Overview of Ethical Theories

1. Subjective relativism2. Cultural relativism3. Divine command theory4. Kantianism5. Act utilitarianism6. Rule utilitarianism7. Social contract theory

Relativism versus Objectivism:Where “The Good” Exists

1. Subjective relativism2. Cultural relativism3. Divine command theory4. Kantianism5. Act utilitarianism6. Rule utilitarianism7. Social contract theory

Relativism

Objectivism

“The Good” is inside

“The Good” is outside

THE WORKABLE ETHICAL THEORIES:RATIONAL THEORIES

1. Subjective relativism

2. Cultural relativism

3. Divine command theory

4. Kantianism

5. Act utilitarianism

6. Rule utilitarianism

7. Social contract theory Workable Theories

Not a Workable TheoryAccording to the Author

SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM

• There are no universal moral norms of right and wrong

• All persons decide right and wrong for themselves

• Pros:• Well meaning people can have opposite opinions

• Opposing views do not need to be reconciled

• Unpleasant debates are avoided

CONS OF SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM

• Can be used to rationalize bad behavior

• Morality becomes meaningless

• Anything can be called moral

• Tolerance becomes meaningless

• Anything can be tolerated even intolerance

• Ethical decisions don’t have to be based on reason

1. SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM

• Relativism• No universal norms of right

and wrong

• One person can say “X is right,” another can say “X is wrong,” and both can be right

• Subjective relativism• Each person decides right and

wrong for himself or herself

• “What’s right for you may not be right for me”

Case for Well-meaning and intelligent people disagree on moral issues Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless

Case against Blurs distinction between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do Makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people SR and tolerance are two different things Decisions may not be based on reason Not a workable ethical theory (according to author)

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

• The ethical theory that what’s right or wrong depends on place and/or time

• Pros:

• Different social contexts determine different moral guidelines

• One society should not judge another by its own standards

• The actual behavior of a society reflects its values better than what it says

CONS OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM

• Different views of right and wrong are not always acceptable• Just because they exist doesn’t make them okay

• Cultural relativism can be vague and subject to different interpretations

• There are no guidelines for reconciliation between cultures in conflict

• Cultures have to share many “core values”

2. CULTURAL RELATIVISM

• What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a society’s actual moral guidelines

• These guidelines vary from place to place and from time to time

• A particular action may be right in one society at one time and wrong in other society or at another time

Case for Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines It is arrogant for one society to judge another Morality is reflected in actual behavior

Case against Because two societies do have different moral views doesn’t mean they ought to have different views Doesn’t explain how moral guidelines are determined Doesn’t explain how guidelines evolve Provides no way out for cultures in conflict Because many practices are acceptable does not mean any cultural practice is acceptable (many/any fallacy) Societies do, in fact, share certain core values Only indirectly based on reason Not a workable ethical theory

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

• Good actions are aligned with the will of God

• Bad actions are contrary to the will of God

• The holy book helps make the decisions

• Pros:

• We owe obedience to God, our creator

• God is all good and all knowing

• God is the ultimate authority

CONS OF DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

• There are many holy books that disagree with each other• In a multicultural society it’s unrealistic to adopt a

religion based morality• Some moral problems are not mentioned in the holy

books• Equating “good” with “God” is the “equivalence fallacy”

(trying to equate two things that are similar)• Divine Command Theory is not based on reason

3. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY(THE VIRTUE APPROACH)

• Good actions: those aligned with God’s will

• Bad actions: those contrary to God’s will

• Holy books reveal God’s will.

• We should use holy books as moral decision-making guides.

Case for We owe obedience to our Creator. God is all-good and all-knowing. God is the ultimate authority.

Case against 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

• Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) a German philosopher

• People’s wills should be based on moral rules

• Therefore it’s important that our actions are based on appropriate moral rules.

• To determine when a moral rule is appropriate Kant proposed two Categorical Imperatives

FIRST FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

• Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time universalize.

• If you act on a moral rule that would cause problems if everyone followed it then your actions are not more

SECOND FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

• Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end.

• If you use people for your own benefit that is not moral

PROS OF KANTIANISM

• It’s rational, i.e. people can use logic to determine if the reason for their actions meet one of the Categorical Imperatives

• It produces universal moral guidelines

• All people are moral equals and deserve to be treated similarly

CONS OF KANTIANISM

• Sometimes a single rule is not enough

• There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules

• It allows no exceptions to moral rules

• But, is it a workable theory in spite of its weaknesses?

4. KANTIANISM (THE RIGHTS APPROACH)

• Good will: the desire to do the right thing

• Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world good without qualification is good will.

• Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing.

Case for Rational Produces universal moral guidelines Treats all persons as moral equals Workable ethical theory

Case against Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action. There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules. Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.

ACT UTILITARIANISM

• Principle of Utility

(Also known as Greatest Happiness Principle)• An action is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties

• An action is wrong to the extent that it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties.

• Happiness may have many definitions such as: advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure

ACT UTILITARIANISM

• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, 19th century• The best ethical course of action is the one that brings the greatest good for the greatest number

• An action is good if it benefits someone

• An action is bad if it harms someone

• Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community

• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure

• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain

• Principle of Utility (The Greatest Happiness Principle)• An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected

parties.

PROS OF ACT UTILITARIANISM

• It focuses on happiness

• It is down-to-earth

• It is practical

• Well defined

• It is comprehensive

CONS OF ACT UTILITARIANISM

• The boundaries of an evaluation are not clear• It is not practical

• Too much work can go into every moral decision

• Ignores persons’ innate sense of duty• It is consequence oriented

• It is susceptible to the problem of “moral luck”• The actors are not always in control of the consequences

ACT UTILITARIANISM - CONTINUED

• Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual actions

• Act utilitarianism• Add up change in happiness of all

affected beings• Sum > 0, action is good• Sum < 0, action is bad

Case for Focuses on happiness Down-to-earth (practical) Comprehensive Workable ethical theory

Case against Unclear whom to include in calculations Too much work Ignores our innate sense of duty Susceptible to the problem of moral luck

RULE UTILITARIANISM

• Rules are based on the Principle of Utility

• A rule is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties

• The Greatest Happiness Principle is applied to moral rules

• Similar to Kantianism – both pertain to rules

• But Kantianism uses the Categorical Imperative to decide which rules to follow

PROS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM

• Calculating the total happiness is easier than in Act Utilitarianism• Not every moral decision requires the utilitarian calculations• It’s easier to resolve conflicting rules• It overrides “moral luck”• It appeals to a large cross section of society• Considered “workable”

• Treats all persons as equals• Is rational and reasons can be given to explain why actions are good or bad

CONS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM

• We are forced to use the same scale or measure for all evaluations even if the consequences are completely different

• Usually the consequences are expressed in dollars

• But, many consequences are difficult to measure in dollars

• It ignores the unjust distribution of good consequences• Not all members of society may benefit equally

RULE UTILITARIANISM

• We ought to adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness

• Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to moral rules

Case for Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier to perform the utilitarian calculus. Not every moral decision requires performing utilitarian calculus. Moral rules survive exceptional situations Avoids the problem of moral luck Workable ethical theory

Case against All consequences must be measured on a single scale. Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences. Utilitarianism does not always mean “the greatest good of the greatest number” That requires a principle of justice What happens when a conflict arises between the Principle of Utility and a principle of justice?

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

• Thomas Hobbes (1603-1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)• “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.”• Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan

• Without rules and enforcement people have no incentive to create anything of value as they are not sure they can keep or profit from it• State of nature

• Cooperation is essential• Only possible when common guidelines are followed• Moral rules are necessary to insure the ‘benefit of social living’

• Requires agreement to• Establishment of a set of moral rules• Government capable of enforcing the rules

• Rousseau’s The Social Contract• No man has natural authority over others• Force alone bestows no rights• Legitimate authority must be based on agreements

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

• Critical problem is finding form of association that• Guarantees everyone safety and property• Enables each person to remain free

• Rousseau states the answer is for each to give themselves and their rights to the community

• Community makes and enforces the rules• Everyone is equal in the community• “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.”

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

• Based on universal moral rules

• Rules can be derived through a rational process

• Negative rights

• Positive rights

• Absolute rights

• Limited rights

PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

• John Rawls (1921-2001)• Each person may claim an adequate number of basic rights and liberties as long as everyone else has

a claim to the same rights and liberties.• Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:

• They are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume• The difference principle: They are “to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society”

• Rawls’s Theory of Justice• Recognizes the harm of concentration of wealth and power• Each person may claim ‘fully adequate rights’ so long as they are consistent with other’s claims to those rights• Social and economic inequalities must be associated with positions that anyone can hold and to be to the

‘greatest benefit to the least-advantaged’

PROS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

• It uses the language of rights

• It explains why rational people act out of self interest in the absence of a common agreement.

• It provides a clear ethical analysis of some important moral issues regarding the relationship between people and their government

• It is a “workable” theory.

CONS OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

• If we don’t sign the contract why should we be bound by it?

• Some actions can be characterized multiple ways.

• It does not have a way to resolve conflicting rights

• It may be unfair to those who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract.

NEGATIVE VERSUS POSITIVE RIGHTS

• Negative right (liberty right): A right that another can guarantee by leaving you alone

• Positive right (claim right): A right obligating others to do something on your behalf

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY(THE COMMON GOOD APPROACH)

• Thomas Hobbes• “State of nature”

• We implicitly accept a social contract• Establishment of moral rules to govern

relations among citizens

• Government capable of enforcing these rules

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau• In ideal society, no one above rules

• That prevents society from enacting bad rules

Case for Framed in language of rights Explains why people act in self-interest without common agreement Provides clear analysis of certain citizen/government problems Workable ethical theory

Case against No one signed contract Some actions have multiple characterizations Conflicting rights problem May unjustly treat people who cannot uphold contract

CRITERIA FOR A WORKABLE ETHICAL THEORY • These criteria are from the author and his colleagues• Do we agree?• Moral decisions and rules: • Based on logical reasoning • Come from facts and commonly held values• Culturally neutral• Treat everyone equally

THE FOUR “WORKABLE” THEORIES

• Kantianism• Act Utilitarianism• Rule Utilitarianism• Social Contract Theory• In spite of weaknesses all of the above pass the author’s “workable” test:

• Ethical decision making is a rational process

• Moral principles are found by using logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values

MORALITY VS. LEGAL

• Are all legal acts also moral?• Difficult to determine because many immoral acts are not addressed by the law

• Are all illegal acts immoral?• Social Contract Theory: Yes, we are obligated to follow the law

• Kantianism: Yes, by the two Categorical Imperatives

• Rule Utilitarianism: Yes, because rules are broken

• Act Utilitarianism: Depends on the situation. Sometimes more good comes from breaking a law.

COMPARING WORKABLE THEORIES

• Kantianism and Social Contract are based on “doing the right thing”• The Utilitarian theories are oriented towards the “consequences “ of actions

• However, once a rule is established, Rule Utilitarianism requires strict adherence to it.

• Therefore, Kantianism, Social Contract, and Rule Utilitarianism all use moral rules to determine if an action is moral

• Act Utilitarianism adds up the total good achieved

• Kantianism and Social Contract theory focus on the individual decision makers (The Deciders) while the Utilitarian theories focus on all affected parties.

TOOLBOX OF MORAL THEORIES

• Whether presented with problems that are easy or difficult to solve, the four workable theories,

• Kantianism

• Act Utilitarianism

• Rule Utilitarianism

• Social Contract Theory

• will provide us with solutions to many of the problems that arise from the introduction of Information Technology into society that we will address this semester

COMPARING WORKABLEETHICAL 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

BASIC Rulesfor Critical Thinkers

1.Because you are not perfect, it is inevitable some of the beliefs and viewpoints you firmly hold are completely wrong.

2. You must understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you before you are fully able to understand your own viewpoints.

3.Until you can summarize another viewpoint so well those who hold it agree with your summary, you do not understand that viewpoint.

(2)

BASIC Rulesfor Critical Thinkers

4.You should always assume those who disagree with your viewpoint are as intelligent and as noble-minded as you are.

5. You must be willing to seriously consider alternative viewpoints and to change your mind in order to be a critical thinker.

6.A retreat into relativism is a retreat away from critical thinking. Not all viewpoints are equally valid.

(2)