Lesson-2-Common-Ethical-Issues.pdf

Lesson 2  Common Ethical Theories ETHICAL ANALYSIS When confronted with a situation that seems to present ethical issues, how should you analyze it? The following five- step process should help: 1. Identify and describe th...

Lesson 2  Common Ethical Theories ETHICAL ANALYSIS When confronted with a situation that seems to present ethical issues, how should you analyze it? The following five- step process should help: 1. Identify and describe the facts clearly. Find out who did what to whom, and where, when, and how. In many instances, you will be surprised at the errors in the initially reported facts, and often you will find that simply getting the facts straight helps define the solution. It also helps to get the opposing parties involved in an ethical dilemma to agree on the facts. 2. Define the conflict or dilemma and identify the higher-order values involved. Ethical, social, and political issues always reference higher values. The parties to a dispute all claim to be pursuing higher values (e.g., freedom, privacy, protection of property, and the free enterprise system). Typically, an ethical issue involves a dilemma: two diametrically opposed courses of action that support worthwhile values. For example, the chapter-ending case study illustrates two competing values: the need to improve health care record keeping and the need to protect individual privacy. 3. Identify the stakeholders. Every ethical, social, and political issue has stakeholders: players in the game who have an interest in the outcome, who have invested in the situation, and usually who have vocal opinions. Find out the identity of these groups and what they want. This will be useful later when designing a solution. 4. Identify the options that you can reasonably take. You may find that none of the options satisfy all the interests involved, but that some options do a better job than others. Sometimes arriving at a good or ethical solution may not always be a balancing of consequences to stakeholders. 5. Identify the potential consequences of your options. Some options may be ethically correct but disastrous from other points of view. Other options may work in one instance but not in other similar instances. Always ask yourself, "What if I choose this option consistently over time?” Ethics Theories Ethics theories provide a framework for moral decision-making within the current law, intended to be acceptable to all members of some society. It is applied consistently to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Right or wrong must be interpreted legally and morally. It allows a person to present a persuasive, logical argument as to why certain actions should or should not be allowed. It allows an executive branch to enforce conduct, i.e. to penalize persons for actions that are not allowed. Module I  2 1. Subjective Relativism Definition: Subjective Relativism postulates that there are no universal moral norms for right & wrong for an individual. In Subjective Relativism, a person decides right & wrong. Case For: ⚫ Intelligent people can have opposite opinions about moral issues, and live [sometimes] happily together ⚫ Ethical debates are inherently disagreeable and pointless anyway! So Why bother? ⚫ Morality is relative, so you don’t have to reconcile opposing views Case Against: ⚫ What is right and what you do, are not always clearly drawn o People are good at rationalizing wrong behaviour o E.g. taking home the pencil and paper at work ⚫ No moral distinction between actions of different people o Crossing streets in the middle by others; others cross only at designated cross-walks; both right? o Stopping your car in the middle of traffic; you have a sudden need o Telling a lie for a good cause ⚫ Subjective relativism and tolerance are quite different o Nothing is really bad in Subjective Relativism Decision: We shall not give legitimacy in this class to an ethical theory that fails to be based on reason. Hence we drop Subjective Relativism from detailed coverage. Subjective relativism – holds that each person decides right and wrong for himself/herself. This notion is captured in the popular expression “What’s right for you may be right for me”. Sample case: Is the way professors treat their students. Some, who are mostly education graduates, may be too kind and considerate to their students and they criticize some professors who managed to fail more than half of their students in a class. On the other hand, some professors, mostly Engineers, IT and Law professors would fail their students notwithstanding only two or three in a class will pass. In this instance, each professor should respect the methodologies applied by others. The theory of relativism is applicable in this case. 2. Cultural Relativism Definition: Module I  3 Relativism postulates there are no universal moral norms for right & wrong for society and hence its members. In Cultural Relativism, right & wrong rest with a society’s actual moral guidelines. Guidelines for right & wrong vary from place to place, and from time to time; e.g. slavery is OK in one and not OK in another society, or at another time. In Cultural Relativism we can believe that today slavery would be wrong in the US, but 150 years ago it was right. Case For: ⚫ Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines. ⚫ It would be arrogant for one society to judge another! And we do not want to be arrogant. o Is judging inherently arrogant? Case Against: ⚫ Does not explain how an individual discovers moral guidelines. ⚫ Does poor job of explaining how moral guidelines evolve. ⚫ Provides no logical framework for reconciliation between cultures in conflict. o Both societies appear right in their views, yet conflict with one another. o E.g. death penalty is right response of society for certain crimes; vs. death penalty is a crime of society. ⚫ Denies existence of universal guidelines o Only societies have them, each sharing core values among its members. o Denies á-priory existence of good and bad. o E.g. killing people is relative: Khmer Rouge killed ~2 million, Soviet Union ~25 million, Nazis ~6 million, Mao China many millions; this is not necessarily a bad thing in Cultural Relativism; may have been required to further a particular goal. Decision: Cultural Relativism is not based on reason, not a generally applicable tool to formulate ethical evaluation. Hence we drop Cultural Relativism from detailed coverage. Cultural Relativism – is the ethical theory that the meaning of “right” and “wrong” rests with a society’s actual moral guidelines. These guidelines vary widely from place to place and from time to time. The F2 Epidemic One of the problems of an ITE instructor is the F2 epidemic. This is called “F2 epidemic” because ITE students during the early 80s uses either the Pascal and/or the BASIC language running under DOS operating system. The user’s interface of the said compiler uses the F2 function key to save file. Module I  4 Hence, when a potential student was able to write the appropriate code for a specific machine problems and/or case study, such code would be automatically shared to all others. It is like an epidemic which transfers to others as quick as a speed of light. The culture during that time and at the present time is that, when someone (student) was able to code his program correctly and such student failed to share his code, the entire class would severely condemn him for being selfish. Hence, the potential student has not other option but to share. The only reward that such a student would get is the credit and appreciation of his classmates for him. 3. Divine Command Theory Definition: Good actions are those aligned with the will of God! Bad actions are contrary to the will of God! Several major religious traditions originated in the Middle East ⚫ Judaism ~3500 years ago ⚫ Christianity ~2000 years ago ⚫ Islam ~1400 years ago ⚫ Others in Far East: Taoism, Buddhism, Confucionism, Caodaism Case For: ⚫ Owing “obedience to our Creator” makes things simple and clear ⚫ Knowing the will of God (through prophets) enables us to live in peace and certainty ⚫ God is all-good, all-knowing and the ultimate authority o Many people are religious and submit to God’s law o Society can create rules that align with God’s will Case Against: ⚫ There are many holy books, but some disagree, a few strongly ⚫ Unrealistic to assume a multi-cultural society can agree on any religion-based morality ⚫ Some moral problems are not addressed directly in Scripture Example: What can the bible tell us about Internet conflicts? Usually draws conclusion based on analogy ⚫ How can I trust that prophets really know God’s will? ⚫ Based on obedience, not reason o Not a powerful weapon for ethical debate in a secular society Decision: Divine Command Theory is not a rational tool to formulate ethical evaluations. Hence we drop Divine Command Theory. Module I  5 The divine command theory - is based on the idea that good actions are those aligned with the will of God and bad actions are those contrary to the will of God. Since the Holy Book contains God’s directions, we can use the Holy Books as moral decision-making guides, God says we should respect our mothers and a father, so respecting our parents is good. God says do not lie or steal, so lying and stealing are bad. It is important to note that the divine command theory is subscribed to by some, but not all, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Fundamentalists are more likely to consider Holy Books authentic and authoritative. Most sects within these religious traditions augment Holy Books with other sources when developing their moral codes. The divine command theory is based on obedience, not reason. 4. Ethical Egoism Definition: ⚫ Each person should focus exclusively on one’s self-interest ⚫ Man is a heroic maverick with happiness as the moral purpose of life ⚫ Help and include others, but only if it also helps you! Case For: ⚫ Acknowledges focus on our own well-being o Compared to other theories that focus on the good of others ⚫ Community can benefit o Entrepreneur looking out for herself brings jobs to community ⚫ Moral principles rooted in idea of self-interest o Lying and cheating is not in your long-term self- interest; therefore reject as acceptable behaviour; but the reason for rejection is not that lying and cheating are inherently bad!! Case Against: ⚫ Injustice can occur when powerful individuals put their own interests first o Slavery is great for those who aren’t slaves! ⚫ Other moral principles seem superior o Is the principle of preserving an individual’s life or a society’s survival greater than my own self-interest? ⚫ Form of bigotry o Puts you and your interests above others o How do I know that I am more important, valuable, precious than others? Decision: Ethical Egoism is not a rational tool to formulate ethical evaluations. Hence we drop Ethical Egoism from detailed coverage. Module I  6 Ethical egoism – is the philosophy that each person should focus exclusively on his or her self interest. In other words, according to ethical egoism, the morally right action for a person to take in a particular situation is the action that will provide that person with the maximum long-term benefit. Ethical egoism does not prohibit acting to help someone else, but assisting another is the right thing to do if and only if it is in the helper’s own long-term best interest. For instance, Atty. Juan Matulungin is assisting Jojo Binay in the latter’s bid for the Presidency. Why? Because if Jojo will win the Presidency, it would be certain that Jojo will appoint him in a position Juan ever dreamed of, that is, to become the Justice Secretary. I personally believe that, all of us are adopting this theory. All of us act for our own interests. 5. Kantianism Definition: Kantianism is a method of reasoning to determine universal morals, based on Categorical Imperative, CI, i.e. the bona-fide will behind actions. It was postulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). It is generally aligned with principles expressed in the Bible, but derived via reasoning, not faith! I.e. an atheist can perfectly adhere to CI. Some Background: ⚫ What is acceptably good for all people, good without qualification? o Intelligence, courage may be good, but applied to rob a bank is not good o Good will, e.g. “noble intentions” may be good, but Stalin in his actions had good intentions for the USSR, yet tens of millions of Russians were murdered to implement his good intentions! ⚫ Kant argues for dutifulness o Doing what we ought to do be based on moral rule, vs. what we want to do o But how do we know if an action is grounded in a moral rule? Formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI): Literally: “Handle so, daß die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könne!” English Translation: Module I  7 “Act in a way that the motivation behind your will can simultaneously be applied to the principles of general legislation!” Note that there exist mildly differing variations of the CI in German –not just in translations. Good English translations may also create competing formulations with slightly different meanings or varying emphases. o Pointed out just to be own “devil’s advocate” o Will not detract from essential message of CI Example: ⚫ Chip plant manager embarks on hiring new employees to finish a major project ⚫ Manager knows the plant will close within a year ⚫ Some of the best candidates are from out-of-state, and will have to move their household to start work ⚫ Should manager inform the candidates of the pending closure? o No disclosure: you treat candidates as a means to an end o With disclosure: you treat them as the ends in themselves o From Categorical Imperative, the answer is to disclose! ⚫ Manager has option to offer future relocation after plant closure, or financial incentives Case For: ⚫ Categorical Imperative yields a rational principle o Logical reasoning can explain solutions to ethical problems ⚫ Offers universal moral guidelines o Clear moral judgments can result from accepting CI o Can be acceptable in all cultures: universal o Can be accepted at all times: universal o Counter-example: sacrificing living humans to appease the gods would be viewed as wrong in the CI ⚫ Culture-neutral o Can work as a moral foundation for a capitalist or a communist, republican and democrat , today and tomorrow, in Europe and South Africa ⚫ All persons are treated as moral equals Case Against: ⚫ No single rule fully characterizes all actions o Stealing food to feed starving children? Module I  8 o Saving the lives of innocent people by lying? ⚫ No way to resolve all conflicts between rules o Perfect duties: rules you unequivocally obey o Imperfect duties: rules you fulfil in general, but not in every instance o Not stealing as a perfect duty that overrules helping others ⚫ No exceptions to perfect duties o White lies? Do I look good? Decision: Kantianism is a rational –though not perfect– tool, thus we include it in further detailed coverage In 75 BC Julius Caesar was kidnapped by (now) Turkish pirates for a fat ransom. Caesar protested jokingly that the ransom was still too low, and suggested that the pirates should double their demands and that he would come back and punish them, should he be freed. Pirates did increase the ransom and got the money demanded. Caesar was freed, later returned with an armada of ships Caesar caught and killed every one of the pirates. Did Caesar act unethically? Did pirates act unethically? After all, pirates kept their word: they restored his freedom. Pirates thought he was joking, when he threatened them to return with great military force and then kill them all. Would you have done the same as Caesar, assuming same power? Deontology or Kantianism is an obligation-based theory whose chief author was Immanuel Kant, who lived in the 18th century. This theory emphasizes the type of action rather than the consequences of that action. Deontologists believe that moral decisions should be made based on one’s duties and the rights of others. According to Kant, morality is based on pure reason. As people have the innate ability to act rationally, they therefore must act morally, irrespective of personal desires. Another way of stating Kant’s theory is “Act morally regardless of the consequences.” 6. Act Utilitarianism Definition: ⚫ An action is right or wrong to the extent that it increases or decreases the total happiness of affected members of society ⚫ Bentham (1748-1832) and Mill (1806-1873) ⚫ Based on the principle of utility, AKA greatest happiness principle ⚫ Focus is on consequences, i.e. it is a consequentialist theory o Motive is irrelevant (note by contrast the “will” focus in Kantianism) Module I  9 o Yet agreeing on affected parties can become a tough issue ⚫ A rational ethical theory for determining right or wrong, based on resulting net benefit; assess the overall benefit to make a decision Case For: ⚫ Focuses on happiness for measuring moral behavior ⚫ Down-to-earth and easily applied, assuming due diligence o Example in text: Prison location ⚫ Comprehensive o Takes into account all elements of a particular situation (e.g. white lies) Case Against: ⚫ Hard to define boundaries to draw the line o Who is included? How far into the future consider the consequences? o A new highway cutting through an old neighborhood o Not all consequences are measurable (measured in units of: dollars, sadness, anger, joy, divorce rate, added suicide occurrence, etc.) ⚫ Not practical to calculate for every moral decision o “Rule of thumb” to mitigate ⚫ Ignores our innate sense of duty (e.g. good will) o Breaking a promise to A costs 1000 units of badness (measured in some objective unit), but gives B 1001 units of goodness: So it is OK to break a promise! ⚫ Cannot always accurately predict consequences to measure utilities ⚫ Susceptible to moral luck o Unforeseen negative consequences can judge your actions to be bad! o Is sending someone flowers good or bad? Decision: Act Utilitarianism is a rational theory, though not perfect. Hence we include it in detailed coverage. 7. Rule Utilitarianism Definition: ⚫ Adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest total happiness of society ⚫ Principle of utility applied to moral rules, not individual actions ⚫ A workable theory for evaluating moral problems Case For: ⚫ Not every moral decision requires a utility calculation; rule can be used Module I  10 ⚫ Exceptional situations do not overthrow moral rules o “A” must keep promise of repaying B 1000 $, even if it would be of 1001 $ advantage to A to break it; keeping promises is a rule with high utility ⚫ Solves the problem of moral luck o Interested in typical results of actions ⚫ Avoids problem of egocentrism o Personal view influences utility analysis in Act Utilitarianism; not in Rule Utilitarianism ⚫ Appeals to a wide cross-section of society o Many people exist, who claim no moral theory will fit Case Against: ⚫ Ignores apparent unjust distribution of good consequences among wide spectrum of society members o US congress and president are exempt from US health care reform, but US population is required to adopt it; inconsistent distribution of goodness o Hyper-taxation of the rich to redistribute wealth? o Perhaps these rich people didn’t deserve their wealth in the first place? And who is to say? ⚫ Forces a single scale or measure to evaluate different kinds of consequences o Highway example: what if condemning 150 homes leads to 15 divorces? How does an easier, safer commute stack up against the impact of displacing families? o When fetus is aborted, does really no one get hurt? Decision: Rule Utilitarianism is a rational theory; thus we include it in detailed coverage in class 8. Social Contract Definition: ⚫ Morality consists of rules how people treat one another, rules that rational people accept for mutual benefit, on the condition all others follow those rules ⚫ Hobbes (1603-1679) ⚫ General idea continued in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 1762 treatise “le contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” ⚫ Requires two things: 1. Legislating moral rules to gain benefits of social living; as opposed to living in a “state of nature”, AKA chaos 2. Government must be capable of enforcing these rules Module I  11 ⚫ Arrangement of granting rights to rational people with defined obligations, AKA duties, is the “social contract” ⚫ Note: Rights and Duties! ⚫ Modified by Rawls’ “Principles of Justice” 1. Each person has basic rights and liberties, e.g. freedom of speech, association, safety, property 2. Social and economic inequalities are accepted, but must satisfy two conditions; 3. That everyone had equal opportunity; some chose to abandon them 4. That overall affect provides greatest benefit to the least- advantaged members of society; e.g. graduated income tax Case For: ⚫ Framed in the spirit and language of individual rights ⚫ Benefits under capitalist freedom: When all members are allowed to act like vultures, but under guidance of social contract, all end up acting like doves  ⚫ Provides clear ethical boundaries and analysis of important issues between people and government o Penalty for crime takes away some individual right  Must occur in order to enforce social contract  Will equally apply to everyone; e.g. government officials not exempted: police officer caught by another cop driving drunk should be treated like other drunk citizens o Explains how civil disobedience can be moral  Segregation laws put greater burden on disadvantaged Case Against: ⚫ None of us signed the contract ⚫ Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways ⚫ Does not address moral problems with conflicting rights o Mother's right to privacy vs. fetus’ right to life ⚫ Can be unjust to those who are unable uphold their side of the contract o What to do for people who don’t understand the moral rule? o E.g. drug addicts, or mentally handicapped? Decision: Social Contract Theory is a rational one; thus we include it in detailed coverage Ethical Theories Kept Module I  12 To be usable, any of these 4 must be rational, or universally acceptable, or both. 1. Kantianism: - is rational and universally acceptable, since the will behind an act is measured; must be suitable as base of laws for overall society 2. Act Utilitarianism: - is rational, since it computes overall benefit of an act, maximizes happiness of overall society 3. Rule Utilitarianism: - is rational, since it computes overall benefit of rules used, maximizes society happiness --without utility calculation of each act 4. Social Contract: - is rational and universal, due to agreement how rational people treat one another for mutual benefit, with defined rights and balanced duties CANDIDATE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Once your analysis is complete, what ethical principles or rules should you use to make a decision? What higher-order values should inform your judgment? Although you are the only one who can decide which among many ethical principles you will follow, and how you will prioritize them, it is helpful to consider some ethical principles with deep roots in many cultures that have survived throughout recorded history: 1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule). Putting yourself into the place of others, and thinking of yourself as the object of the decision, can help you think about fairness in decision making. 2. If an action is not right for everyone to take, it is not right for anyone (Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative). Ask yourself, "If everyone did this, could the organization, or society, survive?” 3. If an action cannot be taken repeatedly, it is not right to take at all (Descartes' rule of change). This is the slippery-slope rule: An action may bring about a small change now that is acceptable, but if it is repeated, it would bring unacceptable changes in the long run. In the vernacular, it might be stated as "once started down a slippery path, you may not be able to stop.” 4. Take the action that achieves the higher or greater value (Utilitarian Principle). This rule assumes you can prioritize values in a rank order and understand the consequences of various courses of action. 5. Take the action that produces the least harm or the least potential cost (Risk Aversion Principle). Some actions have extremely high failure costs of very low probability (e.g., building a nuclear generating facility in an urban area) or extremely high failure costs of moderate probability (speeding and automobile accidents). Avoid these high- Module I  13 failure-cost actions, paying greater attention to high-failure-cost potential of moderate to high probability. 6. Assume that virtually all tangible and intangible objects are owned by someone else unless there is a specific declaration otherwise. (This is the ethical “no free lunch” rule.) If something someone else has created is useful to you, it has value, and you should assume the creator wants compensation for this work. Actions that do not easily pass these rules deserve close attention and a great deal of caution. The appearance of unethical behavior may do as much harm to you and your company as actual unethical behavior. Module I