Ethics for the Information Age

Ethics for theInformation Age Chapter 2 – Introduction to Ethics William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Topics • Introduction • Useful Terminology • Ethical Theory Overview • Subjective Relativism • Cultural Relativism • Divine Command Theory William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Topics • Kantianism • Act Utilitarianism • Rule Utilitarianism • Social Contract Theory • Comparing WorkableEthical Theories William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Introduction • Communities facilitate exchange of goods and services • Individuals can focus and specialize • Specialization engenders higher productivity • Communities can be more secure against external threats William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Introduction • Communities may prohibit some actions and mandate others • Not obeying rules results in punishment William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Useful Terminology • Society • Association of people • Designed to advance good of members • Organized under a system of rules • Rules are known as morality William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Useful Terminology • Ethics • Study of morality • Rational, systematic analysis of conduct • Focused on voluntary, moral choices • Observation is based on observer’s viewpoint William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Ethical Theory Overview • Subjective Relativism • Cultural Relativism • Divine Command Theory • Kantianism • Act Utilitarianism • Rule Utilitarianism • Social Contract William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Subjective Relativism • No universal right or wrong • Each person decides what is right or wrong • Pros • Allows for disagreement on issues • Ethical debates are pointless William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Subjective Relativism • Cons • Line between belief and behavior is fuzzy • No moral distinction • Inconsistent to state that I will do what I think is right as long as no one is harmed • Not the same as tolerance • Idea of what is right may be based on anything, not necessarily reason William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Cultural Relativism • Based on society’s moral guidelines • Morals vary between societies • Pros • Morals adapt to different social contexts • It is arrogant for one society to judge another • Morality is reflected in behavior William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Cultural Relativism • Cons • There is no judgment of wrongdoing by other societies • Difficult to know what the society’s morals are • Does not explain evolution of morals • No framework for resolving intercultural moral conflicts • Certain core values do exist • Only indirectly based on reason William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Divine Command Theory • Based on directions from God • Presumes • Good actions are God’s will • We know what God wants us to do • Pros • We owe obedience to our Creator • God is good and omniscient • God is the ultimate authority William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Divine Command Theory • Cons • Many holy books disagree with each other • Even within the same religion, differences exist • Does not work in a multicultural, secular society • Some issues are not addressed • Good is not necessarily equivalent to God • Based on obedience, not reason William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Kantianism • Actions should be guided by moral laws • Moral laws are universal • Morality must be based on reason • Can explain why something is right or wrong William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Kantianism • What is always good without qualification? • Intelligence • Courage • Both can be used for wrong purposes • Good will is universally good • Dutifulness William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Kantianism • Categorical Imperative – First Formulation • Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. • Categorical Imperative – Second Formulation • Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end. William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Kantianism • Pros • It is rational and explains why something is moral • Produces universal moral guidelines • All people are treated as moral equals • Cons • Sometimes a single rule is not enough • Conflicts between rules can not be resolved • There are no exceptions to the moral laws William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Act Utilitarianism • Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill • An action is good if it benefits someone and bad if it harms someone • “An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties.” • Does not examine motives • Consequentialist theory William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Act Utilitarianism • Pros • Focuses on happiness • Straightforward, down to earth, practical • Comprehensive • Cons • Difficult to tell where to draw the line • Requires a great deal of time and effort • Ignored innate sense of duty or obligation • Susceptible to the problem of moral luck William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Rule Utilitarianism • We should adopt those rules that will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness • Pros • The evaluation is simpler than act utilitarianism • Not every moral decisions requires analysis • Solves the problem of moral luck William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Rule Utilitarianism • Cons • Uses a single scale to evaluate different types of consequences • Ignores unjust distribution of good consequences William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • 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’ William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • 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 William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

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 William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory “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.” William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • Based on universal moral rules • Rules can be derived through a rational process • Negative rights • Positive rights • Absolute rights • Limited rights William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • 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’ William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • Pros • Framed in the language of rights • Explains actions of rational people in the absence of a common agreement • Provides clear analysis of the relationship between people and the government William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Social Contract Theory • Cons • None of use signed the social contract • Some actions can be characterized multiple ways • Does not resolve conflicting rights • May be unjust to those unable to uphold their side of the contract William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Comparing WorkableEthical Theories • Faced with a moral problem, what is the motivation for taking a particular action? • Kant, social contract – do the right thing • Utilitarian theories – do good • How do they determine if an action is ethical or unethical? • Is the focus on the individual or the group? William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Comparing WorkableEthical Theories William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Summary • Communities are for mutual benefit • Relativistic theories assume people invent morality • Subjective relativism assumes that morality is an individual creation • Cultural relativism – each society determines its own morality • Objectivism – morality already exists, we discover it William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Questions & Discussion William H. Bowers – whb108@psu.edu

Ethics for the Information Age