Lecture3 typesofethics

Professional Issues in Informa/on Technology

• Part IV: Introduc.on to Ethics

• Dr. Amanda Sharkey• [email protected]• Department of Computer Science• University of Sheffield

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Acknowledgements

• All these lectures based on a course originally developed by Guy Brown.

• Subsequently added to and changed by me, Rod Smallwood, and Tony Cowling.


1 Introduc.on2 Defini.ons3 Western Ethical Thought4 Ethical Problem Solving5 Summary and Conclusions


1. Introduc/on

•Ethical dilemmas occur frequently in professional practice; we must be equipped to deal with them.

Important to consider the likely effects of engineering and software


Ethical dilemmas are inherently subjective; there is no 'right' answer, and no step-by-step algorithm that can be used to solve ethical problems.

In this lecture we consider: origins of (Western) moral and ethical philosophy; practical approaches to ethical problem solving.

This is a relatively superficial overview of a very deep subject. Further reading advised


2.1 What is philosophy?

• The main purpose of philosophy is to cri/cally evaluate assump/ons and arguments.

• Philosophy asks us to examine assump/ons that people accept without ques/on, e.g. seeing is believing (percep/on by the senses is reliable evidence).

2. Defini.ons


On considera/on, we will either:

Decide that we have good reason to hold the belief, and con/nue to hold it (but now with ra/onal assurance rather than unthinking acceptance)


On considera/on, we will either:

Decide that we have good reason to hold the belief, and con/nue to hold it (but now with ra/onal assurance rather than unthinking acceptance)

Decide that we do not have good reason to hold the belief, and suspend judgement or seek a new framework of belief.


2.2 What is moral philosophy?Moral philosophy is inquiry about values, ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, what should be done and what should not be done.

Moral philosophy is not prac/cal in any simple sense; it cannot, and does not try to, tell us what to do. However, philosophical debate can conclude that a set of beliefs should definitely be rejected because:


2.2 What is moral philosophy?Moral philosophy is inquiry about values, ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, what should be done and what should not be done.

Moral philosophy is not prac/cal in any simple sense; it cannot, and does not try to, tell us what to do. However, philosophical debate can conclude that a set of beliefs should definitely be rejected because:

It is internally inconsistent

OR

It rests on a factual assump/on that is false.Tuesday, 16 October 2012

2.3 Personal and professional ethics

• Ethics concerns the philosophical discussion of assump/ons about right and wrong, good and bad, considered as general ideas and applied in the private life of individuals.




• The terms moral philosophy and ethics are oVen used interchangeably, but moral philosophy has a wider scope; it concerns values in organised social life (poli/cs and law) as well as private rela/onships.




• The terms moral philosophy and ethics are oVen used interchangeably, but moral philosophy has a wider scope; it concerns values in organised social life (poli/cs and law) as well as private rela/onships.

• By professional ethics , we mean issues of right and wrong and good and bad as applied to the behaviour of individuals within a par/cular profession (such as computer science, law, medicine etc.).

• What is a profession? See later ...


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system• E.g. Stealing is wrong because it offends God


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system• E.g. Stealing is wrong because it offends God• But not everyone is religious


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system• E.g. Stealing is wrong because it offends God• But not everyone is religious• ii) Grounding moral principles in law


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system• E.g. Stealing is wrong because it offends God• But not everyone is religious• ii) Grounding moral principles in law• Stealing is wrong because it violates the law


• Grounding for rules of conduct• E.g. “do not steal”• Why is stealing wrong?• i) Grounding moral principles in a religious system• E.g. Stealing is wrong because it offends God• But not everyone is religious• ii) Grounding moral principles in law• Stealing is wrong because it violates the law• (but laws can be wrong – e.g. Laws enforcing slavery, or

apartheid)



apartheid)• Iii) Grounding moral principles in a philosophical system of

ethics



apartheid)• Iii) Grounding moral principles in a philosophical system of

ethics• Stealing is wrong because it is wrong


3. Western Ethical Thought

• Western moral thought is derived from thinking of ancients in Europe and Middle East.

In 5th Century BC, Greek travellers returning home with tales of very different cultures.

• Jewish moral tradi/ons -‐ Torah and Old Testament of the Bible enumerate moral laws (e.g. Ten commandments).

• Greek ethical thought very influen/al, e.g. Socrates and Aristotle.

• Aristotle produced a lengthy trea/se on ethics, the Nichomachean Ethics. Now available on-‐line! hep://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.htmlTuesday, 16 October 2012

• John Locke Immanuel Kant John Stuart Mill

• Subsequently, philosophers such as John Locke (1632-‐1704), Immanuel Kant (1724-‐1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806-‐1873) have reasoned about moral and ethical issues without a religious underpinning.

• • They proposed that moral principles are universal, and applicable even in secular contexts.


3.1 Ethical theories

Ethical theories are like scien/fic theories -‐ they define terms, organize ideas and facilitate problem solving.

There are many ethical theories, reflec/ng a diversity of approaches to ethical problem solving.

Different theories give us different perspec/ves on an ethical dilemma.


• We will consider the following:


• We will consider the following: U.litarianism which seeks to produce the most u/lity;



Intui.onism which proposes a number of self-‐evident principles of right ac/on;




Duty ethics which contends that there are du/es which should be performed (such as trea/ng people fairly);





Rights ethics which contends that all individuals have moral rights, and that viola/ng these is unacceptable;





Rights ethics which contends that all individuals have moral rights, and that viola/ng these is unacceptable;

Virtue ethics which discriminates between acts of good character (virtues) and acts of bad character (vices).


• Two main approaches to ethical issues

• 1. Consequen.alist (teleological)– ac/ons evaluated in terms of their consequences

• 2. Deontological (duty/rights)• (from Greek δέον, deon, "obliga/on, duty"; and -‐λογία, -‐logia) – Acts are right or wrong regardless of their consequences


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-logy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-logy

3.2 U.litarianism

Main consequen.al theory.Many flavours of u/litarianism. First proposed by Jeremy Bentham. We focus on act u/litarianism (Mill), which holds that an ac/on is right if it is useful for promo/ng happiness.More specifically:An ac/on is right (it is the ac/on you should do) if it seems likely to you that it will produce more happiness than any alterna/ve ac/on.

-‐ Choose the ac/on that will produce “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (pleasure – pain)Consider those persons (and other creatures) that will be significantly affected.U/litarianism is fundamental to risk-‐benefit and cost-‐benefit analysis.Tuesday, 16 October 2012

3.3 U1litarianism and the law

People tend to act in their own self interest (?)

But “greatest happiness of greatest number” implies altruism (concern for others).

If people act in their own self-‐interest, how can their ac/ons be made to serve the advantage of everyone?

U/litarianism: developing legisla/on of the benefit of society.

Laws exist to promote the happiness of the communityTuesday, 16 October 2012

• Thief: stealing might increase the thief’s happiness

• But it will be bad for society• Laws against theV protect society, and make stealing less aerac/ve to the thief (who risks punishment/imprisonment).

• Implies that punishment (pain) should be just enough to deter an/-‐social acts


3.4 Objec.ons to u.litarianismHow does one know what will lead to the greatest good? OVen we don't know what the consequences of our ac/ons are.

It can ignore the needs of individuals, or of a smaller group rela/ve to a larger group.

Act u/litarianism – working out likely consequences of every ac/on.

Rule u/litarianism – avoids this. Suggests behavioural rules which result in consequences that are more favourable than unfavourable to everyone.

U/litarianism also ignores the personal character of moral obliga/on.

e.g. If faced with saving your mother, or two strangers, from a burning building – what would you do if you were a strict u/litarian?


3.5 Intui.onismA stance adopted by ra/onalist philosophers; we reason about ethics in the same way as we reason about mathema/cs, e.g. jus/ce is a basic moral truth: 2+2=4 is a basic mathema/cal truth

There are self-‐evident principles of right ac/on:o promo/ng the happiness of peopleo refraining from harm to other peopleo trea/ng people justlyo telling the trutho keeping promiseso showing gra/tudeo promo/ng one's own happinesso maintaining and promo/ng one's own self-‐respect

Conflicts between these principles must be resolved by ra/onal intui/on (like solving mathema/cal problems).Tuesday, 16 October 2012

• Intui/onists argue that U/litarians have concentrated on only a couple of these self-‐evident principles.

Problems with intui/onism: -‐ principles are not always self-‐evident -‐ How do you resolve conflict between principles? e.g. You can only keep a promise by sacrificing some happiness (your own, or others)

U/litarianism provides a way of resolving conflicts.


3.6 Duty ethics and rights ethics

Basically two sides of the same coin; both hold that good ac/ons respect the rights of individuals.

Rights ethics largely formulated by Locke; his tenet that individuals have basic rights which others should respect was paraphrased in the US Declara/on of Independence.

Main proponent of duty ethics was Kant.


Kant dis/nguished the Categorical (moral) impera/ve from Hypothe.cal (pruden/al) impera/ves:

Hypothe/cal impera/ves take the form Do X if Y or You ought to do X if Y. For example: If you want to be healthy, take lots of exercise

The Categorical impera.ve does not depend on an if; the ac/on is not a means to an end. For example: Be kind to others does not mean "be kind to others if you want to avoid making enemies of them"; kindness is prescribed for its own sake and not because of a self-‐interested end


3.7 Three forms of the Categorical Impera1ve

Kant gave three formula/ons of the Categorical impera/ve:

1. Act as if you are legisla1ng for everyone In other words, when you are considering whether an ac/on is morally right or wrong, you should ask yourself whether you would want everyone to behave in that way.

i.e. Treat your decision as if it was a law for everyone.

Good way of seeing if the ac/on is morally right –


• 2. Act so as to treat human beings always as ends and never merely as means

This suggests the standard of morally right ac/on. By trea/ng people as ends, you recognise that they have purposes just as you have; you respect their desires.

There is nothing wrong with trea/ng a person as a means so long as you do not treat people merely as a means. E.g. I can ask a carpenter to make me a set of shelves – he tells me his price and I pay him.

The work serves his purposes as well as mine.


• But if I tell my slave to make me a set of shelves, I am trea/ng him merely as a means

• Making the shelves does not serve his purposes


• Kan/an principles are related to the “Golden Rule” of biblical ethics.

• “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

• Golden Rule can be seen as founda/on for all ethics

• Also similar to New Testament:• “Act lovingly towards your neighbour, for he is like yourself”


• 3. Act as if you were a member of a realm of endsHere, 'realm' means a State, a poli/cally organised society. The idea is that you should act as a member of a community,

all of whom treat others as ends rather than means all of whom decide as if they were legisla/ng for all.

Joins 1 and 2 together


3.8 Virtue ethicsConcerned with determining what kind of people we should be.

Ac/ons are considered right if they support good character traits (virtues) such aso honestyo loyaltyo responsibility

Ac/ons are considered wrong if they support bad character traits (vices) such aso dishonestyo disloyaltyo irresponsibility


• Virtue ethics: mostly concerned with personal ethics.

• Harder to apply in a professional context since it is less concrete and less rigorous than other ethical theories.

• Also hard to describe nonhuman en//es such as government or corpora/ons in terms of virtue.


• Tavani (2011): 4 Discussion stoppers as roadblocks to moral discourse.

• 1. People disagree on solu/ons to moral issues


• 1. People disagree on solu/ons to moral issues– OVen disagreements in fields of study such as science

– -‐there is common agreement about answers to some moral ques/ons

– E.g. Telling the truth, keeping promises, respec/ng parents, not stealing, not murdering.


• 2. Who am I to judge others?


• 2. Who am I to judge others?• -‐ but there are /mes when judgement is needed

• E.g. Human rights viola/on – women in Afghanistan being denied educa/on, medical treatment and jobs.

• E.g. Child abuse – if an adult were seen to be repeatedly kicking a child in a public place.


• 3. Morality is simply a private maeer•


• 3. Morality is simply a private maeer• -‐not a maeer of personal belief.• E.g. If I believe that stealing is okay, I might steal your stuff.

• Or what if I believe that killing human beings is okay


• 4. Morality is simply a maeer for individual cultures to decide (moral rela/vism)


• 4. Morality is simply a maeer for individual cultures to decide (moral rela/vism)

• E.g. Female circumcision – believed in by some cultures and tribes.

• But just because it’s accepted within the culture, doesn’t mean it is morally jus/fiable.

• But those outside the culture can ques/on the morality of this prac/ce.

• Also, there is considerable agreement across cultures about moral principles – e.g stealing is wrong, murder


Summary and further reflec.ons1 Virtue ethicsVirtue theory: the view that the founda/on of morality is the development of good character traits, or virtuesA good person has virtues and lacks vices.Typical virtues: courage, temperance, jus/ce, prudence, for/tude, liberality, truthfulness.Emphasis on moral educa/on: adults are responsible for ins/lling virtues in the young.Historically oldest norma/ve tradi/on.Earliest account: in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.Influen/al through Middle Ages.Replaced by "rule" emphasis of moral theories like u/litarianism.

Some recent revival of virtue ethics.


2 U1litarianismAc/ons are right in propor/on as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse.

Individual happiness or general happiness?People should realise that they need the help of others to achieve their own happiness, and should induce their help by doing things for them.


2 U1litarianism

-‐ emphasis on law and government: people generally act with a view to their own self-‐interest or happiness.

Laws -‐ designed to secure the happiness of society.

U/litarianism: provides a way of linking ethics, law and government.


3 Intui.onism"Intui/on" refers to understanding, as in understanding of self-‐evident truths of logic and mathema/cs.

Idea that there are self-‐evident moral principles.• promo/ng the happiness of people• refraining from harm to other people• trea/ng people justly• telling the truth• keeping promises• showing gra/tude• promo/ng one's own happiness• maintaining and promo/ng one's own self-‐respect


BUT principles not en.rely self-‐evident -‐ different moral principles can be iden.fied.

BUT what happens if principles conflict: e.g. you can give a truthful answer only at the expense of breaking confiden/ality?

If there was a single fundamental principle, it could be used to resolve conflicts. U/litarianism, and greatest happiness principle could provide such a rule.


4. BUT also some problems with U1litarianism:

Greatest happiness principle can also be implicated in conflicts: e.g. right ac/on is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number -‐ but then would it be beeer to give 20 pounds to 2 old age pensioners, or 20p to 200 pensioners, enabling them all to buy a cup of tea?Also: Problems with the idea of jus1ce -‐ e.g. might be convenient to convict an innocent man as an IRAbomber -‐ will have a deterrent effect on genuine bombers.


4. BUT also some problems with U1litarianism:

Greatest happiness principle can also be implicated in conflicts: e.g. right ac/on is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number -‐ but then would it be beeer to give 20 pounds to 2 old age pensioners, or 20p to 200 pensioners, enabling them all to buy a cup of tea?Also: Problems with the idea of jus1ce -‐ e.g. might be convenient to convict an innocent man as an IRAbomber -‐ will have a deterrent effect on genuine bombers.But seems wrong to convict an innocent man.


5. Kan.an ethics• 1. Act as if you are legisla.ng for everyone• 2. Act so as to treat human beings always as ends and never merely as means• 3. Act as if you were a member of a realm of ends(Arguably) Provides a beeer account of personal character of ethics


• Quite inflexible• E.g. For Kant, lying is never acceptable• “By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man” (Kant)

• Consider the captain of a ship transpor/ng fugi/ves from Nazi Germany who is asked by patrol if there are any Jews on board


ALSO does not explain why obliga/ons to friends and family are stronger than to others (all people should be treated as ends).



ALSO s.ll problems with resolving conflicts.



ALSO s.ll problems with resolving conflicts.• e.g. breaking a promise to meet a friend at the theatre in order to drive to hospital a neighbour who is seriously ill.




• or, dilemma of young man in occupied France in WW2: should he join the Resistance movement, or stay to look aVer his widowed mother?





• -‐ can lead to the idea that we should make up our own minds, and act as moral beings capable of taking decisions on difficult problems.





• -‐ can lead to the idea that we should make up our own minds, and act as moral beings capable of taking decisions on difficult problems.

• (see Sartre and existen/alist ethics).


6 Comparison of ethical theories Intui/onism is a good model of everyday moral judgement, but principles not always self-‐evident.

Kan/an ethics involves a concept of democra/c jus/ce; this protects the innocent against arguments of social u/lity, a flaw of u/litarianism.

Kan/an ethics tells us to treat all human beings as ends; so it cannot explain why moral obliga/ons to rela/ons and friends are stronger that to other people.


Duty ethics and rights ethics have general problems; what if the basic rights of one person (or group) conflict with those of another?

Resolu/on of conflict is a problem for all of the above.

Virtue ethics harder to apply in professional context but s/ll raises relevant ques/ons (e.g., is this ac/on honest? responsible? loyal to my employer?).

In summary, no ethical theory is perfect -‐ but all provide an interes/ng perspec/ve on ethical dilemmas.


• A strength of both the consequen/al (u/li/tarian) approach, and the deontological (Kan/an) approach is their parsimony.

• Both based on a single principle– Categorical impera/ve– Maximisa/on of u/lity


7. Ethical problem solvingNo 'algorithm', but following the steps below may be useful.1. Iden.fy the major role players and stakeholders.Individuals, corpora/ons. Stakeholders are those that have something to lose (or win).2. Iden.fy the factual issuesWhat was done, and by whom?3. Iden.fy the conceptual issuesConceptual issues relate to the applica/on of ideas e.g. what dis/nguishes a bribe from an acceptable giV?4. Iden.fy the moral issuesDifferent moral philosophical theories provide different perspec/ves on ethical dilemmas.


• As an industrial engineering consultant hired by a credit bureau (RWT), you have been asked to analyse problems that have occurred with their 20 million record credit file. RWT management became concerned when the following situa/on came to their aeen/on.

• A couple moving to a re/rement community has an eye on their 'dream home'. Because they have a good credit history, they assume that they will have no trouble obtaining a mortgage to purchase this home through a local bank in their new community. A rou/ne credit check through RWT reveals that in fact they are a bad credit risk. When a representa/ve from the local bank pursues the case, she discovers that the couple has been mis-‐iden/fied in the RWT database, which has confused them with another party having a very bad credit history. In making amends, the local bank approves the loan, but by now the home has already been sold to someone else. The couple is heartbroken and worse yet, they con/nue to experience credit problems for some /me. Management at RWT claims they have only 1 error per 100,000 records in their database. They are reluctant to overhaul the database because of the rela/vely small number of errors and high cost involved, and because the database would need to be taken off-‐line for some /me.


• What do you think would be the right course for RWT in response to the reports of errors in their database?

• Major role players and stake holders?• Factual issues?• Conceptual issues?• Moral issues?


Assignment – (maximum 1500 words)Hand in due Monday 5th November, week 7, 3pm. One electronic, one hardcopy please.

Read the RWT scenario. Discuss what the right response would be for RWT from the perspec@ve of

(a) U@litarian (consequen@al) ethics (b) Duty (deontological) ethics and (c) your own opinion.


8 Summary and Conclusions

Moral philosophy is philosophical inquiry about norms or values, ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, what should be done and what should not be done.

Ethics is the philosophical discussion of assump/ons about right and wrong, good and bad, considered as general ideas and applied in the life of individuals.

Ethical dilemmas occur when one or more moral principles are in conflict.


We have considered different philosophical theories of moral standards: u/litarianism, intui/onism, duty ethics, rights ethics, virtue ethics.

They offer different perspec/ves of ethical problems.

Moral philosophy will not solve prac/cal problems by telling you 'what to do'. But it can show up some confusions, and help you to think more clearly about the issues.


Lecture3 typesofethics

Documents

Transcript of Lecture3 typesofethics