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 usedto justify rules of conduct)

directi

ves 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."

social policies

Tavani

 Four features of a moral system

Public

The rules are known to all of the members.

Informal

The rules are informal, not like formal laws in a legal system.

Rational

The system is based on principles of logical reason accessible to all its members.

Impartial

The system is not partial to any one group or individual.

Gert

Components of a Moral System

Grounds for justifying moral principles

Religion Philosophy Law

Principles of Evaluation Rules of Moral Conduct

Moral principlesand rules

Source of moral rules Core Values

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. State a belief or claim

2. Produce an argument to support that belief

3. Evaluate the argument

4. 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 decision-making 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

• 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

Bentham

Mill

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.

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 self-interest to abide by rules that have been set for everyone

Hobbes

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 least-

advantaged 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

• 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.

Aristotle

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