parties, be it the buyer or seller/developer. One of the right rights of buyer is the ownership of the property within a stipulated period of 18 months. Failure of the developer to fulfil the buyer’s right will obligate him to pay compensation to the buyer for the inconvenience caused. This is a specific right of the buyer, clearly written in the contract though mutual agreement that is binding between the two parties. General right, involve claims against everyone, or humanity in general, such as freedom of speech, the right for survival, the right to be respected as a person, etc. Relating to freedom of speech, if Mr A stops Mr B from giving his views over a concern or issue of interest, such as is seen to be violating Mr B’s right to express himself as a civil human being. In fact, enforcement of general rights rests with the whole community. Natural or Human Rights In the classification of types of rights, we have earlier explained moral rights. A sub-set of moral rights is natural rights. This type of rights has been prominently covered in historical literature. These are rights that belong to all persons, being humans. The idea of natural rights has long been debated in history, going back to the ancient Greeks, who held that there is a ‘higher’ law that applies to all persons everywhere and serves as a standard for evaluating the laws of the states. Both Roma law and the medieval church adopted this idea and developed it into a comprehensive legal theory. The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 sets forth basic human rights for all people. This declaration covers natural rights. However, they call it by a different term, i.e human rights. These are rights that belong to all persons purely by virtue of human beings, irrespective of race, gender, nationality and other differences. There are two main features of human rights, i.e. universality and unconditionally. 1 Universality refers to rights that are possessed by everyone, irrespective of demographic differences, such as race, religion, gender, nationality and so forth. 2 Unconditionality refers to rights that do not depend on any particular practice or institutions in society. It is therefore not conditional, and not dependent on 14 situations or circumstances. It also means that there is nothing we can do to deprive ourselves or others of these rights. Example of natural or human rights are the right to be treated with justice and fairness, the right for freedom of speech, the right to choose one’s way of life, religion, etc. 15