Download Set 5 (ethics)

Ethical Considerations
Ethics
What do we mean by “ethics” or
“unethical”?
Motivations to behave unethically:
– Personal gain, especially power
– Competition
– Restoration of justice or fairness
What is “fairness?”
Some Ways to Behave Unethically
Selective disclosure &/or
misrepresentation to others
Deception
False threats or false promises
Provide false information (lie)
Inflict intentional harm on the other party
Selective disclosure or misrepresentation
to constituencies
Ethical Decisions Have Complexity
Multiple alternatives
Broad & long-range consequences
Uncertain consequences
Mixture of economic, legal, ethical, social,
and personal benefits and costs
Some Ethical Systems
Eternal law: "capital-T truth"
Ethical Egoism: seek self-interests & promote greatest
balance of good over bad for self, with ethical constraints
Utilitarianism: greatest good for the greatest number, or
maximize the social benefit function
Universalism (Categorical imperative): would I be willing
to make the basis for my action a general law binding
everyone, given similar circumstances?
Enlightened self-interest: self-interest rightly understood,
with long-term perspective or judging from my deathbed
Ethics of interdependence: interdependence between
individuals is fundamental; be willing to compromise to
help the other side achieve goals
Some Ethical Introspections
Is it right?
Is it fair?
How does it smell?
Who benefits and who gets hurt?
What if details were made public?
What would you tell your child to do?
What if everyone did this?
Consider
Learning from your mistakes
Look in the mirror & see how you like what
you see
Put yourself in the other person’s shoes
and see how they see you
However, don’t be naive
Case: A Tragic Choice
Review silently the questions at end of the
case
We discuss Q.1
Each group takes one of questions 2-5
plus the general question: If you were Jim,
what would you do and why? - reports
back
All join in discussion of each
Tragic Choice Questions
2. It could be argued that, if Jim does shoot one of the
hostages, he is not merely killing that hostage, he is
murdering that person. What do you think about this? Can
such a shooting be excused? ...justified?
3. What if Jim had arrived in the clearing with his young son
and the captain had threatened Jim by saying, "Either shoot
one of the hostages or we'll shoot your son." Would this
change your reasoning and decision?
4. Suppose you were one of the twenty hostages; what
alternative would you prefer?
5. Suppose that all of the hostages wanted Jim to kill one
hostage so that the rest could go free. Does such
"permission" justify such an action by Jim?
 With any alternatives you consider or select, try to be aware
of assumptions that may be implicit in your reasoning - try to
make them explicit and examine them.
A Shade of Gray (A)
1. Frame the decision(s): objectives,
constraints, other factors.
2. What alternatives would you consider?
3. Critique these alternatives and decide
what you would do.
A Shade of Gray (B)
Critique the HR Director’s decisions
The Insufficiency of Honesty
*/honesty.doc
Honesty: refusal to steal, lie, or deceive
in any way
Integrity: trustworthiness & incorruptibility
to a degree that one is incapable of being
false to a trust or responsibility
Integrity
Honesty is necessary, but not sufficient
The most important thing in acting is
honesty; once you learn to fake that,
you’re in.
- Sam Goldwyn
Integrity
Honesty
Discerning
– Examining beliefs & assumptions
– Searching for "truth," avoiding error
– Allowing others the same
Acting on what you have discerned
– Even at personal cost
Fulfilling moral obligations
– Do no harm to others
– Not just the minimum
Some Moral Dilemmas
Individually, review your thoughts & notes
re the three scenarios you read (Heinz)
– Focus especially on your reasoning
In groups, share & discuss your thinking re
the assigned scenario
Representative from each group gives
summary report to class
Class joins in discussion
Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment (e.g., I won't hit
him because he may hit me back.)
Stage 2: Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange
(I will help her so she will help me in exchange.)
Stage 3: "Good Boy/Girl" (I will go along with you
because I want you/people to like me.)
Stage 4: Law and Order (I will follow the rule/order
because it is wrong not to.)
Stage 5: Valuing Rights of Others plus Social Rights and
Responsibilities (Although I disagree with his views, I
support his right to have them.)
Stage 6: Individual Principles of Conscience Grounded
in Universal Ethical Principles (There is no external
force that can compel me to do an act that I consider
morally wrong.)
Star Trek Case
“Measure of a Man”
Star Trek Characters
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (of Starship
Enterprise)
Capt. Phillipa Louvois (Chief JAG officer for
the sector)
Cmdr. Bruce Maddox (Starfleet Professor of
Robotics)
Lt. Cmdr. Data (android science officer on
Enterprise)
Guinan (bartender, wise old soul)
Cmdr. William Riker (2nd to Picard)
Star Trek Case
Refer to the posted case material you
were asked to bring
At two times in the video, you will need to
respond to several questions in the case,
writing individually & then discussing
Pay particular attention to how the
characters, you, and others in the class
think
Questions at First Stop
1. Define the issue (or dilemma) faced by Captain
Picard and Lt. Commander Data at this point in
time.
2. Which of the six ethical frameworks* would
each of the following characters (a) claim to be
using in justifying his position? ...and (b) is
actually using, in your opinion?
– Lt. Commander Data
– Commander Maddox
– Captain Picard
Questions at End
3. How was the issue in the case finally defined in
the hearing for the purpose of making a ruling?
4. What was Guinan's contribution to Picard's
thinking & approach to the hearing? Be
specific in explaining how she contributed to
clarifying the issue for him. What advantage
did she have over the other characters in
advising him?
5. What are the pros and cons of using an
adversarial process in examining an ethical
issue?
6. What was Commander Data's position on the
decision of his "disassembly?" Did it change
during the course of the story? If you think his
position did change, why do you think he
changed it?
7. When Captain Picard said that the mission of
the Starfleet was “to seek out new life,” how did
this relate to the issue in the hearing? How do
mission and values differ? How do values and
ethics differ?
8. Is there a BEST framework for deciding ethical
issues? What lessons does this case have that
can be applied to your work or life situation?