* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 5. Actions
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Immanuel Kant wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of technology wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup
Cosmopolitanism wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Primary care ethics wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Organizational technoethics wikipedia , lookup
Marketing ethics wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Accounting ethics wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Medical ethics wikipedia , lookup
Clare Palmer wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Jewish ethics wikipedia , lookup
AIT, Comp. Sci. & Info. Mgmt AT02.98 Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in Computing September Term, 1999 5. Actions Objectives of these slides: to describe an ethical theory based on examining actions themselves 1 Overview 1. An Act-Oriented Approach 2. Judging an Action 3. Personal Freedom, Choice and Autonomy 4. Human Behaviour – Other Facits 5. Problems Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 2 1. An Act-Oriented Approach The Universal Declaration also considers the moral character of an action by examining the action itself don’t look at the results/consequences Sometimes called the deontological approach dentos = duty We have a duty to respect people’s rights and needs when carrying out an action. Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 3 2. Judging an Action This approach was developed by Immanuel Kant. His initial motivation was that “everything has either a price or a dignity” e.g. work skills have a market value, but keeping a promise cannot be quantified The utilitarian aim of quantifying pleasure is doomed due to the presence of ‘dignities’ Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 e.g. how do you value your parents? 4 Measuring the Immeasurable An act-oriented yardstick measures the humantity in an act, not the resulting pleasure, pain, happiness, or unhappiness. Doing wrong is seen as violating a fundamental standard of humanity, people’s universal rights. Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 continued 5 Unfortunately, humanity is hard to define; it is intangible it requires intuition, insight, judgement some skeptics deny its existence Response: many things are intangible e.g. love, trust but they exist Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 6 Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 7 3. Personal Freedom, Choice & Autonomy Kant’s basic moral law for judging an action is called the categorical imperative a command (imperative) that holds with no exceptions or qualification (categorically) Kant has several definitions of it. One of the most important relates to freedom: Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” continued 8 If I treat someone as a “means”, then I am using them for my own ends, not theirs. I don’t care what they want I see them as an object/tool that I use to get what I want I impose my choices on them Their personal freedom, choice and autonomy are restricted Kant’s ethical yardstick measures the humanity of our acts in terms of the personal freedom, choice and autonomy of the people affected. Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 9 4. Human Behaviour – Other Facits Many other qualities can be included in the definition of humanity. For example, when we deal with with people, we should treat them with: Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 equality, dignity, fairness sympathy, sensitivity 10 4.1. The Ability to Think The ability to think is an essential component of humanity. Intelligence connects with ethics in two ways. 1) Intelligence + Choice = Morality Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 we are responsible for our actions since we have the intelligence to choose how to behave. continued 11 2) Intelligence gives us a means (logical reasoning) to evaluate the ethics of our actions e.g. discrimination is logically inconsistent e.g. lying is inconsistent with the truth of an event Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 12 4.2. Reason & the Categorical Imperative The version of the categorical imperative that depends most closely on the laws of reason is: Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” maxim == policy statement == principle behind an action 13 Examples I should not steal a book from the library since what would happen if everyone stole books? I should not make a false promise to someone Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 it is self-contradictory (due to reason) if everyone did the same then the very idea of “promise” would cease to exist 14 5. Problems Universality doesn’t allow for exceptional cases e.g. in a police state it might be morally okay to lie to the police Kant offers no guidance about how to choose between moral rules Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 e.g. “keep a promise” or “tell the truth” 15 Are we Rational? Kant argues that our acts should be free from contradictions and inconsistencies when we consider their universal application. This approach relies on us being able to rationally judge our actions. Comp. Ethics: Actions/5 16