PROJECT IN PRELIM

COMMON ETHICAL ETHICS (CPE 6 ENGINEERING ETHICS & COMPUTER LAWS)

By: VAL BERNARD S. PONDOC BSCOMPE-5

Ancient Ethics
This, however, was not always true. Before the year 1500 many ethical theorists were followers of the Ancient Greek philosophers, especially Plato (427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). These two powerfully influential thinkers tried to bring some order into our thinking about the problems of ethics by outlining their conception of the way of life that is worth living, and of the sort of person who can live such a life. We can understand what such a person would be like, they thought, by understanding the good traits of character, or "virtues," that such a person would possess. Plato thought there are four virtues: 1) wisdom, 2) courage, 3) temperance or self-control, and 4) justice. The most important of these is wisdom, which is one's knowledge of what is truly good. If you have wisdom, you will be in harmony with yourself, and this harmony is what justice really is. Further, if you have justice, you will have the other virtues as well. Plato did not try to tell us, in a neat and easy to follow formula, what is truly good. Instead, he wrote many books in which he described the life and death of one man who, he believed, did understand what is truly good: his teacher, Socrates (d. 399 B.C.). Plato's student, Aristotle, had views that were similar to his, except that they were more complicated. Aristotle disliked oversimplification and, though he recognized the four virtues named by Plato, he discussed a number of others that he considered to be important, including generosity, magnanimity, gentleness, friendliness, truthfulness, and wit. Like Plato, he thought there is a trait that is the source of all the other virtues, but he called it "prudence" or "good judgement" (phronesis). Prudence is the ability to know what one should do. We find out what we should do by figuring out which of the courses of action we might take would lead to a good life. Aristotle tells us a great deal about what the good life is like. He says that it involves such things as having friends, acting justly, and participating in community affairs. However, like Plato, he did not say much that is very specific about which courses of action are right and which are wrong. People who are properly brought up and make full use of their own minds will, he thought, usually discern the right course and take it. Neither Plato nor Aristotle seem to be offering advice to people who, like Alice, are facing a tough decision and do not find the solution obvious. Perhaps in those days life was much simpler than it is now, and people seldom felt they faced critical decisions, in which clashing ideas pull in opposite directions. Or perhaps, when they sat back and theorized about life, such moments seemed atypical to them, too abnormal to have an important place in one's picture of what life is like. It is true, after all, that even in a complex society like our own, in which a multitude of conflicting traditions and theories compete for our loyalties, most of life, normal life, is not a series of crises. One thing, though, that we can be rather sure of is that ancient ethics does not try to provide rules to guide us in making difficult choices, while modern ethics (that is, ethics beginning around 1500) does. Ancient ethics is a theory of normal life, while modern ethics, by comparison, is a theory of life in crisis. It aims at sorting out the conflicting reasons for different courses of action that come into our heads when we face difficult decisions, declaring which reasons are more important or fundamental and which are less important or, indeed, not good reasons at all.

Medieval Theories
Medieval theories of moral reasoning have their origins in the moral theology of St. Augustine and the rational ethics of Aristotle. Until the thirteenth century Augustine's responses to questions concerning free will, predestination, the nature of goodness, and divine freedom dominated moral speculation in the Latin West. For Augustine morality demands the human will's conformity to the prescriptions of the immutable, necessary and eternal law. Augustine argues in his work on free will that the eternal law is called supreme reason, which must always be obeyed, and through it the evil deserve an unhappy life and

the good a blessed life; and through this law we have derived temporal laws rightly constructed and correctly emended. The ideals of eternal law are universally imprinted upon human intellects and are the immutable standards by which human actions may be judged.

Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant was a great philosopher of his time and continues to be an influential figure in the realm of theology and epistemology. Additionally, he is one of the latter philosophers of the Enlighten. He challenged the structure of reason by expanding the traditional thoughts on metaphysics - not only by the formulation of moral values and philosophy, but also by presenting educated arguments on topics such as history and law, but excluded the subject of religion. Kant is noted for many theories and philosophies, and one must gain an understanding of his ideas in order to fully appreciate his suppositions. First, one must understand Kant's general criticism of previous ethical theories. Prior to the works of Kant, ethical theories were based on the teachings of Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates. Kant is noted for his criticism on various ethical topics, and his theory of duty is a prominent example of his criticism. There are several definitions of the word "duty", and it is commonly thought of as one's moral obligation. However, Kant provided a much deeper rationalization on the topic of duty. He explained that it is not enough for one to simply act as duty demands, but that one's motivation for doing one's duty is just because it is one's duty (Immanuel Kant, 2004). He argues that duty in and of itself should not be an act influenced by outside motivation, but that duty is an obligation that one performs because they ought to not because of any personal benefit or interest. In relation to his views on ethical duty, autonomy and heteronomy are commonly referenced terms when discussing the theories and philosophies of Kant. Let us first examine the basic definitions of these terms. Autonomy refers to self-independence or self-government. Heteronomy is defined as an action that is influenced by a force outside the individual. In other words, autonomy is acting alone without influence, while heteronomy is acting with the influence of someone or something. Thinking in terms of autonomy results in an individual creating their own moral values, often without regard or concern to other individuals. On the contrary, heteronymous thinkers decline any circumstance that results from an ethical choice due to the ability to shift the blame to an outside influence. Kant reflected an autonomous position throughout his philosophical teachings and strictly rejected heteronymous thinking. He believed that "heteronomy is the determination of the will by external and non-rational forces and transforms the imperatives of morality into hypothetical ones (Egea-Kuehne, 2008)." Kant maintained that heteronomy upheld no moral value and determined autonomy is the ultimate goal of moral education. Pursuant to this fact, Kant created a perception geared towards autonomy that essentially paved the way for the idea of transcendental freedom. This concept is known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is divided into three formulations, or maxims. The first of these states, "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This maxim was then divided into two parts - perfect duty and imperfect duty. According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. In other words, this means perfect duties are those which are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being (Categorical Imperative 2009). The second part of this maxim is imperfect duty. This means a duty to act only by maxims that we would desire to be universalized. Unlike perfect duties, you do not achieve blame should you not complete it but you still

receive praise for it should you complete it, as you have gone beyond the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself (Categorical Imperative 2009). An example of this is a soldier who is killed in action. A soldier cannot be blamed for not completing his or her mission because they died fighting for their country, however the soldier should be praised for going above and beyond their basic duties as a citizen of the United States. The second maxim states, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." This formulation reflects on Kant's theory of perfect duty, because it implies that humans should not capitalize on ourselves or anyone else as a "means to an end". It emphasizes his theory of imperfect duty by describing that we should cultivate and nourish the ends of ourselves and everyone else (Rachels 2003). The third and final maxim states, "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." To understand this maxim, we need to define what Kant meant by "universal kingdom of ends." In short, this implies that all people should consider themselves both members and heads. Kant theorized that humans should abide by formulations if and only if they comply with the kingdom of ends. Therefore, we have a perfect duty to avoid maxims that result in unachievable states when we try to universalize them. This leads to a reference to imperfect duty as well, by emphasizing that we avoid maxims which lead to undesired circumstances (Categorical Imperative 2009). We must understand adherence to the categorical imperative in order to produce an autonomous ethical choice. Kant recognized that humans are not without error, and the decisions we make will effect others as well as ourselves. In addition to the three maxims, Kant stated, "I ought at best to base my life and action on the rejection of non-universalizable maxims and so lead a morally worthy life whose acts are done out of duty; but even if I fail to do this I ought at least make sure to do any acts that would be indispensible if I had such a morally worthy maxim (Rachels 2003)." I can't say that I agree or disagree on Kant's theory of ethical decision making. Kant's second maxim of the categorical imperative basically implies to treat people the way you would want to be treated, and I concur with that logic. We as humans should always treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of whether or not the act is reciprocated. Kant also is noted for his stance on lying. Lying in and of iteself is considered to be morally wrong, and Kant emphasizes his position by stating that lying is always wrong, even if it is done in order to save a life. He believed that lying could never be willed into universal law and is therefore never permissible (Categorical Imperative 2009). An example of his theory is lying to a murderer in order to save a victim, like those who saved Jews from the Gestapo by concealing them in their home and lying to the Nazis when questioned about the Jews' whereabouts. While Kant states that lying in such a scenario violates the categorical imperative, he explains that simply evading the truth is not lying, and one could choose to say nothing at all. I disagree with this theory because I personally believe that lying in order to save someone's life is morally acceptable, as allowing the person to die would be a much greater consequence to live with.

Rawlss theory of justice

Rawls described his theory of justice called Justice as Fairness in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls agrees with Nozick that justice is quite separate from morality and he too rejects utilitarian forms of justice. He first suggests a new way to learn about principles of justicethe original position (103-105). The original position asks us to imagine that a group of people will get to decide the principles of justice. These people dont know who they are (what he calls a veil of ignorance), they are self-interested, and they know everything science has to offer. He argues that in a veil of ignorance they couldnt be as biased towards their profession, race, gender, age, or social status because they wouldnt know which categories they belong to (104-105). As far as self-interest is concerned, Rawls argues that they will want principles of justice that will fairly distribute certain goods that everyone will valuewhat Rawls calls primary social goods (105). Rawls argues that the people in the original position will discuss which principles of justice are best before voting on them and the best principles worth having will reach a reflective equilibriumthe most intuitive principles will be favored and incompatible less intuitive principles will have to be rejected in order to maintain coherence. He argues that two intuitive principles of justice in particular will reach reflective equilibrium: 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society (107). Rawls says that the first principle has priority over the second, at least for societies that have attained a moderate level of affluence (ibid.). The liberties Rawls has in mind are negative rights, like the freedom of thought. The distribution of social goods can include education, food, and housing; which could be considered to be positive rights. The second principles second restrictionthat social and economic inequalities must benefit the worst off groupis known as the difference principle and seems to imply that total communism is automatically just if such a system has no economic or social inequalities because its only inequalities that require a rationale. Capitalism will only be justified if it benefits the least advantaged groupthe poor, orphans, and so on. The assumption is that inequality can allow hard work to be rewarded to the point that people decide to be more productive and share their wealth with the poor. People wont be allowed to be wealthier unless the wealth is shared with the poor. Applying Rawss theory of justice Rawls agrees with Nozick that we have negative rights and no positive rights, but he argues that social and economic inequalities are unjust unless they meet certain requirements. In particular, there must be equal opportunity (public education) and greater inequality must benefit those who have the least social and economic goods (the worst off group). Rawls disagrees with utilitarians that economic inequality is justified if it maximizes happinessby providing rewards to being productive members of societyif such inequality doesnt help those who are the worst off. (A utilitarian could argue that some people living in poverty are a necessary for the greater good but Rawls would rather no one live in poverty.)

Rawls thinks that redistribution of wealth and taxes are justified if it is the best way for the worst off to benefit from social and economic inequalities. He thinks total economic equality is just (perhaps in a socialist state), but he thinks that a capitalistic system might actually be better and help the worst off by rewarding productive behavior to give an incentive to increase productivity and therefore prosperity. How will Rawlss theory of justice apply to the six above contexts? 1. A corporation sells TV sets that dont work and scams people out of their money because people assume that the TV sets work when they buy them. Is this unjust? I expect that Rawls will agree with Mill and Nozick here. As I stated before, a persons property rights entail that property is transferred given an agreement and no one agreed to buy a broken TV set. 2. Samantha was born in a poor family and she could never afford an education. She couldnt afford food and couldnt find a job, so she starves to death. Meanwhile there is an abundance of food and wealth that is almost exclusively owned by the wealthiest members of society. Was any right being violated? Rawls would likely say, Yes because the economic inequalities dont seem to help the worst off. (Perhaps Rawls assumes that people wont starve to death if we have economic equality.) 3. The government taxes all profits 10% to help poor families buy the necessities of life. Anyone who doesnt pay their taxes can be punished. Was any right being violated? Rawls would say, Yes, because taxation is a violation of our property rightsbut he might still think this form of taxation is just if its the best way to redistribute wealth and make sure the worst off benefit from economic inequalities. 4. The government subsidizes the big bank industry by using tax money to give the big banks billions of dollars to help the big bank industry avoid bankruptcy. Was any right being violated? Yes, property rights are being violated in this case, but is it also unjust? If this form of redistribution will help the worst off, then it is just. However, it seems likely that Rawls would agree that saving an incredibly powerful company from going bankrupt would somehow benefit those who are the worst off. 5. A corporation hires hit men to kill the competition. Was any right being violated? Rawls will agree with utilitarians and Nozick here and will answer, Yes, because we have a right not to be harmed and people were killed. 6. The people who personally made the decision to hire hit men to kill the competition are thrown in prison after being found guilty in a court of law. Are any rights being violated? Rawls can argue, Yes, the rights not to be harmed are being violated here. However, there can be conflicting ethical considerations in this context. Rawls can agree with Nozick that the criminals in question should be in prison assuming its necessary to protect the rights of others.

Ethical egoism
Ethical egoism is the view that what is right is what is good for me. The way to use this principle in practice is for the moral decision maker to consider the consequences that the action in question will have upon him. Then he is to consider the consequences that alternative actions will have, again only upon himself. The action which produces the most good or the least evil consequences for him is the morally right action. Several points of clarification are in order for us to grasp the full meaning of ethical egoism. First, what makes an action right is solely the consequences of the action. If it produces good outcomes, then is right. Since sometimes moral choices are choices between two evils, we say that the right thing to do is whatever action produces more good or less evil than its alternatives. Even more accurately, since some actions produce both good and evil consequences, the right thing to do is to perform that action that produces a higher ratio of good over evil than its alternatives. Second, only the consequences for me matter. It is not that I try to harm others by my actions; it is just that I am indifferent to how they affect others. This is why it is called ethical egoism, because such a theory is concerned only with the self-interest of the moral agent himself. In its most common form, ethical egoism claims that everyone ought to act only in their own self-interest. As such, it presents us with a universal moral principle, one which is to be used by all. The other types of consequentialist theories that we will consider below, all will require that we consider the consequences of our actions on others, as well as ourselves, in determining right from wrong. Such theories are versions of altruism, the view that we are required to do good for others as well as ourselves. Ethical egoism, on the other hand, is thought of as a theory of selfishness. It denies that we have any obligations to others. It is important to emphasize the point that it does not claim simply that we do sometimes act selfishly, but makes the much stronger moral claim that we ought to act selfishly, that we are obliged to do so, that to act for others at our own expense would be immoral. Third, there are many ways to be an ethical egoist, depending upon which value theory is plugged into the definition. If you are a hedonist, if good means pleasure and evil means pain, then you live a very different sort of life than you would if good means God, for example. A life of selfishness is a life of pursuing what you have identified as the intrinsically valuable, the good that will lead to your happiness. Since there appear to be many things that are intrinsically valuable, there is any number of ways to be an ethical egoist. Fourth, notice that no mention is made of rules by the ethical egoist. For him it is not true that it is wrong to lie, to kill, to steal, to break promises, and so on. Doing the right thing is not a matter of following rules, but of calculating in each situation what the outcomes of competing actions are likely to be. To determine the rightness or wrongness of any action, I simply use my basic principle do whats good for me, and calculate the outcomes of the available alternative actions. If I see some money in your handbag, for example, it is by no means wrong for me to take it. It may be that it usually is wrong, because it usually will not be in my interest to do so. After all, I might get caught and that would produce more evil than good for me. If I was fairly certain that I could get away with it, however, it would be in my interest to take the money. I would be obliged to do so. For the ethical egoist, whenever it is my interest to do so, it is right for me to break any commonly accepted moral law. Any action is acceptable if it leads to good results for me. This consequence is what usually turns people away from ethical egoism. Any theory that accepts acts of killing, stealing, lying and so on, as sometimes morally correct, seems quite opposed to our ordinary beliefs of right and wrong. If a theory of obligation is supposed to reflect the ideas that we already possess about right and wrong, then ethical

egoism certainly does not seem to be the one that we ordinarily use. Selfishness does not seem to be the principle that guides our moral lives. In fact, it seems to be positively opposed to morality. After all, do we not refer to people as selfish when they place their own interests ahead of others, and especially when they violate moral rules for their own gain?

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is like ethical egoism insofar as it defines the right in terms of the good. It claims that an action is right if it produces a greater ratio of good over evil than its alternatives. Where it differs from ethical egoism is in the scope of those who must be considered when calculating these consequences. The most famous versions of Utilitarianism, those first introduced by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), claim that the consequences that occur for everyone affected by the action must be considered. For them, the right thing to do is what produces the greatest good (or least evil) for the most people. They called this the principle of utility. Act Utilitarianism As a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism may take the form of act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, as introduced by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), does not consider ethics to be a matter of following rules. As with the ethical egoist, determining right from wrong is not simply a matter of conforming your behavior to rules. There are no hard and fast rules that one always has to follow. There are no rules because sometimes following a rule does not lead to the greatest good. There are too many exceptions for rules to be good guides to correct behavior. Instead, each situation should be seen as different from all those that went before it. Because the circumstances are different, every act of lying, for example, is different from every other. This way of thinking about moral problems is sometimes called situation ethics. For a situation ethicist, of which act utilitarianism is one form and ethical egoism another, there are not three levels to a theory of obligation, but only two. There is only the basic principle, the greatest good for the greatest number in the case of the act utilitarian, and the individual act or action to which it is applied. Bentham was a hedonist, so for him good is pleasure and evil is pain. To figure out right from wrong, to reason morally, is to weigh the amount of pleasure and pain that an action will produce and compare it to its alternatives. The source of pleasure, what type of pleasure it is, does not matter in determining right from wrongonly the amount does. The right thing to do is to perform that action which will maximize pleasure, and minimize pain. Bentham makes it clear that what is to be weighed are the pleasures and pains that the action actually produces, not simply what we believe it will produce. Because of this conviction, he provides a method for determining such consequences, a method that some have called the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus was very explicit in discussing the elements that entered into an analysis of the consequences of our actions. In explaining how to apply the Principle of Utility to concrete actions Bentham outlined a series of steps that must be considered in order to weigh the pleasure and pain that our actions will produce. If these steps are followed correctly, everyone ought to be able to calculate the same outcomes, just as everyone who uses the same scale should come up with the same weight for a physical object. Since outcomes are the only thing that matter in determining right from wrong, using Benthams principle and instructions should produce agreement in moral matters.

To determine in advance the amount of pleasure or pain an act will produce we must consider the following properties of the consequences of our actions: (1) intensityhow strong the pleasure or pain will be (2) durationhow long it will last (3) certaintythat pleasure or pain will follow (4) propinquityhow soon it will occur (5) fecunditywhether it will lead to more pleasure or pain (6) puritywhether it will lead to pleasure or pain of the same type (7) extentthe number of those affected When a person is trying to figure out right from wrong, she should weigh the hedonic consequences of her choices of action for all affected, and choose the one which produces the most pleasure or the least pain, or the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. Such reasoning exists today whenever anyone performs a cost-benefit analysis, whenever they weigh the pros and cons of a course of action. Politicians reason this way, for example, when they want to be sensitive to the wishes of their constituents. They may commission a preference poll, to see what course of action their voters wish them to back. What the majority of their voters want is the course of action they choose, because it will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Health care analysts also reason this way whenever they choose to fund one research program instead of another. The government may wish to spend more money on cancer research than research on cystic fibrosis, for example, because the money spent (cost) willproduce more lives saved (benefits). Benthams reasoning about right and wrong is a form of cost-benefit analysis, where the costs are pains, and the benefits are pleasures. Rule Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) also accepts the principle of utility, but holds quite different views from Bentham about how to apply it to concrete cases. Mill has three levels in his rule utilitarian theory of obligation. There are actions, the rules that explain why actions are right or wrong, and the principle which explains why the rules that we have are the ones that we ought to follow. Doing the right thing means following rules. Which rules? Those that, if followed, lead to greater pleasure and less pain than their alternatives. So for Mill, the principle of utility gets applied to rules, not to particular actions. We do not have to calculate for each act of lying, for example, whether it will maximize more pleasure and minimize more pain than not lying in this situation. Lying is always wrong because a greater overall good will follow if we always tell the truth, always keep our promises and so on, even if sometimes doing so leads to less good than breaking the rule. Clearly, Mill would benefit from our conflict of rules insight, mentioned above, an insight that would allow him to override a particular rule, when following another of higher priority would result in greater good. Mill may have recognized this insight on his own, but we will introduce it later as a modification of Mills thinking. The important point for now, however, is that rules are essential to ethics. We do not have to calculate the consequences of moral actions for each moral decision that we make. Imagine how much time it would take to run through Benthams seven steps each

time we had to decide if a simple lie was right or wrong. Moreover, if ethics contained no rules, how would we teach our children right from wrong? What would Bentham teach the next generation, to calculate using the principle of utility as their guide? This is hardly what we teach our children when we teach them right from wrong. We teach them not to lie, not to steal, to be kind, to be fair, and so on. We teach them rules, not a method of reasoning. We also teach them that when a rule seems not to hold, it is because there is a conflict of rules, and a rule with higher priority must be followed. We do not tell them that rules cannot be relied upon to guide moral actions. And so it is for Mill, determining right from wrong is a matter of following those rules that promote the greatest good for the greatest number. One way to see how the principle of utility might be applied directly to rules is to consider how new moral rules are introduced to society. Very typically, when we debate what a new rule of society should be (think again of physicianassisted-suicide and cloning human beings), we consider the harms and benefits of following various rules. If we allow physician-assisted suicide, for example, it will benefit suffering, terminally ill patients. On the other hand, it may have social harms, such as starting us down the slippery slope to killing incompetent patients, and putting pressure on patients to end their lives prematurely. As to cloning humans, we all have visions of the brave new world it may lead to. We also may have some idea of how it may be a benefit to some prospective parents who, for example, want a child that is biologically their own, but might pass on a genetic defect of one of them if they proceeded to have a child in the natural way. The point is this. For Mill, correct rules are introduced by using the principle of utility, by considering the harms and benefits of following the rule. Once justified as leading to a greater balance of good over evil, doing the right thing amounts to conforming your behavior to such a rule. Mill uses the same terms pleasure and painto refer to harms and benefits as does Bentham, but he means something quite different by these terms. Mill believes that only pleasure is intrinsically valuable, but he values not so much the amount of pleasure our actions produce, its quantity, but rather the kind of pleasure that results, its quality. How much pleasure is not as important to Mill as what kind of pleasure it is. A life with only bodily pleasures is not as good as one containing pleasures of the mind and spirit. The pleasure that one gets from love, and knowledge, and being morally good, and freedom, and power, and God, and so on, makes a life much more worth living than a life that wallows in the mire of bodily pleasures alone. As you can see, Mill holds a version of hedonism that is quite different from that of Bentham. There is something quite right about utilitarianism. We do consider the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others in determining right from wrong, and we do try to follow rules designed to promote the common good. Utilitarianism has serious problems, however, as we shall see later on. There is more to the moral life than utilitarianism suggests. Later we shall try to take from it what is right and add what else is necessary for an adequate theory of obligation. For now, let us consider other possible solutions to see what these additional items may be.