Download Ethics Theories

Applied Ethics
Theories
COMPUTER SCIENCE
Ethical Theories
RELATIVISM &
OBJECTIVISM
Ethical relativism
 There is no universally accepted ethical standard
Different cultures have different ethical standards
There is no objective standard of right or wrong (unlike natural sciences)
“Personal ethical relativism”
“Social ethical relativism”
 Reasons for ethical relativism
Diversity of moral views
Moral uncertainty
Situation differences
 Morality is a set of believe individual or society have,
nothing more
Any problem with this theory?
Arguments against ethical relativism
(Non-relativisism, Objectivism)
 Are there really differences in moral views?
Disagreement on a moral issue does not mean that a “correct” moral stand
about the issue does not exist.
 Moral uncertainty or moral skepticism means that
moral decision is difficult but not impossible.
Moral uncertainty leads to inaction.
Perhaps someday, a solution can be found.
 Even under different situations there should be a
"correct" moral practice.
Some general values such as justice, compassion, happiness etc. do not
change under any circumstances.
 Ethical relativism: intellectual laziness, lack of moral
courage?
Objectivism
 The truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does
not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person
or group of persons.
 Moral propositions are analogous to propositions
about chemistry, biology, or history.
Objectivism
 Moral realism: objective good is a reality independent of
who view it, as in natural science.
eg. Honesty, generosity etc.
 Moral pluralism: there may be more than one set of
equally valid moral principles, and sometimes one has to
choose between them.
eg. Choice between health and justice in health care
system some patients will be left out.
Ethical Theories
EGOISM AND ALTRUISM
Egoism vs Altruism
 Psychological egoism
People are basically self-centered.
Even when people show concern about other people's welfare, it is only for
show, with the ultimate aim of getting something in return.
 Ethical egoism
One of the ethical theories assuming that humans are basically self-centered.
Is this a viable principle? Everybody seeks his/her best interest?
Unless one can take care of oneself, he/she cannot take care of others.
What if the egoist considers what is good for the society would ultimately benefit
himself/herself?
 Is there true altruism?
Is Mother Teresa an altruist?
Not rejecting altruism leads to guilt?
Ethical Theories
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism (1)
 Utilitarianism is an ethical theory put forward by Jeremy





Bentham (1748-1832) and Stuart Mill (1806-1873) to promote
social and legal reform in UK at the time.
Our action should produce most happiness or reduce suffering or
unhappiness.
It is a cost-benefit analysis of moral judgment or decision.
When there is a conflict of interests, the choice is that which
promote the interests of greater number.
It stresses the goal or consequence of an action (teleological),
also called consequentialist moral theory.
It does not consider the motive of the action.
Utilitarianism (2)
 Bentham: Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do.
 Wealth, health, education, freedom are just instrument
of happiness. They are not intrinsically good. Happiness
and pleasure are the only intrinsic goods.
Utilitarianism (3)
 Unlike egoism, utilitarianism considers not only oneself, but all
others that might be affected.
 Our own happiness does not count more than others.
 Unlike altruism, utilitarianism considers sacrifice is a waste if it
does not result in increased happiness.
 Happiness can be “quantified”
Pleasure vs pain, quality, intensity, duration, number of people affected etc
 "Act utilitarianism" consider each act separately.
 "Rule utilitarianism" considers consequences of the act
performed as a general practice.
Evaluating Utilitarianism
 Amount of happiness is difficult to calculate: difficult to
consider all the variables and contributing factors.
 This theory does not allow us to consider our own
happiness more important than others.
 “Ends justify the means”. Is a wrong act justifiable if it
produces pleasure to a large number of people?
Utilitarianist might argue that in the long run this is bad.
“Proof” of Utilitarianism
 The basis of utilitarianism is that happiness is the only
thing we desire. Because we desire happiness, therefore
it is desirable and good. All others (freedom, wealth,
health etc) are just tools to achieve happiness. Is this
true?
Modified Utilitarianism
 Preference utilitarianism
Happiness is not the only intrinsic good. Peace, freedom, knowledge, beauty
etc are all intrinsic goods to be maximized.
The best action is the one that would lead to most of the preferred intrinsic
goods.
People’s preferences can be determined through polls or other means.
However, people might not be well informed.
Other variations include considering only self-regarding preferences.
 Cost-benefit analysis
Useful for government and business policy determination. Every affected
factor is assigned a money value. The best course or action is the one that
cost the least and produces most. Insurance companies are using this
approach to set their policy cost and payment.
Ethical Theories
KANT’S MORAL THEORY
Kant’s Moral Theory (1)
 Proposed by a German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804).
 The motive to do what is right is important.
 The consequences of an act is not.
 People ought not be used, but should be regarded as
having the highest intrinsic value.
Kant’s Moral Theory (2)
 What is the right motive?
Good intention is to do what one believes is the right thing to do, out of
concern and respect for moral law.
Without good intention such things as intelligence, wit, control of
emotion etc can be used for evil purpose.
Kant is not a relativist. He believed that there is a right and a wrong
thing to do, whether or not we knew or agree about it.
Example: a store keeper charges her customers a fair price, same for all
customers.
Motive 1. Good for business, in her best interest. Not praiseworthy.
Motive 2. Sympathetic to her customers, wants to do them good. Not the
highest. (makes herself feels better?).
Motive 3. Because she believes that it is the right thing to do. Highest
motive.
The difference between 2 & 3 is that in 2 the storekeeper did not know
why she did it, just feels that she ought to do it.
Moral act is when we know that we are motivated by concern to do the
right thing, which might lead to our own disadvantage. (Is this similar to
altruism?)
Kant’s Moral Theory (3)
 What is the right thing to do?
According to Kant, we must not only act out of a right motivation, but must
also do the right thing. Both the motive and the act must be morally
relevant. (Any contradiction with the previous condition that as long as the
motive is good the consequences of the act is not important?)
 Categorical imperative (imperative is a statement that tells us what to do)
Moral act that is unconditional and universally binding, as opposed to
hypothetical imperative where it is only applicable under certain
circumstances.
First form: “Act only on the maxim that you can will as a universal law”.
Second form: “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that
of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.”
Other forms:
Autonomy: We should consider ourselves the authors of moral
imperatives because they should flow from our own nature as rational
beings.
"Kingdom of ends": A community or kingdom of people in which all are
rational beings who are authors as well as subjects of moral law.
Universality: Applicable under all circumstances. Some of these moral
principles might become laws of nature?
Evaluation of Kant’s Moral Theory





Moral obligations. Kant believes that moral principles that
are universal, and we ought to follow these moral principles.
Being able to act out these moral obligations is the source of
human dignity.
Application of categorical imperatives. Moral acts are
universal. How is this different from “rule utilitarianism”?
Critics say some imperatives are meaningless (example of 2
way walkway in busy subway station)
Second form is difficult to determine. It is not always easy to
determine if one is using a person.
Duty or obligation to moral principles. Should you lie to
save a friend?
Moral equality. Critics say that human are different from
each other. Gender difference (rational vs emotional).

Ref. Deontological ethical theories focus on both the motive and the
action.
Variations on Kantian Moral Theory
 WD Ross (1877-1971). Scottish philosopher. He also
believes in things that we ought to do or ought not to do
regardless of consequences. However, he believes that we
have “moral intuition” that would help us decide the best
course of action: choice between honesty/loyalty etc.
 John Rawls (1921-2004). American philosopher. He
extended Kant’s moral equality to social equality or social
justice. We must consider ourselves as a group of equal
rational beings (veil of ignorance) in choosing principles of
justice for the society.
 Justice as Fairness; principles of justice are those everyone
would accept and agree to from a fair position
Ethical Theories
NATURAL LAW &
NATURAL RIGHTS
Natural Law and Natural Rights
 Natural Law Theory. This was originate from Aristotle, a Greek
philosopher and scientist, born in 384 BC. He held that human has
certain characteristics that is distinct from other animals: the “rational
element”. Our rational element allows us to seek knowledge (the truth)
and guide us to make wise choice. We, as prudent being, make
prudential choice.
 Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). He held that natural law is part of the
divine law or plan (of God) for the universe, and that moral good is
from the innate tendencies of our nature. Unique to human is the
specific capacities of knowing and choosing freely. We therefore ought
to treat ourselves and others as beings capable of understanding and
free choice. (Therefore, education, pursue of the truth, freedom of
expression are good. Deceit, and hindrance of free choice is bad).
 Natural law should not be confused with “Laws of nature”. The laws of
nature describes the physical world, how nature behaves. Natural law,
or moral laws, are prescriptive. They tell us how we ought to behave.
Evaluating Natural Law Theory
 One of the appealing characteristics of natural law is its believe in the
objectivity of moral values and the notion that moral good is part of human
nature.
 Criticisms:
Are we really able to read nature? What are considered as moral good have
changed through times. Even Aristotle thought that slavery could be
justified. Some philosophers depicts human nature as deceitful, evil, and
uncontrolled.
If natural law also cover theories such as Social Darwinism (survival of the
fittest), then the extremely rich and extremely poor are there by the design
of nature, and one should not interfere.
Natural law theory assumes that nature is teleological (it has certain
directedness). However, can the way things are really provide the basis for
knowing how they ought to be? The way nature is might not be a divine
plan, but by chance and consequence of evolution. (Supporters of natural
law might argue that evolution is part of the divine plan.)
Natural Rights
 Natural rights is an extension of the natural law.
 It argues moral law in nature
 If we are to function as human, with rational element, with the
ability and desire to seek the truth and to make the right choice,
we must have certain rights: right of life, liberty, and ability to
pursue happiness. (This was part of the US Declaration of
Independence)
 The key moral principle of western philosophy in the 100-200
AD, exemplified by Stoics, was to “follow nature”, but
meaning to follow reason, not human emotion. These natural
law or “common elements” existed in all people, independent
of their local customs or culture.
 The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights and Geneva
Convention’s principles for the conduct of war are expression
of natural rights. They specified that human beings have these
rights regardless of their country of origin, race, or religion.
Evaluating Natural Rights
 Need to demonstrate why human beings are so valuable that
they can claim these rights. Because we are created by God?
Because we are the highest form of evolution? Why should
we have these rights more so than other animals?
 How do we know what kinds of rights we should have in
order to function as human with “rational elements”?
 Is right to liberty sufficient? Right to food, shelter, decent
living, health care, clean air etc?? Rationale for each of these
rights needs to be elaborated. If these rights are justified,
then government of all nations have the duty to provide
them.
 Even nowadays women in many countries do not have the
same rights as men. What is the justification for the gender
differences?
Ethical Theories
VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue Ethics (1)
 What is virtue? Characters like honesty, loyalty, courage, generosity, compassion
etc. Vice is opposite of virtue: deceitful, selfish, cowardice, stinginess etc.
 While previous ethical theories tells us what we ought to do, virtue ethics tells how
we ought to be as a person. Virtuous person makes better ethical decisions.
 Aristotle’s idea of natural law includes the idea of human virtue, which he classified
into two types:
(1) Intellectual virtues encompasses excellence of mind, being able to reason and
judge well. We learned these from our teachers.
(2) Moral virtues dispose us to act well (honesty, courage etc). We acquire these
virtues by repeated practice.
 Aristotle also held that virtue is a mean between two extremes
Fear
Giving
Self-regard
Telling the truth
Deficit (too little)
Foolhardiness
Illiberality
Humility
Deceitful
Virtue (the mean)
Courage
Liberality
Pride
Honesty
Excess (too much)
Cowardice
Prodigality
Vanity
Undisciplined openness
Virtue Ethics (2)
 Gender difference in virtue? Studies showed that male and female tend to have
different moral reasoning on ethical issues.
Female
Male
Personal
Partial
Private
Feeling
Compassionate
Responsibility
Relationship
Solidarity
Impersonal
Impartial
Public
Reason
Fair
Rights
Individual
Autonomy
 What is the purpose of identifying gender differences in moral reasoning?

How much of these are due to cultural influence?
 Is there a danger of stereotyping male and female?
 Is this another reason to support relativism?
Evaluating Virtue Ethics
 How do we determine which traits are virtues? What are the virtues that are
specific to human beings? Are these virtues dependent on situation, society,
culture, gender?
 Example: Virtue of courage. The person who wanted to run away from
danger but did not more courageous than the person who did not want to run
away?
One distinguishes the fears for which we are in some way responsible, and
those we cannot help. Thus, the person who feels like running away because
he/she has contributed by their own choices of being fearful is not more
virtuous than the one who did not want to run away.
Does a person who has the courage to rob a bank a virtuous person?
 In virtue ethics, the primary goal is to be a good person. It tries to determine
what is essential to be a well-function person. It attempts to set up criteria
for an “ideal person”. What if we fall short of these ideals? Are we a bad
person then?
 Kant and utilitarians were well aware of virtues. Why did they not
incorporate virtues into their theories? For them, doing the right things is the
primary goal. Virtues only make it easier to do the right thing.
Ethical Theories
CONTRACT THEORY OF
THE STATE
Historical Background
 Breakdown of Medieval Feudalism
 Changes to Modern Economy

Political Changes
Economic Changes
 Increase in the use of money
 Loans, Credit, Investments, Easier transactions
 Power transferred from the noble class (those with
land and arms) to those with money – for example,
the merchants
 Alliance of moneyed class with monarchs
 Small self-contained estates with restricted trade
reorganized into large-scale nation states
 New political structure favorable to freer trade,
commerce, investment, and profit making
Political Changes
 Nationalism
 Aggressive kings separated themselves from feudal lords and
the church and created nation states with a single centralized
power (For instance, Louis XI in France, and Henry VII and
Henry VIII in England)
 People began to see themselves as English people or French
people
Printing in common languages, not just Latin
 One centralized military (under the king) that fights for the nation

Hobbes’ Theory
 In social contract theory, there is a conception of
human interaction before society. It is usually called
the state of nature.
 Human fear death and inclined to in peaceful status
 Contract theorists use the state of nature to
Explain the nature of society and its origin
 Explain the need for government
 Legitimize the authority of rulers
 Explain the origin of social justice
 It’s not a historical explanation about how societies have actually
arisen.

Hobbes’ Social Contract
 Hobbes says that there is only one way to set up
such a civil power.



People must give all their power to one man, or one
assembly of men. They must reduce their wills to one will.
They must make a covenant as if every man should say to
every man: I authorize and give up my right of governing
myself to this man on this condition
Give up right(power) and could get some interest and
security
Social Contract Theory
 What is the origin and nature of society?
 How do governments get their authority?
 Why should we obey governments?
 On what basis do governments have the right to rule?
 What is the origin of justice?
 Where does justice come from?
 Why should we obey the rules of justice?
Social Contract Theory
 “When in the course of human events it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bonds which have connected them with another….
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the
governed….”
Social Contract Theory
 Main influences on social contract theory
 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) English philosopher (Leviathan)
 John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher (Essays on Civil
Government)
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Swiss-born French
philosopher (The Social Contract)
 Recent influence
 John Rawls, Harvard philosopher (A Theory of Justice, 1971)
Comparison Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau
Nature of Man
What is man like without restraint
of law or morality?
Hobbes:
aggressive, selfish
Locke and Rousseau:
rational, sociable, cooperative
Condition of Man Within Nature
What is life like for Man in the State
of Nature?
Hobbes: “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short”
Locke: Frustrating…
Rousseau: Arcadian
Extent of Natural Rights
What Rights does Man possess by
or in nature?
Hobbes: self preservation
Locke: God-given rights
Rousseau: inalienable rights
Source of Sovereignty
Where does Political Power come
from?
Hobbes: ruler is sovereign
Locke:
the
people are sovereign;
government exists with
consent of the governed
Rousseau: the people are sovereign
Purpose of Government
What is the main role of the State?
Hobbes: social control and keep
order
Locke:
the
protect rights and serve
majority
Rousseau: protect rights, serve the
general will
Main Objections to Social Contract Theory
 Based on a historical fiction—modern
anthropology show that human beings and
ancestors were highly social creatures who have
always lived in groups—in other words there was
no “state of nature” in which people lived
independent non-social lives from which they then
choose cooperation
 Social contract Theory leaves out of consideration
any beings that cannot be rationally held to
contracts, such as:

Infants, Animals…etc