Download An Introduction to Ethical Theory

Moral Systems, Ethical
Concepts & Theories
Chapter 2
Everyone is
entitled to his
or her own
opinion,
right?
Ethics is the “study of morality”
• Morality is a system of…
– Rules that guide human conduct (rules of
conduct)
• Directives for individual conduct
• Social policies for society at large
– Principles for evaluating the rules
• Standards used to justify the rules
• E.g., justice, fairness, respect for others
Basic Components of a Moral System
Rules of Conduct
(Action-guiding rules, in the form
of either directives or social
policies)
Principles of Evaluation
(Evaluative standards used
to justify rules of conduct)
Examples include principles such
as of social utility and justice as
fairness
Rules for guiding the
actions of individuals
(micro-level ethical
rules)
Rules for establishing
social policies
(macro-level ethical rules)
Examples include directives
such as:"Do not steal" and
"Do not harm others."
Examples include social policies such as:
"Software should be protected“ and
"Privacy should be respected."
Tavani
Four features of a moral system
Public
Informal
Rational
Impartial
The rules are
known to all
of the
members.
The rules are
informal, not
like formal
laws in a legal
system.
The system is
based on
principles of
logical reason
accessible to all
its members.
The system is
not partial to
any one group
or individual.
Gert
Components of a Moral System
Grounds for justifying moral
principles
Moral principles
and rules
Source of moral rules
Religion
Philosophy
Principles of Evaluation
Rules of Moral Conduct
Core Values
Law
Values
• Value judgments exist in every endeavor
– So do value disputes
– Must guard against the many/any fallacy
• Values may be
– intrinsic or instrumental
– moral or non-moral
• Core values are special kinds of values
Core values
• Are there universal values at the core of all
humankind?
– Life and happiness are valued by all cultures
– Autonomy
• It is rational to possess core human values
• It is ethical to respect others’ core values
Why we engage in
philosophical/ethical analysis
• To critically evaluate arguments
• To support a position or claim
• To convince someone to adopt or reject a
certain position
• To provide consistent (logical) reasons for
our beliefs
• To engage in meaningful dialogue
How do we do it?
1.
2.
3.
4.
State a belief or claim
Produce an argument to support that belief
Evaluate the argument
Go to 1.
What ethical theories
have in common
• They identify what it means to “do the right
thing”.
• They assume that people have free choice to
make their own rational decisions.
• Their goal is generally to contribute to the
well-being of humanity.
• They distinguish obligations & responsibilities
from choice & personal preference.
Some ethical theories in
sound bites
• Ethical relativism
“To each his own”
• Utilitarian (Mill)
“The greatest good for the greatest number”
• Deontological (Kant)
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
• Social contract theory
“I will if you will”
• Virtue ethics (Aristotle)
“Be all that you can be”
Ethical (subjective/cultural)
relativism
• There are no universal moral norms.
• This theory suggests that different
environments spawn different ethics:
–
–
–
–
–
Historical times
Countries
Communities
Families
Individuals
Case Against Ethical
Relativism
• Just because two societies do have different moral
views doesn’t mean they ought to have these
different views
– Descriptive vs. prescriptive/normative
• Doesn’t explain how moral guidelines evolve/are
determined
– Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
• Provides no way out for cultures in conflict
• Because many practices are acceptable does not
mean any cultural practice is acceptable
– many/any fallacy
Divine Command Theory
• Good actions are those aligned with God’s
will
• Bad actions are those contrary to God’s will
• Holy books reveal God’s will.
• We should use holy books as moral decisionmaking guides.
Case Against Divine Command
Theory
• Different holy books disagree
• Society is multicultural, secular
• Some moral problems not addressed in
scripture
• “The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence fallacy)
• Based on obedience, not reason
Kantianism/Deontology
• An “ethics of principle”
• Universal principle
– treat everyone equally and respectfully
• Logic & rationality
– humans can reason about what is good or evil
• Human interactions based on the
“categorical imperative”
– never treat others merely as means to an end;
rather, treat them as ends in themselves
Categorical Imperative
• Act so that you treat both yourself and other
people as ends in themselves and never
only as a means to an end.
• What does this mean:
– In friendship?
– In business?
– In school?
Scenario from text
• Carla
– Single mother --- Works full time --- Takes two evening
courses each semester
• History class
– Requires more work than normal classes --- Carla has
an “A” on all work so far --- She doesn’t have time to
write her final report
• Carla purchases report and submits it as her own
work
Kantian evaluation of the
scenario
• Carla submitted another person’s work as
her own
• She attempted to deceive professor
• She treated professor as a means to an end
– End: passing the course
– Means: professor issues grade
• What Carla did was wrong
Case for Kantianism
•
•
•
•
Rational
Produces universal moral guidelines
Treats all persons as moral equals
Workable ethical theory
Case Against Kantianism
• Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes
an action.
• There is no way to resolve a conflict
between rules.
– Conflicting duties
• Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral
laws.
Utilitarian Ethics
Bentham
Mill
• A consequentialist theory
– Focus is on the outcome of an act or application
of a rule, and not on behavior or attitude.
• “Utility” equates to “happiness”
– Depending on the context, think of happiness as
• Advantage
• Benefit
• Good
• Pleasure
• Profit
The Principle of Utility
• Also called the Greatest Happiness Principle.
• An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that
it increases (or decreases) the total happiness
of the stakeholders.
Act-based vs. Rule-based
• Act-based utilitarianism
– We should analyze each of our actions from the
perspective of how much happiness we believe
they will engender.
• Rule-based utilitarianism
– We should base our behavior on rules that are
understood to maximize collective happiness.
Case for utilitarianism
• Focus on happiness is reasonable
• Practical, appealing to most people
– An action or rule can be judged as largely good
or bad
• Comprehensive
– Takes all factors of an action into consideration
• Rule utilitarian calculus is easy
– Long-term consequences of rules matter
• Not each individual act
Critique of utilitarianism
• Could result in harming some for the sake of
the majority.
– The minority may be treated poorly as a means to
social good.
• Adding up consequences requires that we
calculate them all in the same units of
measurement.
• Ignores our innate sense of duty
Moor’s Just Consequentialism
A Two-Step Strategy
1. Deliberate over various policies from an impartial point of view to determine
whether they meet the criteria for being ethical policies. A policy is ethical if it:
a. does not cause any unnecessary harms to individual groups
b. supports individual rights, the fulfilling of duties, etc.
2. Select the best policy from the set of just policies arrived at the deliberation stage
by ranking ethical policies in terms of benefits and justifiable (harms). In doing
this, be sure to:
a. weigh carefully between the good consequences and the bad consequences
in the ethical policies and
b. distinguish between disagreements about facts and disagreements about
principles and values, when deciding which particular ethical policy should
be adopted.
Hobbes
Social contract ethical theory
• Our “natural” state is “pre-moral”
– Living in a society puts our moral behavior in a new light
• We enter into a social contract to surrender some
absolute freedoms to society’s rules & laws.
• Our motivation to be moral is that it is in our selfinterest to abide by rules that have been set for
everyone
Social contract theory
“Morality consists in the set of rules,
governing how people are to treat one
another, that rational people will agree to
accept, for their mutual benefit, on the
condition that others follow those rules as
well”
Rachels
Similarities…
• Between social contract theory and deontology
(Kantian ethics)
– Both are based on the notion of universal moral rules
• But…
– Kant: a moral rule is one that can be universalized (i.e.,
everyone should follow it)
• Focus is on duties
– SCT: a moral rule is one that rational people would
support for the benefit of the community
• Focus is on rights
Rights
• We classify rights according to the duties
they impose on others
• Negative right
– Others must not encumber you
– Considered to be absolute (guaranteed w/o
exception)
• Positive right
– Others must make it possible for you
– Considered to be limited (some restrictions
apply)
Rawls’s Principles of Justice
• Each person may claim a “fully adequate”
number of basic rights and liberties, so long
as these claims are consistent with everyone
else having a claim to the same rights and
liberties
• Any social and economic inequalities must
– Be associated with positions that everyone has
a fair and equal opportunity to achieve
– Be to the greatest benefit of the leastadvantaged members of society (the difference
principle)
DVD Rental Scenario
• Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores
• He collects information about rentals from
customers & constructs customer profiles
• He sells profiles to direct marketing firms
• Some customers are happy to receive more
mail order catalogs; others are unhappy at
the increase in “junk mail”
Evaluation (SCT)
• Consider the rights of
– Bill, customers, and mail order companies.
• Do customers have a right to expect name, address
to be kept confidential?
– If a customer rents DVDs from Bill, who owns the
information about the transaction?
– If Bill and a customer have equal rights to information,
Bill did nothing wrong to sell information.
– But…if customers have a right to expect their data or
transaction to be kept confidential without giving
permission, then Bill was wrong to sell information
without asking for permission.
Case for Social Contract
Theory
• Framed in language of rights
• Explains why people act in self-interest
without common agreement
• Provides clear analysis of certain
citizen/government problems
Case Against SCT
• No one really signs a contract
• Some actions have multiple
characterizations
• Conflicting rights problem
• May unjustly treat people who cannot
uphold contract
• Can promote minimalist morality
Comparing our workable theories
Theory
Motivation
Criteria
Focus
Kantianism
Dutifulness
Rules
Individual
Act
Utilitarianism
Consequence
Actions
Group
Rule
Utilitarianism
Consequence /
Duty
Rules
Group
Social
Contract
Rights
Rules
Individual
Morality of Breaking the Law
•
•
•
•
•
Social contract theory perspective
Kantian perspective
Rule utilitarian perspective
Act utilitarian perspective
Conclusion
Virtue Ethics
Aristotle
• An “ethics of purpose”
• A person should try to cultivate excellence
in everything he or she does.
• The emphasis is on building and assessing
an individual’s character, and not on rules or
actions.
Four Types of Ethical Theory
Type of Theory
Advantages
Disadvantages
Consequence-based
(Utilitarian)
Stresses promotion of
happiness and utility
Ignores concerns of justice
for the minority
population
Duty-based (Deontology)
Stresses the role of duty
and respect for persons
Underestimates the
importance of happiness
and social utility
Contract-based (Rights)
Provides a motivation for
morality
Offers only a minimal
morality
Character-based (Virtue)
Stresses moral
development and moral
education
Depends on homogeneous
community standards for
morality