F05SENG311.Ethics

From Craig

Note: These notes are mostly taken from Ethics and Technology by Herman T. Tavani, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2004.

What, exactly, is ethics?

• Ethics is derived from the Greek term ethos

Ethics Vs. Morality

• Morality is derived from the Latin word mores

• Often, Ethics and Morality are used interchangeably, but there are some key distinctions which should be made.
• For this course, we will define Ethics as the Study of Morality.

There is no universal definition of morality. For our purposes, we will define morality as a set of rules for guiding human conduct, and principles for evaluating those rules. (Ethics and Technology, Herman T. Tavani, pp. 28)

Tavani points out that:

• Morality is a system
• It is composed of rules and principles

There are 2 kinds of rules:

• Directives - that guide our conduct as individuals (microlevel)
• Social Policies - framed at the macro level

For many years, philosophers have been devising mechanisms by which moral systems can be evaluated. This has lead to the definition of a series of Principles. An example principle would be that of Social Utility

Utilitarianism

• Published by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) in 1863
• Fundamental guide to moral decisions should be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain
• Mill formulated the Greatest Happiniess Principle
  • the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness
  • Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."

In Class discussion: Apply Utilitarianism to the issues of downloading music.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem

Essentially, any rule-based system which is sufficiently complex, there will exist situations whereby the system is incomplete or inconsistent.

Fundamentally, most moral theorists believe that any system of morality should minimally attempt to alleviate harm and suffering.

How are rules of a moral system derived?

• Where do these rules come from?
• What criteria can be used to justify or evaluate these rules?

Core Values, Religion, Law and Ethics

Essentially, rules for determining action within a moral framework are derived from core values. Principles for evaluating the rules are grounded in one of three systems:

• Religion
• Law
• Philosophical Ethics

Something of value is something which has worth. Intrinsic value is when something has value for its own sake. Instrumental value is when something has value because it is tied to some external standard. Our core values are the objects of our desires or wants. Ultimately, moral principles are derived from a society's system of values.

Grounding a moral system

We will used the moral rule "Do not steal" to examine principles of evaluation

Why is stealing morally wrong?

Religion

This reasoning presupposes the existence of a divine entity. If it is accepted that a divine entity exists, then it presupposes that the nature of that divine entity can be known by us.

Law

One advantage of using the law is that it can be used to satisfy disagreements between religious and non-religious persons.

Laws, however, are not uniform across political boundaries. Similarly, there are many examples throughout history of laws being morally wrong. Slavery was legal in the US up until 1865.

Is it possible to create a law for every moral issue?

Philosophical Ethics

Morality is no longer evaluated through some external standard. The notion of morality is seen as an intrinsic value.

What could possibly be used as a basis for supporting this?

Moral philosophers have argued that reason alone is sufficient enough to show that stealing is wrong. Reason informs us that there is something in act of stealing or in the consequences which makes stealing morally wrong.

Requires logical argumentation within some theoretical basis.

• Ethicists vs. Moralists
  • Ethicists: Approach moral issues using standards which are rational (based on logical arguments) and impartial (open to verification by others)

The Results of Moral Principles

In both religion and law, punishment can be used in an attempt to deter individuals from stealing. In the case of religion, the punishment will be carried out at a later time (the afterlife, perhaps); in the case of law, the punishment can be carried out immediately (removal of liberty, for example). In the case of Philosophical Ethics, there is no punishment defined in any moral sense.

Logical Arguments In Ethics

Before we delve into the mechanics of logical arguments, we will first examine some common objections which are raised during arguments which appear to be based on confusions about what morality is.

• People disagree about morality, so how can we reach agreement on moral issues?
• Who am I/who are we to judge others and impose my/our values on them?
• Isn't morality simply a private matter?

People disagree about morality, so how can we reach agreement on moral issues?

• It is common for experts in other fields to disagree on the correct answers to certain questions
• There is some common agreement as to answers to some moral questions
• People do not always distinguish between disagreements about general principles and disagreements about factual matters in disputes.

Who am I to judge others?

• We have to make judgements about the world in which we live
• In some cases we should make judgements about the actions of others

• Persons making judgements vs. persons being judgemental
• Judgements involving Condemnation vs Judgements involving Evaluations

Morality is a private matter

• Morality, by its definition, involves more than one person. The fact is, we act within an environment and our action affect (directly or indirectly) other persons within that same environment as their actions affect us.

Why do we need formal ethical theories?

Can't we use something simpler like following a Golden Rule or following one's own conscience?

• Do unto others as you would have others do unto you
  • I believe in giving away my own software. Does that mean that I should be able to give away other people's software?
• Follow your Conscience?
  • Aren't terrorists following their conscience?
  • Humans have a large capacity for rationalization of their actions

Consequence-Based Ethical Theories

• What is the primary goal of a moral system?
  • To produce desirable consequences?
  • If we must choose between 2 acts (A and B), the morally correct action would be the one which produces the most desirable outcome.
  • The most desirable outcome for whom?
    • Utilitarianism: The greatest number of individuals

• Utilitarianism is based on the principle of social utility
• Social utility can be measured by the amount of happiness produced.

• Humans naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure
• All individuals desire happiness
• Happiness is an intrinsic good that is desired for its own sake

Discuss: Slavery of 1% of the population.

Duty-Based Theories

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) argued that morality must be grounded in the concept of duty or obligations that humans have to each other, and never in the consequences of human actions.

• Deontological theories: deon - duty (Greek)

How can deontological theories avoid the problems arising from consequentialist theories?

• Our nature as rational creatures
• Human beings are ends-in-themselves

Rational Nature

Kant argues that because we possess rational thinking capabilities and this distinguishes us from other creatures, we are bound morally. While animals act based on sensory pleasure, we have the ability to reason and deliberate. He argues that if our primary nature were to seek pleasure, then we would not be distinguishable from animals in any morally relevant way.

Kant also argues that each individual has as an equivalent moral worth, regardless of wealth, intelligence, privilege, etc. As such, humans are ends-in-themselves. They cannot be used as ends with respect to others. No moral system could require one person to sacrifice him/herself for others.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant defined the Categorical Imperative which represents a single moral imperative from which all other moral obligations are generated.

• Imperative: a proposition which declares a certain kind of action or inaction to be necessary.
• Hypothetical Imperative: would compel action under a particular circumstance

Categorical Imperative

Kant believed that the categorical imperative was the only basis for making moral statements because a hypothetical imperative would depend on a person's subjective desires and would, therefore, make it unable to compel moral action. If everyone followed the categorical imperative we would have a moral system because it would possess two basic characteristics: universality and impartiality. Every person would be treated fairly because the same rules would apply equally to all persons within the system.

Discussion: What should I do? A student notes that he/she received a B as a final grade for the course. He/she also notes that the grade is very close to a B+ and asks me to give him/her B+ instead of a B.

We do not consider the potential consequences of a particular action or of a certain rule to determine whether an act is morally permissible. The objective rule to be followed is whether the act complies with the categorical imperative.

The Prisioner's Dilemma

Criticisms of The Categorical Imperative

Even though the categorical imperative provides us with a test for determining whether an action is our duty, it does not tell us what to do in the event of conflicting duties.

• Contrast telling the truth vs. keeping promises

Act Deontology

David Ross (1930) believed that when moral duties clashed, one should override the other. Which rule was more important would have to be determined through the analysis of the individual situation which caused the clash of rules to occur.

Ross believed that we have some prima facie (self evident) duties which, all things being equal, must be followed. Ross provided a list of duties which he felt we must all follow: honesty, benevolence, justice, etc.

Contract Based theories

Thomas Hobbes believed that the natural state of man was war and strife and that this could only be avoided through the application of rules for social living. Only a covenant kept by the rule of the sword could keep man from falling back into his natural state. This covenant is commonly known as the social contract. This concept is introduced in his classic work, Leviathan.

In the natural state, there is freedom, but this sort of day-to-day living is hardly ideal. Each person must fight for survival. Hobbes believed that it was worthwhile for humans to surrender some of their freedoms to a soverign in return for the security afforded by the rule of law.

The main virtue of the Social Contract is that it gives humans the motivation for being moral. It is through our own self-interest that we strive to be moral.

Criticisms of the Social Contract

The chief criticism of the Social Contract is that we are obligated to be moral insomuch that a contract actually exists. Hobbes would argue that such a contract exists universally as an implication of the existence of society.

Rights-based Theories

Some philosophers argue that regardless of legal rights, all humans have moral and natural rights. This notion is enshrined in the US Constitution which asserted that all humans have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and that these rights are "inalienable" and "self-evident".

Simply having these inalienable rights, however, is not enough. There is a need for explicit statement of these rights and the enforcement of these rights through some framework (eg. the state).

Being Moral vs. following moral rules

Aristotle believed that ethics were not merely to be studied, but rather to be lived and practiced. To be a moral person you had to do more than memorize a series of moral rules; one had to develop virtue.

Virtue based ethics is not based on a system of formal rules, but instead relies on the development of a moral character through moral education. For a given moral problem, the question is not, "what should I do", the question is, "what kind of person should I be?". Virtue ethicists believe that a moral person is disposed to do the right thing. The question as to whether stealing was wrong was not important to a virtue ethicist because a person of virtue would have developed a character which would not require such deliberations.