* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ETHICS LAST CLASS
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Stephen Toulmin wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
Common good wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Organizational technoethics wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
The Sovereignty of Good wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM AND ETHICS EGN 4034 FALL TERM 2008 CHAPTER 3 Engineering Ethics: FRAMING THE PROBLEM Analysis Method Relevant facts (Factual Issues) Relevant ethical issues (see Figure 3.2) Unknown Facts Conceptual Issues WE MAY AGREE We usually experience moral disagreement and controversy within a context of agreement. The OSHA case illustrates this. Both OSHA and the Supreme Court felt that safety of the workers was important. They didn’t agree however (conceptual issue) on the definition of “Safe” WE MAY AGREE This is important. If we first determine what we do agree upon. We do this by asking questions. We may find that when we eliminate those things we agree upon We can more easily focus on the real problem or issue. WE MAY AGREE When we look at agreement, we must also consider what we agree to that is: Unclear Or simply unknown Common Morality That common stock of moral beliefs. Just as we agree on what is “common sense” We all have a common stock of basic beliefs we feel should guide our lives: Moral standards Rules principles Common Morality We believe that murder is wrong But we also agree that murder does occur and that it is wrong. We may observe that an engineer has failed to report a conflict of interest And agree that this is wrong. Common Morality Although we agree on common morality Moral disagreement often occurs. This raises the question Can we isolate the major factors that account for this? Differences occur with respect to beliefs about “specific” practices or issues: Abortion Euthanasia Sexual orientation Capital punishment Etc. Common Moral Traits What would we like to see in others? Fair-mindedness Self-respect Respect for others Compassion Benevolence What other traits would you like to see? Do most of us share these desires? Moral Rules? With our Common Moral beliefs, can we develop a set of Moral Rules for all people to go by? We do this as a society Through laws Through group norms Through CODES as professionals Breaking the rules always has consequences. TYPES OF MORLITY THERE ARE THREE BASIC KINDS OF MORALITY COMMON MORALITY – Generally universally accepted PERSONAL MORALITY – rules or principles, rules, or standards we accept as individuals but are not necessarily shared by others. PROFSSIONAL MORALITY – Moral standards that apply to ones role as a member of a profession. TYPES OF MORLITY Most often we find that there is not a conflict with applying these three types of morality. Most often we will arrive at the same answer to a moral question regardless of which of these three moral principles we apply. However, there can be conflicts among these moral beliefs. ANALYZING A CASE To analyze anything, we must gather information relevant to the solution of the ethical problem. We first ask: What are the ethical questions? What are the facts? The facts should be relevant to the specific ethical questions. Do the facts support the ethical questions? ANALYZING A CASE What are the resources we might use in framing the ethical considerations? Common Morality Professional Codes Personal Morality Comprehensive principles of ethics (later chapters) ANALYZING A CASE FACTUAL ISSUES Many times moral disagreements turn out to be disagreements over the relevant facts. Without the facts each side only has opinion Factual Issues are sometimes very difficult to resolve We may find that we have all of the available facts yet there are still unanswered questions (unknown facts). ANALYZING A CASE FACTUAL ISSUES Once Factual Issues are clearly isolated, disagreement can reemerge on another and often more clearly defined level. We may now find that we don’t disagree on the facts, but on the definition of some standard such as “Safe” (Conceptual Issues) ANALYZING A CASE CONCEPTUAL ISSUES This deals with the meaning of terms What is “Bribery?” What is “Safe?” What is a “Conflict of Interest?” What is “Confidentiality?” What is a “Trade Secret? What is “Loyalty?” To determine Conceptual Issues, we must ask, “What are the important concepts in our case?” ANALYZING A CASE APPLICATOION ISSUES Once we have determined the facts and identified the “terms” or “concepts” We need to agree if this is, in fact, an instance of that concept. For example, is our moral question really related to a “conflict of interest” or is it something else? Does the concept we defined describe our present situation? Applying Concepts Line-drawing or paradigm cases is a good way to analyze ethical issues We first define the “concept” such as bribery and agree on: What are the features of bribery What is definitely bribery (positive paradigm) What is definitely not bribery (Negative paradigm) Section 4.4 describes this analysis Applying Concepts Feature Bribery Test Case Not Bribery Gift Size Large Small≤ $10.00 Timing Before decision After Decision Reason Personal Gain Educational Responsibility Sole None Quality Worst Best Cost Highest Lowest Applying Concepts Feature Gift Size Timing Reason Responsibility Bribery Test Case Where does our case Large fall on each of these Before decision lines? Personal Gain Sole Not Bribery Small≤ $10.00 After Decision Educational None Quality Worst Best Cost Highest Lowest Review for Analyzing a Moral Problem Case Statement Relevant Facts Factual Issues Conceptual and Application Issues Moral Issues Analysis Moral Problem Analysis What is the Case Statement? Define the Relevant Facts Define Factual Issues if any Define Conceptual and Application Issues Define Moral Issues Analyze the case based on the information you’ve developed Can a “Line Drawing” help resolve the issue?