Ethical Theories CSC 301 Spring 2018 Howard Rosenthal

Transcription

1 Ethical Theories CSC 301 Spring 2018 Howard Rosenthal

2 Course Notes: Much of the material in the slides comes from the books and their associated support materials, below as well as many of the references at the class web site Baase, Sara and Henry, Timothy, A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (5th Edition) Pearson, March 9, 2017, ISBN-13: Quinn, Michael, Ethics for the Information Age (7th Edition), Pearson, Feb. 21, 2016,ISBN

3 Lesson Goals Provide an overview of multiple ethical theories Kant Deontology John Stuart Mill, John Dewey and Utilitarianism John Locke and Natural Rights Thomas Hobbes And John Rawls - The Social Contract and Social Justice Virtue Ethics Comparing Ethical Theories 3

4 4

5 Ethical Theories - Deontology Emmanuel Kant ( ) was a leading proponent Deontology is based on the concept of absolute rules, whether they lead to good or evil This is why it is called the nonconsequentialist or act based ethics Rules can be universally applied Logic or reason determines ethical behavior Respect the reason in you Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action. Only thing in the world that is good without qualification is a good will Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing Kant took the absolutist view on ethics i.e. Lying is never permitted but of course the consequences of not lying could be a problem In the end very few things are absolute 5

6 Kantian Categorical Imperative (1 st Formulation) Act only from moral rules that you believe should be universal moral laws 6

7 Illustration of 1 st Formulation Question: Can a person in dire straits make a promise with the intention of breaking it later? Proposed rule: I may make promises with the intention of later breaking them. The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed so he can get what he needs. Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break promises Everyone breaking promises would make promises unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise believed The rule is flawed. The answer to the question is No. 7

8 Another Way to Apply Logic To Reason It Out Question: Can I make a promise with the intention of breaking it later? I want my false promise to be believed. In order for my false promised to be believable, I want everyone except myself to be truthful all the time. In other words, I want to prioritize my needs and desires over those of everyone else. Contradiction between what I want to do and what I want others to do. Therefore, what I am considering doing is wrong. 8

9 A Quick Check When Using Kantian Logic When evaluating a proposed action, reverse roles What would you think if that person did the same thing to you? Negative reaction evidence that your will to do that action violates the Categorical Imperative 9

10 Categorical Imperative (2 nd Formulation) Act so that you treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves and never only as a means to an end This is usually an easier formulation to work with than the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative 10

11 Applying The Formulations To An Ethical Scenario Carla Single mother Works full time Takes two evening courses/semester History class Requires more work than normal Carla earning an A on all work so far Carla doesn t have time to write final report Carla purchases report; submits it as her own work In other words, she plagiarizes 11

12 Kantian Evaluation (1 st Formulation) Carla wants credit for plagiarized report Rule: You may claim credit for work performed by someone else If rule universalized, reports would no longer be credible indicator s of student s knowledge, and professors would not give credit for reports Proposed moral rule is self-defeating if applied universally Therefore it is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report 12

13 Kantian Evaluation (2 nd Formulation) 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: manipulate professor What Carla did was wrong 13

14 Case for Kantianism Treats all persons as moral equals Gives all people moral worth as rational, autonomous beings Holds everyone to the same standard Produces universal moral guidelines 14

15 Perfect and Imperfect Duties Perfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill without exception Example: Telling the truth Imperfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill in general but not in every instance Example: Helping others 15

16 Case Against Kantianism Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict between rules Thou shalt not kill is pretty universally accepted However, during wartime people are given medals for killing the enemy Lying to hide national secrets may also be put in a different category Pure Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect duties 16

17 17

18 Ethical Theories - Utilitarianism Primary advocates in John Stuart Mill ( ) and John Dewey ( ) The aggregate value of a choice is used to calculate its ethical value the consequentialist or result based ethics approach Rules are judged by their net impact It may be necessary under certain circumstances to break a rule Tends to look at the common good It focuses on society, rather than on lone individuals, as the entity which achieves morality. It allows that a moral judgment may be appropriate in one age of a given society, even though it will cease to be appropriate after that society progresses (or may already be inappropriate in another society). Should we judge different societies or centuries by different standards Were their ethical standards evolving? Main objection is that it may disregard individual freedom Pragmatic ethics may be misunderstood as relativist A dilemma in Utilitarianism Can you take food from one person and give it to another just because the second person is starving? If you said yes Can you take a kidney from one person and give it to another just because the second person needs it to survive? 18

19 Principle of Utility An action is good if its benefits exceeds its harms An action is bad if its harms exceed its benefits 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 An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties. (Greatest Happiness Principle) 19

20 Act Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent Focuses on the consequences A consequentialist theory Act utilitarianism Add up change in happiness of all affected beings Sum > 0, action is good Sum < 0, action is bad Right action to take: one that maximizes the sum Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual action It doesn t try to create a general rule 20

21 Case for Act Utilitarianism Focuses on happiness Down-to-earth (practical) Comprehensive 21

22 Case Against Act Utilitarianism Unclear whom to include in calculations and how far out into the future to consider Short-term versus long term Spending all your money on a Mercedes, might make you happy now, but what about the future Deferred gratification for a long term gain (i.e. study over TV) may be ignored Ignores our innate sense of duty We cannot predict consequences with certainty Susceptible to the problem of moral luck 22

23 Rule-Based Utilitarianism We ought to adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness Where Act Utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual actions Rule Utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to moral rules 23

24 Case for Rule Utilitarianism Not every moral decision requires performing utilitarian calculus Moral rules survive exceptional situations Reduces the problem of bias Appeals to a wide cross-section of society 24

25 Case Against Utilitarianism in General All consequences must be measured on a single scale. All units must be the same in order to do the sum In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a human life Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences. Utilitarianism does not 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? 25

26 26

27 Ethical Theories Natural Rights John Locke ( ) was a primary proponent Extremely influential on the Founding Fathers Defines a sphere of freedom, including fundamental rights Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Property Rights From these principles we can imply ethical rules against killing, stealing, deception, and coercion Voluntary interactions without deceit or coercion are emphasized the process is of great importance, not necessarily the result If everyone adheres to these principles voluntarily then the process will be pure even if the results aren t always so This is why they word pursuit is so important and so argued over 27

28 Ethical Theories -Negative and Positive Rights Negative Rights also called Liberties Rights without interference Others can t overrule or interfere with these rights Life, property, speech, religion, etc. are such rights Embodied in much of the Bill of Rights Often denied in authoritarian states Example you can choose where you want to work Positive Rights Claimed 0r created Impose an obligation from one group to another Examples including paying for someone else s health care or food Imposing a requirement on one person or group to hire another person Social justice is based on the premise that claim rights are legitimate and even ethically required Imposition of positive rights requires a larger government Leads to large scale lobbying as special interests compete for their claim rights 28

29 Absolute and Limited Rights Absolute right: A right guaranteed without exception The right to pray at the place of your choice (in the United States) The right to bear children (this is also not the case everywhere) Limited right: A right that may be restricted based on the circumstances The right to drive a car The right to vote (although this is controversial) 29

30 30

31 Ethical Theories Golden Rule The Bible and Confucius another consequential approach Consider others when making ethical decisions The outcome can determine the action to take 31

32 Ethical Theories Social Contracts (1) What is the role of government in an ethical body politic People submit to a basic set of governing laws These are embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights People like Locke believed in limited government the government is there to enforce natural rights Thomas Hobbes ( ) believed that the social contract required people to cede rights to government in order to form a better society In his book Leviathan he says that man starts from a State of Nature where each person acts according to his own self interest Rational thought leads to man ceding some independence in order to seek a better situation through a social contract Historical social contracts include the Magna Carta and U.S. Constitution Jean-Jacques Rousseau In ideal society, no one above rules That prevents society from enacting bad rules See Reference: Locke vs. Hobbes 32

33 Ethical Theories Social Contracts (2) John Rawls ( ) took a more radical view in his book A Theory of Justice Government was there to further social justice He sees the government going beyond the pursuit of happiness to guaranteeing fairness and equality of outcomes This is the great debate raging in the Supreme Court and the country today 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) 33

34 Ethical Theories The Veil of Ignorance (1) John Rawls used the Veil of Ignorance and Original Position as starting points People in the original position do not know their place in society, their natural or acquired traits or abilities, what conceptions of the good they have, nor what their particular goals are. They do not know the particular political, economic or cultural characteristics of their own society nor do they know to which generation they belong. They do know that they are contemporaries, that they are in the circumstances where human cooperation is both possible and desirable and that they are each capable of a sense of justice. There is no limit to their knowledge of general information such as is contained in political, social, economic and psychological theories. See Reference: Original Position 34

35 Ethical Theories The Veil of Ignorance (2) Rawls maintains that people in the original position would choose the following special conception of justice: 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. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. There will be equal opportunity for everyone to climb the economic and/or social ladder and that any social or economic inequalities that are allowed must be arranged so that they improve the access to Primary Goods for the Least Advantaged. He believed that if no one knew their position or circumstance that they would look to ensure the greatest level of equality 35

36 Ethical Theories The Veil of Ignorance (3) One rule of choice called maximin Directs that we play it as safe as possible by choosing the alternative whose worst outcome leaves us better off than the worst outcome of all other alternatives. The aim is to maximize the minimum regret or loss to well- being. To follow this strategy, Rawls says you should choose as if your enemy were to assign your social position in whatever kind of society you end up in. What happens if you produce a product that improves efficiency but leads to unemployment Is it legitimate to produce that product? By contrast another strategy leads us to focus on the most advantaged position and says we should maximize the maximum potential gain maximax and choose the alternative whose best outcome leaves us better off than all other alternatives. Clearly this in not the Rawls alternative However, it more closely resembles the capitalistic view Human nature drives us all to succeed and there will be more wealth if everyone is working to maximize their rewards Henry Ford paid his workers a better wage so that they could buy his cars 36

37 Rawl s Difference People Plan A The Flat Tax Plan B The Progressive Income Tax Rawl s might argue for a higher level of rate for the more wealthy and a zero rate for the less well-off 37

38 38

39 A Problem With Enlightenment Theories Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory ignore important moral considerations Moral education Moral wisdom Family and social relationships Role of emotions Virtue ethics tries to address this problem Arete - Greek for virtue and excellence; literally "that which is good. Reaching highest potential The source is Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics (4 th century BC) 39

40 Virtues and Vices Two types of virtue Intellectual virtues Virtues associated with reasoning and truth Moral virtues Virtues of character (e.g., honesty) Moral virtues Developed by habitually performing right action Deep-seated character traits Disposition to act in a certain way and feel in a certain way Are humans disposed towards good or bad moral virtues???? 40

41 Virtue Ethics A right action is an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in the same circumstances A virtuous person is a person who possesses and lives out a virtuous life The virtues are those character traits human beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy 41

42 Vices Vices are opposite of virtues Vice: a character trait that prevents a human being from flourishing or being truly happy Often, a virtue situated between two vices Courage between cowardliness and rashness Generosity between stinginess and prodigality 42

43 Case for Virtue Ethics It often makes more sense to focus on virtues than obligations, rights, or consequences Personal relationships can be morally relevant to decision making Theory recognizes our moral decision-making skills develop over time With this theory there are no irresolvable moral dilemmas Emotions play an important role in living a moral life 43

44 Case Against Virtue Ethics Reasonable people may disagree on character traits needed for human flourishing Cannot use virtue ethics to guide government policy Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people responsible for their bad actions Conclusion: Despite weaknesses, virtue ethics a workable theory Are virtues different in a concentration camp than in a civilized setting?? 44

45 45

46 Ethical Objectivism vs. Relativism Ethical objectivism Morality has an existence outside the human mind Relativism Morality is a human invention Divine command theory, ethical egoism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics are examples of ethical objectivism 46

47 Workable Ethical Theories Ethical theories look for objective moral principles developed using logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values Workable ethical theories Kantianism Act and rule utilitarianism Social contract theory Virtue ethics The framework we choose may be based on our own environment, experiences and even innate characteristics 47

48 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories 48

49 49

50 Social Contract Theory Perspective Everyone in society bears certain burdens in order to receive certain benefits Legal system supposed to guarantee people s rights are protected Everything else being equal, we should be law-abiding Should only break law if compelled to follow a higherorder moral obligation 50

51 Social Contract: A Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law 51

52 Kantian Perspective Everyone wants to be treated justly Imagine rule: I may break a law I believe to be unjust If everyone acted according to this rule, then laws would be subverted Contradiction: Cannot both wish to be treated justly and allow laws to be subverted Remember Kantian rules are absolute!! 52

53 Rule Utilitarian Perspective Major difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism Under Act version a sit-in to protest segregation might be more acceptable because of the good in that case Under Rule version might find it impossible to have people sitting in whenever they feel that they have a grievance Anyone have other cases pro or con One case is the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg 53

54 54

55 Summary Not all ethical issues are easily decided Some things are obligatory and universally accepted, while others are more ambiguous Not all actions that may cause harm are necessarily unethical Is it unethical to ban coal because it will harm coal miners? Distinguish Wrong from Harm An act that causes harm may not necessarily be unethical Destroying an enemy in war may cause harm, but can be ethical There is a difference between taking something from a person, and not giving a person something Distinguish goals from means You can improve profits by making a better product, but not by stealing Law and Ethics are different things Some laws enforce ethical standards Other laws are meant to impose public preference (one religion over another) or business goals In subsequent lessons we will explore these issues using the computer world as our primary set of examples 55

56 Class Exercise 1 Exercise 1 Profitability and CEO Responsibility The CEO of an Internet provider is approached by a streaming company and offered a per user payment for priority streaming on the network. The CEO has a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for the shareholders (short and long term). However, there are also strong ethical reasons for making sure that the network remains neutral in terms of the flow of information. What should the CEO do? 56

57 Class Exercise 2 Exercise 2 Releasing Software Is it legitimate to release software with bugs? What if you know that there are probably bugs, but don t yet know what those bugs or leaks are? Who is liable for any losses related to buggy or virus vulnerable software? Some things to think about: Perfect software (it doesn t actually exist) comes at an extreme cost i.e. space platforms etc., although even these systems have bugs fixed while in orbit If the original Windows hadn t been released, despite the bugs, would we have Windows 10, MS Office, Explorer, or any of the other products we rely on every day 57

58 Exercise 3 Legal Ethics For many years margarine was banned in Wisconsin because it hurt dairy farmers? What would Locke think about this? Rawls? 58

59 Exercise 4 Corporate Obligations Recently the government asked Apple to find a back door opening to the iphone of the San Bernardino terrorist. Apple refused, citing the dangers that would pose to other iphone users. Who do you think was right in this case? Why? 59