Transcript The ethical cycle - LIvET | Landelijk Instituut voor

The ethical cycle
Chapter 1: Responsibility
1
Responsibility
• Roles & Responsibility
• Passive responsibility
• Active responsibility
2
Conditions passive responsibility
• Wrong-doing
• Causal contribution
• Foreseeability
• Freedom of action
3
Moral responsibility
• Moral responsibility has to do with the rightness (or permissibility) of
actions and/or the goodness of the effects of actions.
• Whether someone did something morally wrong by
– Violating a norm
– Causing unacceptable damage to the welfare or well being of others
4
Moral competence
• Moral sensibility
• Moral analysis skills
• Moral creativity
• Moral judgment skills
• Moral decision-making skills
• Moral argumentation skills
5
Moral competence and the ethical cycle
6
Argumentation
• Argument: a set of statements, of which one (the conclusion) is claimed to
follow from the others (the premises).
P1: If it rains, the streets become wet.
P2: It rains
C: The streets become wet.
• Modus Ponens
If p, then q
p
So, q
7
Possibilities to challenge a conclusion
All premises are Some
true
false
premises
are
The argument Conclusion cannot Conclusion
is valid
be challenged
challenged
can
be
The argument Conclusion can be Conclusion
is invalid
challenged
challenged
can
be
8
Deductive and non-deductive
Deductive
• Valid arguments are of a deductive nature, i.e. the conclusion is enclosed
in the premises: the result, the conclusion, says no more and is not
logically stronger than the totality of premises that the argument is based
on.
Non-deductive
• The conclusion is logically stronger than the premises. In other words, the
premises – if true – give a limited amount of support to the conclusion.
• Plausibility principle
9
Inductive argumentation
• Argumentation from the particular to the general
• Limited number of experiments
• Critical questions
1. Were the experiments carried out relevant for the conclusion?
2. Were sufficient experiments carried out to support the conclusion?
3. Are there no counterexamples?
•
Rash generalization
10
Argumentation by analogy
•
We try to reach a moral assessment of an unknown or new situation by basing
that assessment on a situation in which the moral assessment is clear and the
comparison is sufficient.
Formal description
– Situation q is comparable with situation p (premise of analogy).
– If situation p occurs then r applies.
– So, if situation q occurs then r applies.
Critical questions
1. Are the two situations comparable?
• Are there important relevant similarities?
• Are there no important relevant differences?
2. Is what is asserted about the example situation true? In other words, is it
true that ‘if situation p occurs then r applies’?
•
False analogy
11
Fallacies
• Attack on the person
• Confusion of law and ethics
• Straw person
• Wishful thinking
• Naturalistic fallacy
• Ambiguity
12
The ethical cycle
Chapter 2: Codes of Conduct
13
Codes of conduct
• Aspirational code
• Advisory code
• Disciplinary code
14
Professional codes
• Professional codes are guidelines for the exercising of a profession that are
formulated by a professional society.
Domains
• Integrity and competent professional practice
• Obligations towards clients and employers
• Social responsibility and obligations towards the public
15
Corporate codes
Main elements
• Mission statement
• Core values
• Responsibility for stakeholders
• Norms and rules
• Do corporations have a social responsibility?
16
Limitations of codes of ethics
• Codes of ethics and self-interest
• Vagueness and potential contradictions
• Can ethics be codified?
• Can codes of ethics be lived by?
• Enforcement
17
Whistleblowing – confidentiality duties
• Freedom of speech
• Legal requirements to make public certain information
• Professional duty
• It is in the public’s interest
18
The ethical cycle
Chapter 3. Normative ethics
19
Ethics and morality
• Morality is the totality of opinions, decisions, and actions with which
people express what they think is good or right.
• Ethics is the systematic reflection on what is moral.
• Descriptive ethics
• Normative ethics
20
Points of departure
• Values
• Norms
• Virtues
21
Values
• Values help us determine which goals or states of affairs are worth striving
for.
• Moral values are related to a good life and a just society.
• Intrinsic values
• Instrumental values
22
Norms
• Norms are rules that prescribe what concrete actions are required,
permitted or forbidden.
• Moral norms are indications for responsible action.
23
Values and norms
Values
Norms
Ends
Means
Global
Specific
Hard to achieve without
norms
Ineffective without values
24
Virtues
• Certain type of human characteristic or qualities that has the following
five features:
1. They are desired characteristics and they express a value that is
worth striving for.
2. They are expressed in action.
3. They are lasting and permanent – they form a lasting structural
foundation for action.
4. They are always present, but are only used when necessary.
5. They can be influenced by the individual.
•
Intellectual virtues
•
Moral virtues
25
Normative relativism
• Normative relativism argues that all moral points of view – all values,
norms and virtues – are relative.
Problems
• There are no universal norms – yes they use one
• Any meaningful moral discussion is totally impossible
• Can lead to unworkable or intolerable situations
26
Absolutism
• A rigid form of universalism
• Universalism states that there is a system of norms and values that is
universally applicable to everyone, independent of time, place or culture.
Problems
• Does the norm prescribe what is best in all situations?
• What to do in case of conflicting norms?
• No room for independent moral judgment
27
Ethical theories
Theory
Points of
departure
Actor
Action
Consequences
Virtue ethics
Deontology
Utilitarianism
Virtues
Norms
Values
28
Utilitarianism / cosequentialism
• The consequences of actions are central to the moral judgment of those
actions.
• An action in itself is not right or wrong; it is only the consequence of
action that is morally relevant.
• It measures the consequences of actions against one value: human
pleasure, happiness or welfare
29
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
• Utility principle: the greatest happiness of the greatest number (of the
members of the community).
• We can calculate the expected pleasure or pain and can even indicate
quite accurately how much will be produced by a given action.
• An action is morally right if it results in pleasure, and it is morally wrong is
it gives rise to pain.
Problems
• Pleasure is a subjective term
• Comparing actions is not easy
• How much pleasure does an act gives us? And how much pain?
30
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
• Differs froms Bentham:
– Qualities must be taken into account
– We must choose the action that provides the most pleasure but does
not conflict with human nature and dignity
• Freedom principle: everyone is free to strive for his/her own pleasure, as
long as they do not deny or hinder the pleasure of others
31
Criticism of utilitarianism
• Happiness cannot be measured objectively
• Utilitarianism can lead to exploitation
• Consequences are often unpredictable, unknown, or uncertain
• Distributive justice
• Ingorance of personal relationships
• Some actions that maximize pleasure are still morally unacceptable
32
Arguments in an utilitarian plea (1)
Means-end argumentation
• If you wish to achieve end x, then you must carry out action y.
Formal
– x (the end)
– carrying out action y (the means) realizes the end x (means-end premise)
– So: do y
Critical questions
1. Does action y indeed realize end x?
2. Can action y be carried out?
3. Does execution of action y lead to unacceptable side effects?
4. Are there no other (better) actions to achieve x?
5. Is the end acceptable?
33
Arguments in an utilitarian plea (2)
Causality argumentation
• In this argumentation, use is made of the fact that a certain expected consequence can
be derived from a certain situation or action.
Formal description
– p
– ‘p causes q’ or ‘p has q as a consequence’ (the causality premise)
– So: q
Critical questions
1. Will the given situation or action indeed lead to the expected consequence?
2. Have no issues been forgotten, for example, with respect to the expected
consequence?
3. How do you
Fallacies
•
Post hoc propter hoc (afterwards so therefore)
•
Slippery slope
34
Duty ethics / deontological ethics
• An action is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule (law, norm,
or principle) that is applicable in itself, independent of the consequences
of that action.
• Monistic duty ethics versus pluralistic ethics
• Foundation of the origin of the moral rules
35
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Autonomy: man himself should be able to determine what is morally
correct through reasoning
• Duty
• Categorical imperative:
– Universality principle
– Respect principle
36
Universality principle
• “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
37
•
Question: Is ‘I will not keep my promise’ (not-A) morally acceptable? Foe
example if you are in need of money.
•
Structure: the maxim ‘if I am in need of money, I may break my promise’ leads
to a contradiction as soon as a general law is made of it
•
General law: ‘anybody may break his/her promises if he/she is in need of
money’ (A).
•
Result 1: From this general law we can derive that it makes sense to break my
promise (p), because then I will get out of my money problems.
•
Result 2: We can derive it makes no sense to break my promise (not-p),
because nobody will value his/her promises any more. Promises no longer
make sense, because everybody is allowed to break their promises.
•
Conclusion: From the contradiction that it both makes sense and no sense to
break a promise, we can deduce ‘not-A’: you cannot make a general law of ‘if I
am in need of money, I may break my promise’. Thus, (A) one must keep one’s
promises.
38
Respect principle
• “Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any
other, in every case as an end, never as means only.”
39
Criticism of Kantian theory
• Do all laws derived from the principles form an umbiguous and consistent
system of norms?
• What about actions with very negative consequences?
40
Virtue ethics: Aristotle (384-322 BC)
• People’s characters can be shaped by proper nurture and education, and
by following good examples.
• Developing good character traits, both intellectual and personal character
traits, is essential.
• Eudaimonia
• Equilibrium
• An action is morally acceptable if and only if that action is what a virtuous
agent would do in the circumstances.
41
Argumentation in virtue-ethical reasoning
Characteristic-judgement argumentation
• If someone or something X displays certain characteristics s1,s2,..., sn, then judgement
A is justified for that person or thing.
Formal:
– X has the characteristics s1,s2,...,sn
– characteristics s1,s2,...,sn are typical of A (characteristic-judgement premise)
– So: A applies to X
Asessment questions:
1. Do the characteristics mentioned justify judgement A?
2. Are the characteristics mentioned all typical of A?
3. Are there any other characteristics necessary for A?
4. Does X possess characteristics that justify the judgement not A?
5. Does X possess the characteristics mentioned?
42
Criticism of virtue ethics
• Virtue ethics is the same as duty ethics
• Intentions are hard to check
• No concrete clues about how to act
• Does having the right virtues always results in responsible action?
• What about the consequences of an action?
43
Care ethics
• By recognizing the vulnerability of the other and by placing yourself in his
or her shoes to understand his or her emotions, you can learn what is
good or bad at that particular time.
• Connectedness of people, mutual responsibility
• Types of relations and the roles we play
• Criticism
– Vague, what entails care exactly?
– No concrete indications how to act
44
The ethical cycle
Chapter 4. The ethical cycle
45
The ethical cycle
46
Moral statement
• There are two or more positive moral values or norms that cannot be fully
realized at the same time
Conditions
• What is the problem
• Who is the actor
• What is the moral nature of the problem
47
Problem analysis
• Relevant elements of the moral problem
• Stakeholders and their interest
• Moral values that are relevant
• Relevant, uncertain and possible missing facts
48
Options for action
• Black-and-white-strategy
Other options for action might be
• Strategy of cooperation
• Whistle-blowing
49
Ethical judgment
• Informal moral frameworks
– Intuition
– Common sense
• Formal moral frameworks
– Codes of conduct
– Ethical theorys
50
Reflection
• Criticisms on the theories
• Does an ethical framework provide reasons that support my intuitive
opinion? If not, do I have other reasons that support my intuitive opinion?
If I have other reasons are they strong enough to override the reasons
within the ethical framework? If not, do I have to revise my intuitive
opinion and in what way?
• Does an ethical framework succeed in selecting those features of a
situation that are morally relevant? Are there any other moral relevant
features that are not covered? Why are these relevant and how could they
be accounted for?
51
52