Ethics Finals PDF

VIRTUE ETHICS 🙢 Ethics of Character Company and Values 🙢 Apple as a company values: Apple Core Values 1981 🙢 🙢 Below you can find the some of the original Apple core values: 🙢 One person, one computer. 🙢 We are going for it and we will set aggressive g...

VIRTUE ETHICS 🙢 Ethics of Character Company and Values 🙢 Apple as a company values: Apple Core Values 1981 🙢 🙢 Below you can find the some of the original Apple core values: 🙢 One person, one computer. 🙢 We are going for it and we will set aggressive goals. 🙢 We are here to make a positive difference in society, as well as make a profit. 🙢 Each person is important; each has the opportunity and the obligation to make a difference. 🙢 We are enthusiastic! 🙢 We are creative; we set the pace. We care about what we do.  🙢 🙢 Starbucks Coffee 🙢 -Creating a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome. -Acting with courage, challenging the status quo and finding new ways to grow our company and each other. -Being present, connecting with transparency, dignity and respect. -Delivering our very best in all we do, holding ourselves accountable for results  🙢 Core Values of JFC 🙢 Customer Focus, Speed with Excellence, Integrity, Spirit of Family and Fun, Humility to Listen and Learn.  🙢 🙢 Aristotle’s ethical treatises 🙢 Nicomachean Ethics 🙢 Eudemian Ethics, and 🙢 Magna Moralia 🙢 Modern virtue ethics theories such as those developed by Alasdair MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, Philippa Foot, Elizabeth Anscome, Rosalind Hursthouse among others, take their inspiration from Aristotle.  🙢 🙢 What kind of person should I be? 🙢 Ethics that concentrates on character rather than action. (not to suggest that there’s no correlation between the two)  Aristotle’s Ethics 🙢 Dominant themes: a. human good b. eudaimonia c. intellectual and moral virtues d. cardinal virtues e. moral education  Moral Education 🙢 🙢 What makes people good? To answer this question, Aristotle discloses that nature, habit and teaching are all essential in making us good  Agree or Disagree 🙢 🙢 Virtuous parents will more likely produce virtuous children. Vicious parents are likely to beget vicious children. 🙢 VIRTUE THEORY 🙢 🙢 Emphasizes an individual’s character rather than following a set of rules 🙢 Emphasizes the value of virtuous qualities rather than formal rules or useful results 🙢 Aristotle is recognized as the first philosopher to advocate the ethical value of certain qualities or virtues in a person’s character 🙢 Proper Functioning  🙢 Aristotle: Virtue leads to happiness or human flourishing Virtue is 1. A habit or disposition of the soul 2. Involving feeling and action 3. To seek the mean in all things relative to us, 4. Where the mean is defined through reason as the prudent man would define it  🙢 🙢 Habits of the soul 🙢 We are not born with virtues 🙢 We acquire virtues through practice 🙢 Moral education focuses on the development of a person’s fundamental character (soul for Aristotle 🙢 Feeling and action 🙢 Virtue involves emotion and action 🙢 Aristotle's account of moral life emphasizes the emotive or affective character of virtue 🙢 Seeking the Mean Relative to Ourselves 🙢 Finding the Mean between two extremes 🙢 Excess and deficiency are vices  🙢 🙢 Defining the Mean Through reason and the Prudent Person PRACTICAL WISDOM (phronesis or prudence) involves a. The practical dimension of judgment (apply something general (concept of good life) to specific cases b. Goes beyond mechanical application of rules (both reflective and affective) What exactly does it mean to be virtuous? 🙢 Having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward the right people  🙢 🙢 No need to be specific, because if you’re virtuous, you know what to do. All the time. You know how to handle yourself and how to get along with others. You have good judgment, and you know what’s the right thing to do and when to do it.  🙢 🙢 On Honesty Means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully. How to break bad news gently, or to offer criticism in a way that’s constructive, rather than soul-crushing.  🙢 🙢 Virtue 🙢 A skill, a way of living, and that’s something that can only really be learned through experience. 🙢 Practical Wisdom  Virtue as Habit 🙢 🙢 Aristotle said your character is developed through habituation – if you do virtuous thing over and over again, eventually it will become part of your character.  Some examples of virtues and vices 🙢 Deficiency MEAN Excess Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness Anhedonia (inability to Temperance Lust feel pleasure –symptom of Gluttony depression) Callousness Gratitude Overindebtedness Remorselessness Remorse Scrupulosity  Case Study 🙢 https://www.ethicsops.com/phantom-expenses-case Phantom Expenses 🙢 Jane Adams, a new employee, joins a team that pressures her to fake expenses on her company travel report. Her instinct is that this is wrong, but the experienced department members don't want her to submit lower average totals, which might cause management to question their previous reports. 🙢 What should she do?  🙢 The Character/Virtue Test Introduce the test 🙢 “Does this action represent the kind of person I am or want to be? Does it represent my organization's reputation or vision of what it wants to be?” 🙢 Validity 🙢 The kind of person I am, and the kind of organization I work in are both important to living a good life and are influenced by the specific actions we do. If we know who we are and aspire to be, we can decide how to act by considering whether an action is something that would be done by the kind of person or organization we want to be.  🙢 Apply the Test 1. Will this action help to make you the kind of person you want to be? If Jane thinks of herself as a person who is honest and trustworthy in her business life, then padding her expense account on a regular basis will weaken her habit of acting according to the pattern set out by these virtues or good ways of acting. Departing from her ideals in small increments makes it easier to take larger steps later. Giving the other reps time to change their reporting practices would strengthen her habit of being compassionate toward others. If she thinks that taking even one action against her ethical principles will damage her character by changing her expectations for herself, she should tell the other reps that she will file an accurate report and that they should change their practices as soon as possible to avoid being discovered by the company.  🙢 2. Will the action fit the company’s reputation or vision of what it would like to be? The company has indicated in its training that it aspires to honesty in its employee’s actions. Padding goes directly against those aspirations. Conclusion 🙢 Since padding will weaken Jane’s habits of honesty and trustworthiness and goes against the aspirations of the company, it is unethical for her to pad her expense account. Her habit of compassion may lead her to file one false report in order to give the others an opportunity to reform.  🙢 🙢 EUDAIMONIA A life well lived Human flourishing  🙢 🙢 Aristotle: Our final end is eudaimonia, the activity of the soul according to reason or at least not independent of reason. -NE, I, X, 1098a7; 127  🙢 🙢 For lack of equivalent term, eudaimonia is loosely translated as happiness, felicity, the good life and a flourishing life, a thriving life, life of abundance or life of prosperity. 🙢 But this should not be confused with our common understanding of happiness as a subjective psychological state. 🙢 an inadequate translation of eudaimonia.  🙢 🙢 Eudemonia- flourishing or well-being 🙢 A life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. it’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits, and finding success. A eudaimonistic life will be full of the happiness that comes from achieving something really difficult, rather than just having it handed to you.  🙢 🙢 Human Flourishing according 1. to functional context 🙢 Example: A hammer is good if it does what it was designed to do well 🙢 A guitar is good if it is capable of making good music 2. In terms of unique properties What is the unique characteristic that sets human being apart from other being? Answer: the ability to reason or think  🙢 🙢 THUS, human flourishing is defined in terms of reasoning of thinking- ultimately in terms of contemplative life  🙢 🙢 In Magna Moralia 🙢 happiness is equated with doing and living well 🙢 it consists in living virtuously; and 🙢 happiness is a complete good and end.  🙢 In the Eudemian Ethics, it is defined as the activity of the complete life. In relation to this, Aristotle asserts that children are not truly happy, since “they have not yet attained the sufficient age for the performance of virtuous deeds. Children are called happy because they give the promise of happiness, while real happiness needs perfect virtue and a complete life”  🙢 Aristotle’s ethics weaves the fabric of what are seemingly disparate aspects of human life into organic whole where the boundaries between logos and pathos, theōria and praxis, soma and psukhē becomes very fluid and fleeting. Ethics, in the Aristotelian sense, is a parapoiēsis, a kind of “bringing forth” and grafting upon becoming; this receptivity and openness refuses to enframe itself in prescriptive formulas and formalized rules or rigid codes. It extolls character and elevates virtue as aretē. Man’s personal quest for eudaimonia becomes an incessant effort to do good and abide by it.  Discussion 🙢 Less Sugar Marketing Campaign https://www.ethicsops.com/phantom-expenses-case The marketing team presents a children's cereal brand manager with “Less Sugar” ad campaigns for three of her brands. Large print and dynamic type on the packages exclaiming “75% LESS SUGAR” will catch the parent’s eye and increase sales. Concerned about their children’s weight gain, parents will purchase the cereal. The carbohydrate content of the less sugar products, however, is the same as high sugar version, at best only 10 fewer calories per bowl, so it offers no weight loss advantage.  🙢 The brand manager’s immediate reaction is “This marketing campaign is unethical.” 🙢 How can she be sure of her judgment? 🙢 How can she convince the marketers? 🙢 How should she act in this situation?  🙢 Guide Questions 🙢 Will this action help to make you the kind of person you want to be? 🙢 Will the action fit the company’s reputation or vision of what it would like to be? 🙢 Will the action maintain the right balance between excellence and success for the firm?  🙢 🙢 How can virtue ethics approach solve the issue? 🙢 What do you think are the right questions to be raised that will lead to a solution of the problem? 🙢 What are the issues that need to be addressed? 🙢 How do we address these issues?  Case 1 To transfuse blood or not 🙢 🙢 A competent adult patient loses a massive amount of blood from a blood vessel bleeding in an acute duodenal ulcer. The best chance of saving his life is an urgent blood transfusion along with the operative intervention to arrest the bleeding. The patient refuses blood but asks for treatment instead with the best available non-blood products and surgery, accepting the substantial risk that surgery without blood transfusion is much less likely to save his life than surgery with blood transfusion.  Case 2: To transplant or not 🙢 🙢 Mr S. is a 38y/o patient who is being seen by Dr. H for a lipid disorder related to renal failure. He is being considered for a renal transplant in the near future, and Dr. H. has been asked to evaluate and make a recommendation to the transplant program regarding the patient’s suitability for transplantation. 🙢 In taking the history, Dr. H happened to comment to Mr. s that he looked like a Harley rider. The patient told Dr. H. that he was that, in fact he has ridden his cycle to the appointment. When asked where his helmet was, he told dr. H. that he did not use one saying, “When it’s my time, it’s my time.” Indeed dr. H. thinks that Mr. S should not be given a kidney transplant since he has such a blatant disregard for his personal health and safety. Do you agree with dr. H? Why or why not? Deontology Dr. Ponsaran  The deontological class of ethical theory - states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. - means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct.  When people, as moral agents choose to act on objectively moral correct truth such as courage and honesty, they are doing the morally correct thing. Even if their action leads to unhappiness, their hands are clean because they acted with the purest of intentions and Loading… from a very pure place. For example, your daughter came to you because she was beaten by her husband every time he is drunk. As a deontologist you know that beating somebody is inherently wrong, but at the same time you also believe that it is morally right to reunite them as couple. Knowing fully well that your daughter will be beaten again, you send her back home, fully confident that your actions were moral, because the action in and of itself is the right thing to do from an objective stance. Another example is that because all of you got almost a perfect score, your teacher suspected that some of you cheated. You know that your friends were involved and if you tell your teachers who they were, you know that they will turn against you or even harm. However, you still told your teacher about your friends’ cheating because telling the truth is the right thing to do. You did not consider the effect of your action but rather you know that being honest is your responsibility and that is morally right.  Deontology contains many positive attributes, but it also contains flaws. One flaw is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s duties. For instance, a teacherLoading… may decide that it is his/her duty to always be on time to classes. Although this appears to be something good, we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty.  Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) attempted to come up with an ethical system that did not depend on religious faith or experience but could be worked out rationally His theory of deontology comes from what he affirmed were truths about humanity’s ability to reason, and from that reason comes a sense of deon, or duty.  Kant believes that motive is the key to assessing morality. He believes that our acts are governed by our will whose purity will determine how ethical an act is. (Gibson 2014) The seed of Kantianism is the idea that human beings alone have the capacity for reason. We can think things through and act based on our thoughts, and this ability empowers us with a sense of duty or moral obligation. Duty and obligation are so universal that they provide all of us with more or less the same system of rules that guide our actions and make us do the right thing, regardless of instinct,  desire, or personal intentions. Good intentions matter, and we are guided not by religious faith but by duty to our fellow man. Goodwill comes when a person commits an action out of “respect for the moral law,” or in other words, one’s duty. To Kant, will is truly the only thing that is intrinsically good, or “good without qualification.”  He believed that human character or traits such as courage, wit, intelligence are desirable but can be twisted in various ways depending on the character of the person involved. Example, wit or humor may hurt ones feeling; a pickpocket can be bold and daring; intelligence can be used to produce virus and diseases Kant suggests that such character traits need to be guided in the right way because they are not good in themselves. This is very different from what Aristotle believes that everything is good in and by itself.  He also believes that we have inclinations and desires as part of our particular nature. This will be part of his principle on Hypothetical Imperative. Someone who is kind enough will always offer help, in contrast to those who are self-absorbed. However, these natural inclinations have no merit and that morality occurs when we do what is morally obligatory For Kant we are ethical if we follow the moral rules, no if nor buts.  We cannot break our promises; we cannot tell a lie even if it can save friends life; we cannot be late or absent in class even if you want to watch movie or go for a date; we Loading… cannot even kill a cockroach because killing by itself is wrong.  Kant believes that actions done without regard to compensation are better because if rely on the results to gauge our moral actions, then our judgments will definitely change depending on the outcome. - If your friend tells you to lie in exchange of a huge amount then this might sway you, even though you believe that lying by itself is wrong.  Kant argues that the only way to determine what is moral is to have a process where we can establish the rule ahead of time (from the Latin a priori – “what is before”) so that our judgments do not depend on probabilities or chance. - He thinks that the highest good is done because we see the intrinsic value of what we do, that is doing good for goodness sake, not because we will benefit from it in some way. - For him, doing good should be an end-in-itself, not as means to some other end such as personal pride or political ambition (Gibson 2014).  In this regard, Robin Hood will be unethical even though the commoners will benefit from his action of stealing from the rich, stealing by itself is not right.  Kant observed that the word ought is often used non-morally: example if you want to be good in basketball you ought to practice everyday; if you want to get high grades, you ought to study very well. Much of our conduct is governed by such “oughts  The pattern is this: We have a certain desire (to become a better basketball player, to get high grades); we recognize that a certain course of action will help us get what we want (practicing daily, studying everyday); we follow the indicated plan.  Kant called these “hypothetical imperatives” because they tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant desires. - A person who does not want to improve his basketball skill does not have any reason to practice everyday; someone who does not want to get high grades would have no reason to study daily. - Because the binding force of the “ought” depends on having the relevant desire, we can escape its force by letting go of the desire. So, for example, I can avoid studying by deciding that I don’t want to get high grades.  This is an outcome dependent reasoning because it relies on “if…then” justification. Ways to test whether our motives are truly moral: (Gibson 2014) - Is the motive the right type? Does it seek goodness for its own sake, or for some ulterior motive? - Does the motive arise from respect for natural moral law in that it applies to everyone and without regard to any particular instance? - Is the motive inevitable, in a sense that the Categorical Imperative shows there is not other possible moral choice but to do the right thing?  Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on having particular desires. The form of a moral obligation is not “If you want so- and-so, then you ought to do such-and-such.” Instead, moral requirements are categorical: They have the form “You ought to do such-and-such, period.”  The moral rule is not, for example, that you ought to help people if you care about them you should help people no matter what your desires are. That is why moral requirements cannot be escaped simply by saying “But I don’t care about that.”  We cannot excuse ourselves based on particular circumstances, and because it applies across different situations so it is categorical. We have the moral obligation to do it, and thus the duties involved are not suggestions, but carry the force of command, so it is imperative.  Three (3) ways to formulate Categorical Imperative: 1. Universality Principle – the person should always act so that the maxim of his or her actions could rationally be willed as universal. It looks at the motive behind the act and not the outcomes. For example if one student cheats in one subject, it may not be noticed. But what if all students cheat in a class, all will get the perfect scores. An important note is that universalization procedure means that we cannot mark exceptions for ourselves. That is a student will not make cheating as an excuse because s/he is failing. 2. Formula of Humanity – “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means.” - This means that humans have an intrinsic value and dignity, and ought to be treated with respect. - Kant argues that we have a moral duty to treat that person with respect only because s/he is a person. For example the rice traders are getting rich at the expense of the farmers who remain to be poor. The key idea is that we may not use people as means merely, but treat people with dignity. Example would be hiring personnel or using vendo-machine, say in toll plaza or ATM against bank tellers  3. Autonomy of Individual – that ethical people should always act as both subjects and sovereigns in the kingdom of ends”. This condition emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, who both creates the moral law and then is subject to it. We come to moral judgments ourselves and therefore we are ultimately responsible for our actions. Being. For told example, byteacher your someonetellselse you is thatdifferent from it is wrong reasoning cheat. Howeveritwe have out the reason to know (by ourselves) that cheating is wrong, no need personally to be told by your teachers.  Hypothetical “oughts” are easy to understand. They merely tell us to do what is necessary to achieve our goals. Categorical “oughts,” on the other hand, are mysterious. How can we be obligated to behave in a certain way regardless of our goals? Kant has an answer. Just as hypothetical “oughts” are possible because we have desires, categorical l “oughts” are possible because we have reason. Categorical oughts, Kant says, are derived from a principle that every rational person must accept: the Categorical Imperative.  In his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant expresses the Categorical Imperative as follows: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This principle provides a way to tell whether an act is morally permissible. When you are thinking about doing something, ask what rule you would be following if you actually did it. This rule will be the “maxim” of your act. Then ask whether you would be willing for your maxim to become a universal law. In other words, would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all times? If so, then your maxim is sound, and your act is acceptable. But if not, then your act is forbidden.  LEARNING RESOURCES: Erland de Vera Palean, et. al. (2019). ETHICS Exploring Moral Philosophy, Books ATBP. Publishing Corp., Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Brian Boone. (2017). Ethics 101: From Altruism and Utilitarianism to Bioethics and Political Ethics and Exploration of the Concepts of Right and Wrong. Adams Media, New York. Kevin Gibson. (2014). An Introduction to Ethics. Pearson, New Jersey. James Rachels. (2012) Elements of Morality 7th ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York. Gordon Graham. (2011). Theories of Ethics, An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with a Selection of Classic Readings. Routledge, New York. Harry J. Gensler, Earl W.Spurgin and James C. Windal, ed. (2004). Ethics: Contemporary Readings. Routledge, New York. Polgar and Thomas. Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences, 5th ed. 2008. Garcia and Reganit. Developing Competencies in research and Thesis Writing, 2010. Seminar-workshop on Ethics in Health Research by Dr. Marita Reyes, SJDH 2010. Training-workshop on Principles of GCP and Research Ethics, Edsa Shangri-la Manila, 2010 Overview of ICH-GCP by: Syed Sarfaraz Uddin (syed.sarfaraz.uddin@gmail) Good Clinical Practice 101: An introduction by: Lester “Jao” Lacorte, MD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw&list=PLZx1ZIERDNhasYmzEDCTBl7WKWNvACjU3&index=2 (Categorical Imperative) Utilitarianism Consequential Theory or Teleology  Consequentialism stresses that the focus of an ethical matter and its ethical weight resides on the person, or agent, by way of that person’s actions or consequences Loading… that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences or results.  Utilitarianism - holds that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by the results they produce. (Gibson 2014) - states that if one can increase the overall happiness of the world, or that of an individual, or just make the world a better place, then one should, as one has a moral obligation to do so - does not deal more with personal character or motives but instead focuses to the consequences of the decisions we make  Utilitarianism - claims that happiness and pleasure are good, and that we should work to raise more in the world For utilitarian, an action that results in an improvement overall human welfare is good, Loading… and an action that results in a decline in human welfare is bad.  Term “Utilitarianism” – prominent in the early nineteenth century – as a label commonly attached to a group of radical English social reformers – not as the name of a philosophical doctrine – from the word “utility” meaning “usefulness” because social reformers made the practicality and usefulness of social institutions, rather than their religious significance or traditional function, the measure by which they were to be assessed (Boone 2017) Classical Utilitarianism’s Three (3) Propositions (Rachels 2012) (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration.”  This means that equal amounts of happiness always count equally; nobody’s well-being matters more just because he is rich, let’s say, or powerful, or handsome. Morally, everyone counts the same. According to Classical Utilitarianism, “an action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of happiness over unhappiness.”  “What things are good?” “What actions are right?” In Utilitarianism, the answer to the second question is referred to the first. That is, the right actions are the ones that produce the most good.  “What is good?” “HAPPINES S” “What is happiness?” “PLEASUR E” PLEASURE includes all mental states that feel good; - a sense of accomplishment - a delicious taste - the heightened awareness that comes at a climax of a movie (Rachels 2012)  British philosopher morality is about making the world as happy as possible Principle of Utility which requires us to produce the most Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832 Loading… happiness that we can Principle of utility – defines the goods of happiness and pleasure, and the absence of pain and suffering – Suggested that a standard be developed to compare and judge the rightness or wrongness of actions overall – That the measure of right or wrong is discovered by assessing the greatest happiness of the greatest number (basic formulation)  He explains that we all seek happiness, and we are all ultimately governed by pain and pleasure. These pursuits can be intellectual as well as sensory, say for example, there is satisfaction in a job well done or looking after someone who is ill. (Gibson 2014) Utility is about purpose and use there is little emotional meaning attached to it “the thing that works best is the best thing”  Utilitarianism is a theory in which good or moral consequences and moral actions are defined in terms of an end result that leads to as much good as possible and as little bad as possible… or at least more good than bad. - The goal: shoot for 51% or higher on the “good” side of an issue. (Boone 2017) Utility Calculus, or Hedonism Calculus - moral algorithm - quantifies the moral aspects of actions - the greater the good of an action, the more “hedons” or “positive utility units” it’s worth. - the goodness of a thing or an action can be quantified and you have to consider these processes to make a moral decision  Utility Calculus, or Hedonism Calculus Intensity. What is the intensity or level or pleasure and/or pain that the action leads to? Duration. What is the duration of that pleasure or pain the action creates? Certainty. Is there a notable amount of certainty or uncertainty of pleasure or pain resulting from the action?  Utility Calculus, or Hedonism Calculus Propinquity. How soon after the action does the pleasure or pain kick in? Is it near or far? For example, the benefits of eating healthy take a while for the benefit to kick in, in the form of a lower cholesterol level over time. But eating a cheeseburger? The pleasure is immediate.  Utility Calculus, or Hedonism Calculus Fecundity. How likely is the action to be followed by even more pleasure (if it’s a pleasurable act) or pain (if it’s not so pleasurable)? Purity. How pure or impure is the pleasure or pain after an action? As an opposite of the previous metric, this asks how likely the feeling after an action is to be followed by the exact opposite. Extent. What is the extent of the effect of the action?  For example in riding a circuitous roller coaster, how much pleasure does one get (intensity), how long does this pleasure or pain last (duration), will this certainly bring pleasure (certainty), how soon will you experience its satisfaction (propinquity), can this bring more pleasure even if the act is done (fecundity), do you enjoy it even though you will experience some shortness of breath while midair (purity), and how many of you enjoyed the ride (extent)?  What about “torturing and killing kittens in animal crush video”? What pleasure does one get in “sadistic” or “masochistic acts?” Bentham believes these factors can combine to assess any particular choice.  - British philosopher who developed further Jeremy Bentham’s establishment of utilitarianism He agrees with the philosophy’s central concept that the definition of a good moral act was one that boasted the maximum utility, which is to say as much pleasure and as little pain as possible.  Mill argues that Bentham’s pleasure and pain are extremely subjective. – Each person has a different idea of what pleasure and pain means to him, and how he measures them Have you ever been asked to rate your level of pain at the hospital? That rating uses a 1 to 10 scale.  Utilitarianism – book written by Mill – is both consequentialist because the moral assessment of an action is determined by its result, and hedonistic because it takes happiness to be the sum of pleasures. (Gibson 2014) “the utilitarian doctrine states that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end.” (Boone 2017)  Higher pleasures are like virtues – the pleasures are associated with reason, deliberation, or other emotions that lead to social change and benefit – are intellectual and spiritual pleasures – this is what elevates Utilitarianism from Hedonism – Mill called hedonism a “doctrine only worthy of a swine.”  Utilitarianism is pleasure seeking with a purpose—pleasure seeking for the greater good—which makes life about more than just an existence of pleasure seeking. - pleasure and goodness mean the greater good, and not just feeling good individually - such pleasures are of higher moral value because they lead to the greater overall good, as well as the individual good  that some pleasures are qualitatively different - believes in the power of education to improve one’s appreciation and enjoyment of life appreciation of “higher” quality experiences does not prevent one from enjoying others For example if you enjoy the burger steak in one fast- food but then offered a “baby-back ribs” from famous restaurant, taking all things equal, you would probably prefer the latter, but it does not mean that you will not now enjoy the burger steak.  This tells us that once people are exposed to a range of qualitative experiences, they are prepared to make (better) choices. If one is trained in being generous, it will not be difficult for him/her to give to charity or even volunteer. The point is we should not treat utilitarianism as merely reflecting our untrained preference, instead they should be a result of education and experience.  “that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” – that he would rather be more aware and engaged with the world even if he is less content He also argues that if we behaved with community interests in mind, it would lead to a society where everyone is better off.  Act utilitarianism - that every action must accord with the greatest happiness; – a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws Loading… – Act utilitarian considers the particular situation to determine that individual act would maximize happiness; greatest good for the greatest number  An act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the maximum good. – Thus, one individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater number of people. - act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of people.  Rule utilitarianism takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness; – it says that you should act in accordance with those rules of conduct that are most conducive to the greatest happiness. - generates rules or derives guidelines from the greatest happiness principle that look beyond the immediate case and bring in other considerations - S/he seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available  RULE UTILITARIANISM – Version of the theory that says we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number – Allows us to refrain from the acts that might maximize utility in the short run, and instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time. ACTIVITY 1. Utility calculus of Bentham how much pleasure or pain does (a) studying, (b) playing your favorite video game bring you? 2. What do you think when Mill said “that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than pig satisfied”? 3. Watch the video in YouTube and comment on the argument whether or not “it is right for Batman to kill the Joker”. LEARNING RESOURCES: Erland de Vera Palean, et. al. (2019). ETHICS Exploring Moral Philosophy, Books ATBP. Publishing Corp., Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Brian Boone. (2017). Ethics 101: From Altruism and Utilitarianism to Bioethics and Political Ethics and Exploration of the Concepts of Right and Wrong. Adams Media, New York. Kevin Gibson. (2014). An Introduction to Ethics. Pearson, New Jersey. Gordon Graham. (2011). Theories of Ethics, An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with a Selection of Classic Readings. Routledge, New York. Harry J. Gensler, Earl W.Spurgin and James C. Windal, ed. (2004). Ethics: Contemporary Readings. Routledge, New York. Polgar and Thomas. Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences, 5th ed. 2008. Garcia and Reganit. Developing Competencies in research and Thesis Writing, 2010. Seminar-workshop on Ethics in Health Research by Dr. Marita Reyes, SJDH 2010. Training-workshop on Principles of GCP and Research Ethics, Edsa Shangri-la Manila, 2010. Overview of ICH-GCP by: Syed Sarfaraz Uddin (syed.sarfaraz.uddin@gmail) Good Clinical Practice 101: An introduction by: Lester “Jao” Lacorte, MD  Ethical Theories Normative Ethics Consequentialism – Egoism, Hedonism, Utilitarianism - Do you agree with her statement? - Are we only after our own happiness?  Normative Ethics deals with setting norms or standards it tells us “what we ought to do” divided into subfields: Loading… – Ethical Theory – Applied Ethics  Ethical theory deals with the theory and justification of moral principles, tries to explain what is good and why it is so, and what makes an act right. It tells us “what we ought to do and how we ought to act.”  Two essential questions: “HOW and WHY” “Why” humans act cover the guiding principles of ethical standards “How” humans act is completely different situation whether in adhering to a standard moral code or Loading… not “ought to” and “actually does”  Applied ethics also known as practical ethics applies the principle of ethical theory to particular focused area and cases Consequential Theory or Teleology  Consequentialism stresses that the focus of an ethical matter and its ethical weight resides on the person, or agent, by way of that person’s actions or consequences that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences or results.  Consequentialist moral theories say that what makes an action right is its consequences. – the rightness of an action depends on the amount of good it produces – Good is defined in different ways—as, for example, pleasure, happiness, well-being, flourishing, or knowledge – the morally right action is the one that results in the most favorable balance of good over bad  Egoism (maximizes good results for ourselves) Hedonism (whether to evaluate consequences solely in terms of pleasure and pain) Loading… Utilitarianism (maximizes good results for everyone affected by our action) Egoism and Hedonism  Moral Philosophy – Relies on basic assumption about human nature We care only about ourselves Those we love Mankind or earth in general  Egoism – Putting the self – EGO – as paramount focus of moral concern – states that “everyone ought to do whatever maximizes their own self-interest, regardless of how this affects others” Egoist – acts only from self-interest  Psychological egoism – interprets actions in terms of what benefits we will derive from them; predicts that we will do whatever is best for us – that each person does in fact pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively – that we are looking for some payoff, an even a charitable act would be interpreted as seeking self-satisfaction – Ex: volunteers for calamity/pandemic - psychological desire to feel good about themselves - to earn heavenly graces when they “help” their neighbor  Ethical egoism – Normative claim that says we ought to do whatever is in our self-interest – holds that our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves, and that other people only matter insofar as they can benefit us Selfishness - a character trait that some people have and which makes them seek and promote their own comfort and satisfaction before anybody else  Ethical egoism – a philosophical doctrine according to which practical reasons – reasons for me to do things – have to be grounded in what matters to me – Egoist still care for others as long as their needs and desires are also satisfied Example: parents to their children  Ethical egoism – Self-interest has several forms but ultimately it is the self – the ego – that is at the center of the moral universe, and s/he thinks that it is right to do so – Ex: Avoid fatty Charitable work foods SE Paying LF forward Self-indulgence (YOLO)  Rational egoism – Motivates one to seek the best for oneself but does not ignore others – accepts that people are moved to act by conventional opinion or form a feeling of pity – the only good reason for doing something is that you want to do it Example: Blood donors motivation Niccolo Machiavelli  Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) - An administrator and diplomat for the Florentine republic Wrote the book The Prince Reflection how best to rule a principality Recommends that the ruler: bold and ruthless Ethical notions of right or wrong - less important Maintaining power and order Generosity and compassion Brutality and intimidation Machiavelli Use of cruelty and kindness Survival and dominance in a culture of mutual animosity – Primary focus of all actions of the Prince If we believe that our personal interests matter most, and also think everyone believes the same thing, the result is that we have to be constantly wary that others will be out to get us if it helps their cause in some way. Machiavelli “Might Makes Right” “It is desirable to be loved and feared by one’s subject, but given the choice, it is better to be feared.” Central theme: To promote the self through dominating others by any means necessary  Machiavelli concerned only with the end result: which is getting power, holding to that power, keeping that power —at any cost Notions of right or wrong – is what is good for the Prince No independent or universal moral system  Machiavelli says that it is going to be useful for the prince to appear just and benevolent, but only insofar as the perceptions help him keep in power. The Prince resonates with the true egoist.  Machiavellian - refers to scheming, power- crazed kinds of behaviors (Machiavelli himself told people it was not only ethical to behave this way, per the reasoning of his argument, but that they simply must) “In Machiavellian ethics, the individual’s grab for power is, technically speaking, ethical.” That means that the actions that lead to that end are also ethical, even though they may appear cold, callous, calculating, or cruel to others.  “Trust no one because your neighbors, coworkers, and friends are just like you. They, like you, are after the power and they, like you, are willing and ready to step all over you to get it.” (Machiavelli) Loading… Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) Lived during the time of English Civil War That mankind was naturally self- interested and competitive That morality should be understood as the solution to a practical problem that arises as result of one’s being self-interested That we are fundamentally animals motivated by various appetites Asserted that moral terms are just  manifestations of our preferences Believed in enforced cooperation: cooperative social order – rules Key to understanding ethics : – the moral rules: morality consists of precepts that men need to follow in order to get the benefits of social living Hobbes Individualistic – that natural human state would constantly compete for scarce resources effectively – Perpetual state of interpersonal strife – That human natural state is a state of war in which we see everyone else as a potential adversary We would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”  What is this “state of nature” according to Hobbes? – state where there are no enforced social rules; each man would be free to do as he pleased Four (4) basic facts about human life: 1. There is equality of need 2. There is scarcity 3. There is the essential equality of human power 4. There is limited altruism Hobbes Rationality – solution to natural state of enmity – That we make a reasoned agreement to cooperate and restrain our ambitions for the sake of the common good The Leviathan – that we agree to subject ourselves to a supreme authority, and in return, we are rewarded with peace and prosperity (system of law and punishment) Hobbes Benign self-interest – Egoist realizes that he will benefit by contracting with others, leading to a system that increases welfare generally – Egoist is indifferent to the welfare of others – Ex: community security vs private guard Hobbes Approach morality from a rational point of view that takes into account our long-term best interest Ex: healthcare insurance Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982) Brought up in Russia then moved to America The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Objectivism – where an individual governed by reason measures achievement by productivity and the individual’s paramount goal is his or her own happiness – Strive to achieve happiness by exercising our uncoerced personal choices  regarded “ethics of altruism” as totally destructive idea “if the man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it”  Rand’s Principle of egoism – Each person has only one life to live, that this life is of supreme importance – the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of the individual – Ethical egoism which allows each person to view his/her own life as being ultimate value, does take the individual seriously – Ethical egoism which allows each person to view his/her own life as being ultimate value, does take the individual seriously Rand Primacy of individual – central theme of her writings Some are not able to compete – If unable to work have to rely on voluntary charity but no reciprocal sense of entitlement People may voluntarily give to others, but misfortune is no reason that the better-off have to provide for others without reward – Slave labor on their behalf Rand Contrary to “tribalism” and “altruism” Basic assumption – That we do indeed know our own preferences, and fulfilling them will make us happy – Objective reality Challenges against Egoism Auguste Comte Natural Law Altruism that we are not naturally separate individuals, but joined by ties of love, friendship, and sympathy that go beyond the convenience of cooperation to explain action in the absence of reward  »Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) is a French philosopher who founded Positivism – opposite of egoism »Altruism – Latin “alter” – other He believes that humans should act for the good of others , “live for others” Altruism means to help someone out of generosity, or because it’s a nice thing to do, and expecting nothing in return  Hedonism Theory that contends we are motivated by seeking pleasure and avoidance of pain – Maximizing personal happiness Epicurus (341-270 BC) founded the school of Epicurianism, which emphasizes on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain  He taught man should strive toward happiness; should not fear death, nor the gods and should seek pleasure in this life. He also emphasized the importance of avoiding pleasures that may cause harm in the future (the Virtue of Temperance). He associated morality to pleasure, and noted that the goal of life is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure  “ that pleasure is the beginning and the end of the good life. We recognize pleasure as the first good, being natural to us, and it is from pleasure that we begin every choice and avoidance. It is also to pleasure that we return, using it as the standard by which we judge every good.”  Epicurus theorized that to find happiness we must figure out the pleasures that are best for us. He proposed three (3) levels of desires: 1.. Desires for necessary things like basic food, shelter and clothing; 2. Desires for nicer versions of those basic needs such as flavorful, rich food, bigger house or mansion and trendy and fancy clothing; 3. Desires for those that are vain and empty such as wealth, fame and power.  If we can pursue and attain happiness and pleasure especially the second and third desires, what then should we follow? Epicurus offers “Temperance” or pleasure through moderation – Simple pleasures lead to the most happiness and least pain – Temperance leads naturally to happiness because it encourages us to develop virtues, or good habits Prudence which is the ability to make decisions about one’s own interests and to act accordingly in a healthy manner LEARNING RESOURCES: Erland de Vera Palean, et. al. (2019). ETHICS Exploring Moral Philosophy, Books ATBP. Publishing Corp., Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Brian Boone. (2017). Ethics 101: From Altruism and Utilitarianism to Bioethics and Political Ethics and Exploration of the Concepts of Right and Wrong. Adams Media, New York. Kevin Gibson. (2014). An Introduction to Ethics. Pearson, New Jersey. Gordon Graham. (2011). Theories of Ethics, An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with a Selection of Classic Readings. Routledge, New York. Harry J. Gensler, Earl W.Spurgin and James C. Windal, ed. (2004). Ethics: Contemporary Readings. Routledge, New York. Polgar and Thomas. Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences, 5th ed. 2008. Garcia and Reganit. Developing Competencies in research and Thesis Writing, 2010. Seminar-workshop on Ethics in Health Research by Dr. Marita Reyes, SJDH 2010. Training-workshop on Principles of GCP and Research Ethics, Edsa Shangri-la Manila, 2010. Overview of ICH-GCP by: Syed Sarfaraz Uddin (syed.sarfaraz.uddin@gmail) Good Clinical Practice 101: An introduction by: Lester “Jao” Lacorte, MD APPLIED ETHICS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES Prepared by: MAG Ponsaran Ethics of science/technology in flourishing ◻ Ethics of science/technology looks at how best we can employ science/technology in human flourishing ◻ Two approaches use of technologies development of technologies The role of Science/technology in flourishing ◻ Technology is “… the improvement brought about on nature by man for the satisfaction of his necessities” (Ortega Y Gasset) ◻ Aim of technology is “to promote good life, well-being, by adapting the medium to the will of the individual” (Ortega Y Gasset) ◻ Ethics in general is closely related to our ability to flourish with others ◻ Purpose of technology (promote good life) ◻ Purpose of ethical (social) examinations Shouldn’t just be negative Should guide technological development as well as mitigate dangers/harms Presupposes that technology can be guided, controlled ◻ Collingridge dilemma ◻ Understanding technology pari passu Reactive and proactive ethics ◻ Reactive (ethics last) react to problems as they arise new technologies create new situations for which there are no policies (James Moor) ◻ Proactive (ethics first) Anticipate problems Make predictions Ethics pari passu and prediction ◻ To be effective in warding off disastrous consequences, our understanding of our man-made machines should in general develop pari passu with the performance of the machine (Wiener, 1960) ◻ Ethics proactive – pari passu - reactive The way forward ◻ One suggestion: ◻ Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) When to regulate ◻ When should regulation be applied? Early Benefits lost Harms may not be real Late Harms may not be avoidable The Collingridge Dilemma ◻ Either a technology is in a relatively early stage of development when it is unknown what changes should be made, or a technology is in a relatively late stage of development when change is expensive, difficult and time-consuming. ◻ If the former, then control is not possible. ◻ If the latter, then control is not feasible. ◻ Therefore, either controlling technology is not possible, or controlling technology is not feasible The way forward ◻ One suggestion: ◻ Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Acknowledgment Charles Sturt University Prof. John Weckert Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics Charles Sturt University INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND PART OF THE COURSE Prepared by: MAG Ponsaran  Focus: Technology I-THOU Self- Other New Imperative of Responsibility Loading… Self- earth and environment, present and future generations  CONSIDERATION OF PRIMARY PRINCIPLES: Health and Safety Issues Transparency Environmental Protection/Conservation Precautionary Principle Sustainable Development Broader Impacts of technology (social, ethical legal dimensions)  Sample issues: Should market products containing nano components be commercially banned? To what extent should the internet be regulated in Loading… the Philippines? Is agricultural biotechnology an annihilator of hunger or creator of Franken foods? APPLIED ETHICS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES Prepared by: MAG Ponsaran  Ethics of science/technology in flourishing Ethics of science/technology looks at how best we can employ science/technology in human flourishing Two approaches use of technologies development of technologies  The role of Science/technology in flourishing Technology is “… the improvement brought about on nature by man for the satisfaction of his necessities” (Ortega Y Gasset) Aim of technology is “to promote good life, well-being, by adapting the medium to the will of the individual” (Ortega Y Gasset)  Ethics in general is closely related to our ability to flourish with others Purpose of technology (promote good life) Purpose of ethical (social) examinations Shouldn’t just be negative Should guide technological development as well as mitigate dangers/harms Presupposes that technology can be guided, controlled  Reactive and proactive ethics Reactive (ethics last) react to problems as they arise new technologies create new situations for which there are no policies (James Moor) Proactive (ethics first) Anticipate problems Make predictions  When to regulate When should regulation be applied? Early Benefits lost Harms may not be real Loading… Late Harms may not be avoidable  The Collingridge Dilemma Technology-early stage of development-unknown consequences- change is difficult Technology-in relatively late stage of development- with known consequences- change is expensive, difficult and time-consuming. If the former, then control is not possible. If the latter, then control is not feasible. Therefore, either controlling technology is not possible, or controlling technology is not feasible  Ethics pari passu and prediction To be effective in warding off disastrous consequences, our understanding of our man-made machines should in general develop pari passu with the performance of the machine (Wiener, 1960) Ethics proactive – pari passu - reactive  The way forward One suggestion: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) RRI is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation. Actions on thematic elements of RRI: public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, science education- Reference: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020  Something to think about.. Values are important in technology. What values should count in deliberating about the following questions? 1. How should products and technologies already developed be used? 2. What products or technologies should be developed? 3. What research should be done?  END C Acknowledgment arles Sturt University Emeritus Prof. John Weckert Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics Charles Sturt University Ethics of AI Prepared by MAG Ponsaran  Meaning of AI What is AI?  AI STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY Loading… ACADEME SOCIETY CHURCH GLOBAL COMMUNITY  Opportunities and Threats AREA OF INTEREST OPPORTUNITY THREAT EDUCATION BUSINESS AND FINANCE ART AND CREATIVE PURSUITS LEGAL PROFESSION MEDICINE ENVIRONMENT EMPLOYMENT  BROADER SOCIETAL CONCERNS What are the broader concerns related to AI? Loading… On meaning and purpose of life On human striving On death and mortality On human relationships On human happiness On identity On authenticity  Regulating AI How do we deal with AI?  1 The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis When I see the blind and wretched state of man, when I survey the whole universe in its dumbness and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe, without knowing who put him there, what he has come to do, what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost and with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair. —Pascal, Pensées 1. Crisis In his essay “Philosophy at the End of the Century,” Hans Jonas describes the crisis he sees arising from “the threat we pose to the planet’s ecol- ogy,” one that forces us to look anew at “one of the oldest philosophical questions, that of the relationship between human being and nature, between mind and matter—in other words, the age-old question of dual- ism.”1 Jonas sees the ecological crisis originating in unrestrained scientific and technological development occurring without an objective ethical framework to serve as a guide. Ethics lags behind action and consists of weak attempts to circumscribe the potentially negative consequences of actions already set in motion. Yet a crisis can also be a turning point—the moment when things come to a head and a new direction is taken. Through a reexamination of the development of the Cartesian worldview, Jonas provides a way to heal the separation between psyche and physis initiated by Descartes, 15 © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 16 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility a separation he finds at the root of the environmental crisis. He seeks to restore value to nature and return the human to a meaningful place within nature. In effect, the human world is reintegrated into the life- world as the inherent value of nature becomes clear and the relation of the human being to the natural world is made manifest.2 Through an investigation into ontology, Jonas prepares the ground for his arguments in support of the “imperative of responsibility.” For Jonas, the impact of contemporary humanity on the natural environment has been unprecedented. Informed by a theoretical under- standing of the human being as separate from nature, technological inno- vation, supported by science, has progressively developed ever new and more powerful forms of technology, extending the reach of human power far beyond human ability to foresee the consequences. For Jonas, the relations between human knowledge, technological power, responsibility, and ethics are both complicated and fundamental. His analysis of the problem we face and his philosophical argument for a new ethics revolves around the complex interrelationship between these related, though often competing, aspects of human action. What is needed is a new understanding of “the status of mind in the total scheme of Being” (MM, 51). Jonas argues that philosophy must work in harmony with science in order to arrive at a new way of thinking the mind and its relation to nature as Being. To situate his argument, he points out that there is no evidence that there exists any other “dwelling place for life” in the universe. The Earth is unique, so far as we now know. It is on this planet that the fortuitous events occurred that revealed the potentiality hidden in matter and enabled it to become manifest as life; living organisms coming into being through the long process of evolution (MM, 51). For Jonas, Darwin’s theory of evolutionary biology is evidence of two distinctly important truths, truths that directly challenge the assump- tions of the physics and philosophy of Descartes. On the one hand, evolution shows that Cartesian dualism, which defines matter as life- less, cannot adequately explain the phenomenon of the presence of life evolving out of the material stuff of the universe.3 On the other hand, evolution gives proof to the presence of mind or psyche at all levels of living organisms, thus proving the strict separation between mind and matter, the basic premise of Cartesian dualism, wrong (MM, 52). Jonas’s phenomenological biology seeks to return spirit to matter and reconnect the human to nature—two fundamental steps that enable him to begin to argue for the “imperative of responsibility.” From a reevaluation of being, seen through the theory of evolution, and from an investigation into the meaning of the human being, Jonas attempts to formulate a © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 17 comprehensive ethic, one that can respond to the ecological and ethical crisis we face. 2. “The Altered Nature of Human Action” To begin a discussion of Jonas’s work, it is well to ask why we need a new ethics. Can we not address the ecological crisis through an extension of the theories of ethics we already have? Jonas begins The Imperative of Responsibility by discussing the limitations of the ethical systems and theories we have already at hand. The problem is not that deontology, consequentialism, virtue theory, social contract theory, and so on are of no value to us. It is that they aim at relations between people in society and thus lack both the impetus and the scope necessary to confront the very real problems we are facing. Traditional theories of ethics also fail to address accountability for the future of life itself.4 One problem, for instance, is how we might justify a normative claim in regard to non-human beings. Jonas does not argue that other living organisms have rights in the way that human beings do. The notion of rights is a political concept related to duties. Animals, trees, the air we breathe—these cannot be understood as belonging to the socio-political community. Instead, we need a new conceptualization of ethics in order to include all living organisms, the ecosystem, and the physical environment in our ethical considerations. Additionally, Jonas argues this new ethics must find a way to justify taking into our regard considerations concerning future others who will occupy this planet after we ourselves are gone. It is apparent that the ethical theories we have today are incapable of bringing these extended considerations into their realm of concern. Traditional ethical theories are based on the interactions of contemporary human beings living together in society—their claims and justifications revolve around that fact. The confused notion of the rights of animals, plants, air, and water is an expression and indication of the limitations of traditional ethical theories when confronted with the crisis we face. The crisis we face is new, and it introduces the need for new con- siderations and justifications—it compels a need for a new understanding of ethics. Jonas argues that it is a crisis brought about by the extended reach of our actions—the nature of human action has fundamentally changed, our technology has developed to a point where its consequences far exceed our knowledge of them, and the repercussions of these conse- quences extend far into the future.5 Not only are we depleting the Earth of its resources, but it is also the case that terribly destructive side effects © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 18 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility are created as the result of the utilization and alteration of the natural environment.6 Simultaneously, we are developing ever more sophisticated technologies to affect and alter the natural world—including the alarming capacity we have to rearrange the very elementary stuff of life, the genetic material that is the result of billions of years of evolutionary develop- ment. As Jonas points out, the effects of our technological actions have a tendency to gather repercussions in a cumulative manner—progressively increasing in impact and scope as they build (IR, 7). As a result, experi- ence is of little help to us, and our knowledge diminishes in proportion to the accumulation of technological aftereffects reaching far into the future. In light of this fact, Jonas argues that a new ethic of responsibil- ity must incorporate a notion of caution coupled with the imaginative projection of possibly negative consequences to guide us in our actions. He calls this a “heuristics of fear” (IR, x). We have arrived at the need for a new ethics because of the unprec- edented reach of our technological power. Appropriately, Jonas begins his discussion of the crisis by referring back to an earlier time when the relationship between human and nature was marked by a natural proportionality that mirrored the actual place of the human being in the natural world (IR, 2–4). Human beings built societies and cities, carving out for themselves a niche that fostered their survival. Nature was not threatened by the early societies of humans, and early humans had no significant power over the existence of nature. With the burst of technological development that issued from the scientific revolution, we find the balance has been altered. The human being no longer occupies a niche within the greater ecosystem but threatens to overrun the planet, depleting natural resources and altering the biosphere, imperiling the very existence of life. All of this is well known and well documented. The significance, for Jonas, is the way these changes have created a need for a new understanding of the meaning of the human being in relation to the consequences of human actions. Ethics tells us how to live, yet we are not the same as we once were, and neither is the world in which we live. The need for a new ontology is based on the fact that the scope of human action has changed, and a new understanding of the human is needed to inform an ethics that has relevance in a changed and changing world. In order to ground his new ethic of responsibility, Jonas engages in a phenomenological and existential examination of evolutionary biology, in effect creating a more nuanced and subtle ontological understanding of the human being, one that comprises both the technological human, homo Faber, and the human being in her relation to and dependence on nature. The human being is, without doubt, characterized by technologi- cal capacity. As beings adept at creating and using tools to shape and © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 19 organize their environment, human beings, of all animals, have worked extensively to affect the environment in which they live. Yet it is only with the modern machine age and the subsequent development of subtle and powerful new technologies that techne has overshadowed other human capacities and purposes. We define ourselves more and more through our technology, and it has become for us the central significance of our being (IR, 9). As we develop new technologies, they begin to shape who we are as well as the way we experience and view the world. In other words, the world for us becomes more and more a created one, and we become further and further removed from the natural one upon which we depend. While this obviously complicates and perhaps aggrandizes the crisis we are facing, it can help us recognize Jonas’s claim as a valid one—our purposes, intentions, and their resulting actions have changed significantly, necessitating the development of a new ethical understand- ing in response to the altered nature of human action. So far I have been using the words “nature” and “world” more or less interchangeably, but it is apparent that as the result of technologi- cal development more and more there is a “world” that is created by the human being—a constructed world that reinforces itself through its reliance on and use of technologies.7 “Nature” is no longer the “world,” for as Jonas says, “the natural is swallowed up in the sphere of the artificial, and at the same time the total artifact (the works of man that have become ‘the world’ and as such envelop their makers) generates a ‘nature’ of its own, that is, a necessity with which human freedom has to cope in an entirely new sense” (IR, 10). Throughout his work Jonas is deeply concerned with the funda- mental importance of human freedom as it relates to our capacity to make ethical choices when considering our actions. Greatly expanded technological capacities introduce ethical concerns that previous ethical theories were not required to consider—primary among these is the issue of the effect of technology on the very nature of the human being.8 It is essential to take into consideration the danger of technologies that have the potential to radically alter the nature of the human being in regard to her capacity to make free choices. The most significant threat to the unique result of evolution that is the human being is genetic engineering. I mention this only briefly in order that it might serve as an example of the threat that technological development unaccompanied by critical thought and cautious foresight presents.9 With the advent of genetic engineering, the human being deliberately steps into the natural process of evolution and begins to manipulate its building blocks for her own purposes, foremost among them “improvements” undertaken to perfect the species. Jonas raises the question as an example of the © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 20 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility kind of ethical deliberation for which we are not prepared, or indeed capable of effecting. He asks, “Who will be the image-makers, by what standards, and on the basis of what knowledge?” (IR, 21). For Jonas, the potential we have to alter our own species is a compelling example of how far we have come from ethical questions that can be answered by reference to traditional ethical theories. We lack both experience with the consequences of such actions and knowledge of their potential for harm. Complicating this lack of experience and knowledge is our belief in the possibility of infinite progress toward ever better conditions result- ing from the unfettered growth of science and technology.10 Jonas points out that given that science claims that its knowledge is value free, we also suffer from the lack of an objective standard with which to judge scientific and technological developments. We tend to assume all innova- tion is progressive and therefore good. All of these conditions hamper our ability to develop an effective ethical critique of new technologies.11 The crisis we are facing, according to Jonas, is the result of our increased power to act, and it is intensified by the lack of knowledge and experi- ence we have concerning the consequences of these actions. We are at a loss to tackle the problem, he says, because we do not possess the norms or standards needed to challenge the beliefs of scientific materialism. We cannot find a guide for actions because, as Jonas puts it, we act within an “ethical vacuum.” How does Jonas understand the notion of an “ethical vacuum?” He bases his claim on the fact that science has “destroyed the very idea of norm as such” (IR, 22). Through the philosophical development of dual- ism, nature as extended matter became value-less. With the devaluation of nature and the glorification of science and technology, based as they are on a foundation of value-free facts about things, we have reached an imperiled state, that of “a nihilism in which near-omnipotence is paired with near-emptiness, greatest capacity with knowing least for what ends to use it” (IR, 23). Thus, we are in a state of near emergency, and we find that we do not have the tools to deliver ourselves from it. This is the case Jonas makes. The need for an ethics that can rise to the challenge of the times, one that can address the global reach of our actions and guide us in protecting the future from the potentially dire consequences of our actions today is imperative if the planet is to continue to thrive and if the human being is to retain her capacity to live freely and ethi- cally in harmony with the Earth. We see around us the growing threat to existence as the repercus- sions of past decisions begin to come to fruition as the climate changes, effecting natural disasters and food shortages, exacerbated by the deple- tion of the natural resources we depend on to support our way of life. It © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 21 does not need to be argued that we must develop some way to approach the problems we face before they overwhelm us—and without an ethics that has thought through the complications constitutive of the looming global environmental crisis to guide us, we stand helpless before those who will seek to control or profit from the chaos that will prevail as emergencies, shortages, and confrontations threatening our lives and live- lihoods begin to arise with greater intensity and frequency. Before turning to Jonas’s response to the problems we face, it is useful to consider his critique of scientific materialism and its relation to nature and value in greater detail. Because dualism is the philosophical theory underlying the premises of scientific materialism, I begin with a discussion of the Cartesian view. 3. Materialism and the Problem of Dualism The philosophical foundation of the scientific materialist view can be traced back to Descartes. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes arrived at a vision of the natural world that was sharply bifurcated. Dual- ity has been an interest and a problem in philosophy since Parmenides, but with Descartes the problem is delineated in a new and powerful way. Descartes’s careful and intricate examination of his own consciousness led him to conclude that mind or soul is fundamentally different and separate from matter or bodily things.12 This conclusion seems almost cannily designed to facilitate the beginnings of a view of life that lends itself well to the newly emerging sciences. To understand life as composed of dead matter and disembodied mind is to encourage a manipulative attitude toward nature—it is reduced to a thing there for our own use. Hence nature is devalued, and because this view does not envision the human as intricately related to and dependent upon nature, it appeared to these early scientists that nature could be acted upon with impunity. The most significant result of the Cartesian view of the duality of mind and body is the separation of life from substance. Substance or body, under this conception, is mere extension. Other qualities that we may associate with it are not essential to what it is.13 Materialism, the idea that nature is dead matter existing in a world ordered by cause and effect, is the foundation of modern science.14 Divorcing soul (anima) from matter, making them alien to one another, led to a worldview that facilitated the experimentation and manipulation of nature and this led to the development of increasingly sophisticated technologies. Cartesian dualism gave way to scientific materialism, the view that matter is the only substance and all causes are physical. The troublesome matter of the soul © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 22 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility or mind still lingers, however, as consciousness is difficult to explain given that it is neither substantial nor apparently physical, and it is apparent that a certain amount of incoherence results from the materialist view.15 When persons can look at organisms and see only matter, it is infinitely easier to act upon them experimentally than would be possible if such entities were understood to be capable of emotion or thought, ensouled, or animated by spirit, as we humans consider ourselves to be. Without an appreciation for or vision of the potentiality of spirit within matter, nature becomes pure stuff, its animation likened to that of a machine. It is possible then to look upon nature as something there for our purpose, ready-to-hand, and without purpose of its own.16 In con- tradistinction to this view, Jonas argues that organisms have their own inherent purposes, and claims that life is not merely physical. Jonas’s broader, more inclusive understanding of nature effectively situates it in the moral realm.17 Cartesian dualism, together with the newly determined physical laws developed by Newton, restructured the way humans understood the world and their place in it. This development is an illustration of the way theories about the world can eventually shape the world itself. Once the power and potential of Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualism began to be understood, the vision was widely adopted and the human world that sits atop the natural one began to be shaped in its image. This vision incorporated the understanding that nature is outside the moral realm and not subject to ethical consideration, a vision particularly evident in our present treatment of animals raised for food. The devaluation of nature facilitates the use of nature for human purposes—no longer is the human relationship with the natural world sustainable. The vision of nature as a thing subject to mechanical laws and available for our use has brought us to a point of near environmental collapse because it is not based on ecological and biological truths. As a metaphysical understanding of the world, theory has the potential to enlarge and engage our capacity to work within the world in a way that fosters our command. Theory contains within itself a per- spective based upon a horizon that has been selected from the many posi- tions and perspectives that are possible for thinking, imagining human beings. Thomas Kuhn calls this worldview a “paradigm.”18 It forms a perimeter for possible experimentation—being a collective of views and beliefs about what might be true. As a model for what is knowable about things, it both permits exploration and delimits it. It is best described as a method for isolating problems for experimentation in the hopes of gathering data that might create a better explanation for certain phenom- ena (Kuhn, 184). Its capacity to limit or enlarge our vision about the © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 23 world should not be overlooked, however. The tendency toward limita- tion results from the efficacy of narrowing the perimeter of investigation, which, while effectively reducing the area under consideration and mak- ing it manageable, necessarily shuts out or closes off aspects of reality that might offer a fuller understanding. Kuhn points out that the paradigms that shape scientific explora- tion and explanation contain values in addition to beliefs (Kuhn, 184–5). Thus, Kuhn would agree with Jonas when he argues that science contains a hidden metaphysics even as it claims to be value and belief free.19 The notion that scientific knowledge is somehow exempt from the taint of human beliefs and values leads to the situation Jonas deplores—the ethical void at the heart of intellectual modernity. The notion of value- free science is itself a belief and a cherished one. It serves to inform the hidden metaphysics of the materialist worldview. As I have indicated, the belief that nature lacks intrinsic value is inherent in the Cartesian understanding of substance as mere extension. Extended substance lends itself well to measurement. Abstracted from its qualities and from its connection with the lifeworld, body is merely object and as such reveals the universe to be homogenous. Matter is everywhere essentially the same and subject to the same mechanical laws. Materialist science believes itself free from subjective valuations—it seeks to isolate and abstract what is objectively true from the empirical evidence it inves- tigates. Yet what it leaves out is the lived experience of nature as a whole with all its complexity and mystery. It raises the question of whether we can truly have knowledge without experience. In his essay “Seventeenth Century and After: The Meaning of the Scientific and Technological Revolution,” Jonas explores these themes. He says, “It must be realized that the controlled experiment, in which an artificially simplified nature is set to work so as to display the action of single factors, is toto coelo different from the observation, however attentive, of ‘natural’ nature in its unprocessed complexity.... It essentially differs, in one word, from experience as such.”20 The devaluation of nature depends upon the abstraction of sub- stance from the complexity of the whole. By redefining body as substance, understood as mere extension, Descartes facilitated a turn from under- standing nature as alive, whole, and full of intrinsic value to a materialist understanding of nature as mechanical, homogeneous, and mathematical. The convergence of the claim of science as objective yet value free and the claim that nature is mere extended substance was fundamental to the development of the scientific-technological revolution. The significance of this development reveals itself in the argument that Jonas makes regard- ing how these claims fostered the scientific-technological revolution that, © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 24 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility in turn, reshaped our “ways of living and our modes of thinking” (PE, 45–47). We no longer experience nature in its wholeness and complexity because we are continually further removed from it; instead we receive refined notions about it from educators and scientists who see nature through the prism of scientific materialism. Having lost its intrinsic value as the result of its reevaluation on the part of science, nature now stands unprotected before us. And because science itself has relinquished any normative claims toward nature, the way is opened for nature to be used for the purposes of technological development. As much as scientific materialism has changed the way we understand nature, so it has changed how we understand our place in the world; we have become thinking subjects in a world of material objects. Consequently we confront the dif- ficult task, in an ethic that seeks to respond to the environmental crisis we face, of finding our way to a more realistic place within nature through a reevaluation of both nature and the human—one emerging from the new ecological scientific understanding of the biosphere that encourages respect for the living planet rather than disregard for its integrity. Scientific methodologies carry within them certain prejudices sim- ply in the way they examine evidence and organize knowledge about the world. Efficient causes have priority over other final or formal causes in scientific explanations of natural events. It is believed that once we know the initial cause for something, we understand what it is. Aristotle taught that most natural phenomena exhibit a coincidence of efficient, formal, and final causes, but the devaluation of teleological explanations of nature and the disavowal of spirit or mind as a contributing factor in the shaping of an organism has meant that these two kinds of causes are no longer able to contribute to our understanding of a natural thing.21 This turn toward the simplest, primarily materialistic, evidence for our scientific conclusions is in part the result of the development of sci- entific methodologies that favor predication of and control over nature and its events. Reductive conclusions, while efficacious, serve to diminish value and alienate us from our own place in nature, as well as from our own natures. Recent trends in philosophy indicate that much effort is being directed toward seeking to retrieve what has been lost—investiga- tions into the importance of embodiment and intersubjectivity, semiotic understandings of language, and a reevaluation of the place and role of the human in environmental ethics are all examples of directions in phi- losophy that seek to return to and investigate lacunas that have resulted from the primacy of scientific materialism. For Jonas, the mathematiza- tion of the world, the forgetting of the lifeworld, the loss of dynamism, the dismissal of speculation concerning final causes,22 and the lack of any sense of contextual interrelatedness has created a corresponding spiritual © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 25 and ethical void, and the isolation and alienation of humans from them- selves and from nature. This worldview, according to Jonas, contributes to the devastation of the natural world (PE, 9). What kind of world is seen through the prism of science? How do we, who have been educated to see life through the scientific materialist worldview, understand and relate to the world? The question brings to mind an experience I had during a recent total lunar eclipse. The eclipse was visible from the street near my residence in New York City, and I took up a position on the corner to watch the slow movement of the Earth’s shadow over the surface of the full moon. It seemed both haunt- ing and mysterious, evoking poetic thoughts and feelings. Yet when, as happened occasionally, some passerby stopped to see what I was looking at, nearly every time the reaction was the statement, “Oh, an eclipse” and then, generally, a kind of dismissal of the event. Rather than experienc- ing the actual eclipse, these observers were content to move on. Science has taught us what to call an eclipse and explained how it happens and thereby has encouraged us to assume we know something without our having actually experienced it. Knowledge, in the abstract, cannot carry the meaning that experience gives. Experience requires an openness to the event and results from participation in some way with what is unfolding. A deeper knowledge is gained, one that is closer to wisdom than that yielded by the surface information of a collection of facts. With this story I would like to suggest that science has tended to devalue the lifeworld through its cultivation of an accomplishment of facts pertaining to natural events and conditions. Science has explained the world to us in a mechanical, materialistic way and given us the impression that we understand the natural world, effectively reducing both our wonder about it and our respect for it. Life itself has been reduced to a series of simple, causal, material explanations for discrete natural events that make us feel as if we know something. The result is evident in the disastrous ecological problems we have inherited from the application of this kind of scientific knowledge to techne. The problem is not that the knowledge is wrong per se but that it is partial and limited while claiming to be definitive. We might also question the intent with which this knowledge is generated—when it is generated with the intent to manipulate nature for human ends, a claim can be made that the knowledge we gain is partial because it is circumscribed by the intention to use nature for our own ends. The sciences today have evolved in response to these kinds of critiques. The theoretical sciences are developing complex, open-ended explanations to guide an investigation into the mysteries of the natu- ral world that defy mechanical explanations. In the fields of climate © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany 26 Hans Jonas’s Philosophy of Responsibility studies, evolutionary biology, theoretical physics, and environmental sci- ence, acknowledgment of the reality of the complexity of interactions and interdependence of phenomena is taken into account. This science is not the science we receive through our culture, however. It is too complicated for most of us to grasp, and we remain influenced by and indoctrinated with Newtonian mechanics and post-dualistic materialism. These visions of nature construct a world of dead matter in homogeneous geometric space and posit a separation between spirit and matter, analogous to the split between human beings and nature itself. Again, while this vision of reality is conducive to technological developments of many kinds, it is a structure superimposed upon the natural world even though partially extracted from it, and it creates a situation where nature is separated from its essential foundation. Nature is not, in reality, composed of mechanical entities that can be extensively manipulated without fear of repercussion, as scientific materialism holds. It is, as contemporary ecological science tells us, a complex and vulnerable interdependent biosphere whose com- ponents cannot be separated and manipulated without disturbing the fragile balance. The recognition of, and emphasis on, the importance of the evolutionary ecological scientific worldview over that of mechanical physics is one of Jonas’s major contributions to the philosophy of science and to environmental ethics. 4. Nihilism and Existentialism One of the most disturbing and perhaps far-reaching effects on the human psyche resulting from the scientific-technological revolution and the theories that support it is the corrosion of belief in objective value. The corresponding loss of belief in the intrinsic value of nature cannot help but affect the self-understanding of the human being, for the phi- losophies of the seventeenth century fostered the notion that the human being is somehow separate from and disconnected from nature, including his own. Yet intuitively and experientially we do recognize ourselves as part of nature, as finite beings dependent upon the natural world and engaged in a material struggle for the continuance of our lives. If we accept the belief that nature has no value in and of itself, we must devalue our own natural being. This introduces dis-ease with ourselves and con- tributes to a disconnect between our mental experience and our bodily one.23 Contributing to this uneasy relationship with our natural selves is the belief, promulgated by the scientific-materialist view, that science offers a disinterested and value-free understanding of the natural world. For Jonas, the problem of nihilism begins here. He says, “The point that particularly matters for the purpose of this discussion is that a change © 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany  The Philosophical Genesis of the Ecological Crisis 27 in the vision of nature... is at the bottom of that metaphysical situ- ation which has given rise to modern existentialism and to its nihilistic implications” (PL, 216). In The Will to Power, Nietzsche defines nihilism as “the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability.” Science claims to be guided by a value-free commitment to neutral and objec- tive observation and evaluation. In effect, science chooses to maintain an openness to all empirical phenomena, excluding nothing that can be objectively observed and measured. By claiming that there are no values that might not distort the truth, materialist science reduces meaning and value to subjective phenomena. This opens the way to an understanding of all value as relative to each person’s individual perspective and experi- ence, and without objective values that can be universally recognized we remain at a loss for a persuasive argument for a way of life that protects nature from harmful human action. With nihilism we find ourselves at a loss for a foundation for an ethics that can respond to the crisis that threatens our future because we have accepted an understanding of value and meaning as subjective and relative. Jonas says, “Behind the nihilism of existentialism and its ethic of arbitrary value-setting, just as behind the whole of modern subjectivism, stands modern natural science with its premise of a value-free world” (IR, 236). As this comment shows, Jonas sees the inherent connections between the scientific worldview and the problems of meaning and value that existentialism seeks to address. If nature has no intrinsic value, no aims or purposes of its own, and if the universe is “an indefinite and even infinite universe which is bound together by the identity of its fundamental components and laws” (Koyré, 2), then we stand in danger of becoming lost to our place and its meaning within life. As Jonas puts it, “the essence of existentialism is a certain dualism, an estrangement between man and the world” (PL, 216). The idea of a cosmos, an ordered whole that is self-contained and self-sustaining, such as we see in Plato’s Timaeus, has given way to the infinite grid, mechanically governed by mathematical laws. What is the place of the human and the value and meaning of nature within