Organizing Ethical Principles

Organizing Ethical Principles Ethical Theories

Analysis Tools • Line Drawing - good when we can define reliable paradigms between right and wrong • Creative Middle Way - good when we are trying to analysis conflicting obligations • Ethical Theories - used when things that were once accepted practices are now under criticism; when common morality changes

Ethical Theories • Support what is defensible in common morality, yet also serve as a critical check on aspects that might need refinement • Can be useful in analyzing moral problems and resolving conflicts • Two theories particularly relevant to engineering: • Utilitarian - maximizing good consequences, minimizing bad consequences • Respect for persons - win-win for everyone involved

Example Engineer David Parkinson is a member of the Madison County Solid Waste Management Planning Committee (SWMPC), because state law requires that at least one committee member be a solid-waste expert (David’s specialty). SWMPC has proposed a specific plot of land in a sparsely populated area of the county as the site for a needed public landfill. However, the plot sits next to a large tract of land that a small group of wealthy residents wish to purchase in order to develop a private golf course surrounded by luxurious homes.

Example This small group, known informally as the Fairway Coalition, is highly organized, well funded, and well connected. The group has bombarded the local media with expensive ads in its public campaign against the proposed landfill site, advocating instead a site that borders on one of the least affluent areas of Madison City. These residents, though more numerous than the Fairway Coalition, lack the political organization and financial means to mount significant opposition to the proposed switch.

Example SWMPC is now meeting to discuss the respective merits of the two landfill sites. Members of the committee turn to David for his views on the controversy. What basic ethical considerations should he take into account?

Example Utilitarian: Locating the landfill in the more heavily populated area will benefit a relatively small number of wealthy people at the expense of risking the health and well-being of a much larger number of people. Equal Respect for Persons: Favoring the urban site over the rural site would be unfair because it would fail to respect the rights of the poor to a reasonably healthy environment while providing even more privilege to a wealthy minority.

Example In this case, both the utilitarian and the respect for persons considerations seem to lead in the same direction: The original site seems to be the best choice! Not all cases where these two theories are applied will converge like this; when they diverge, we must come to some agreement with a number of test for the rightness of actions. Two concepts (definitions) can help: Universalizability and Reversibility

Ethical Theories - Concepts Universalizability - Whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation • What if everyone did that? • Why should you make an exception for _____? Reversibility - Role reversal: something would be right (or wrong) from all points of view • How would I feel if someone did this to me?

Utilitarian Thinking • Bringing about the greatest total amount of good that we can • Those individual actions or rules that produce the greatest total amount of utility to those affected are right • The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few (ST fans!)

Utilitarian Thinking Preference Utilitarianism - Promoting the general conditions that allow each individual to pursue happiness as he or she conceives it Two conditions necessary to pursue happiness: Freedom: making unforced choices Well-being: the conditions necessary to make effective use of freedoms

Utilitarian Thinking Difficulties: Several… Look at three It can be difficult to come up with a directive for action - consequences of actions may not be known or are difficult to determine It can be difficult to determine the scope of the audience to be affected It can be used to justify perpetuating injustice on individuals

Utilitarian Approaches • Cost-Benefit Approach - attempts to apply the utilitarian standard in a quantifiable way • Act Utilitarian Approach - Will this course of action produce more good than any alternative course of action? • Rule Utilitarian Approach - Would utility be maximized if everyone did the same thing in the same circumstances?

Cost-Benefit Approach • Assess the available options • Assess the costs (measured in monetary terms) and the benefits (also measured in monetary terms) of each option. Must be assessed for all affected by the decision. • Make the decision that is likely to result in the greatest benefit relative to cost

Cost-Benefit Approach Difficulties: Assumes economic measures of costs and benefits override all other considerations Sometimes difficult to ascertain the costs and benefits of the many factors that should be considered Does not take into account the distribution of costs and benefits May be used to justify practices that many believe are morally wrong

Act Utilitarian Approach • Enumerate the available options open • Determine the appropriate audience for the options (be careful - may be difficult) • Must be willing to approve of a similar course of action in similar circumstances • Decide which available option is likely to bring about the greatest good for the appropriate audience

Rule Utilitarian Approach Promoting rules that are justified by their utility; justifying one’s actions by appealing to relevant rules or practices Rule 1: It is right to take the course of action Rule 2: It is not right to take the course of action

Respect for Persons Those actions or rules are right that accord equal respect to each person as a moral agent. Protects the moral agency of individuals - maximizing the welfare of he majority does not justify taking away freedoms of a few Difficulties: Can be hard to apply Hard to balance utility versus individual freedoms

Respect for Persons Approaches • Golden Rule: Treat everyone equally as a moral agent • Self-Defeating Criterion: If everyone else did what I am doing, would this undermine my own ability to do the same thing? • Rights: An individual should not be deprived of certain things if this deprivation interferes seriously with one’s moral agency

Golden Rule Approach “Treat others as you would like to be treated” • Analyze the situation to determine the alternative actions available • Determine the consequences of the alternative actions • Place self in the position of those who would be affected by these consequences and ask myself if I would be willing to accept them

Golden Rule Approach Problems: • Those that result from exclusive attention to what the agent is willing to accept • Those that result from exclusive attention to what the recipient is willing to accept

Self-Defeating Criterion Approach • Analyze the situation and determine the options • Determine the consequences of the actions • Determine whether the options, if universally adopted, are self-defeating. If they are, the action is wrong

Self-Defeating Criterion Approach Two ways to be self-defeating: The action itself can not be performed if it universalized The purpose of the action can be undermined if everyone does it Limitations: Some unethical actions can avoid being morally self-defeating

Rights Approach • Identify the basic obligations, values, and interests at stake, noting conflicts • Analyze the action to determine what options are available and what rights are at stake • Determine the audience (whose rights would be affected) • Evaluate the seriousness of the rights infringements that would occur, maintaining a tier level of rights and the number of violations involved • Choose the principle or course of action that produces the least serious rights infringements

Rights Approach Problems: Conflicting rights Prioritizing rights - creating a tier level of rights Basic rights - Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness Maintenance - maintain what has been achieved Increase - opportunities to increase one’s level

Rights Example Karen is a junior engineer at a big oil company. She has been working under Andy’s supervision for the past three years. Karen knows Andy is a good manager, but she has noticed that he frequently has liquor on his breath at work and that sometimes his speech is slurred. One day Karen learns that Andy is about to be offered a new and better-paying position. She is happy for Andy until she learns that his new job will be chief safety inspector for all the oil rigs that the company owns in the region.

Rights Example Karen worries that Andy’s drinking will interfere with his work as a safety inspector much more seriously than it interferes with his present job. She tells Andy that she is worried that his drinking might cause serious problems in the new position, and she urges him not to accept the job. Andy agrees that he will have to cut back on his drinking, but he tries to assure Karen that he has things under control. He says that he is going to take the job, and he asks Karen not to tell anyone about his drinking. Should Karen take her concerns to higher management?

Rights Example Dilemma: Should Karen report Andy’s drinking problem to higher management? Codes: Public safety and welfare is paramount An engineer is honest and truthful An engineer is a faithful agent for an employer

Rights Example • Conflicting obligations, values, and interests include worker safety, loyalty to the employer and fellow employees, Andy’s career and loyalty to Andy • Options: Inform management, not inform management • Audience: Karen, Andy, employees of the company, employer

Rights Example • If Karen informs management, then the rights that are violated are Andy’s right to free action, his right to try to advance his career, his right to privacy, and perhaps his right to self-respect. If she does not inform management, the the employees who operate the oil rigs may have their right to life or bodily integrity violated or seriously infringed.

Rights Example • Assuming that Andy really does have a drinking problem that might interfere with his job performance, it seems that Karen’s not informing management would result in the most serious rights violations or infringements. The employees’ first tier rights are at stake. Andy’s rights are also first tier, but his life and physical well-being are not jeopardized. It seems Karen is morally justified, if not obligated, to inform management. Do you agree?

Conflicts Sometimes utilitarian and respect for persons standards lead to the same conclusions. Sometimes they do not, and a resolution must still be found. A creative middle way can sometimes be found that satisfies most, if not all, those affected.

Conflicts • When violation of individual rights is minimal, utilitarian considerations may prevail • It may be useful to apply line-drawing or creative middle way techniques • When violation of individual rights is serious, respect for persons make take on greater weight, and prevail over utilitarian considerations

Summary Two additional approaches for solving moral problems have been presented: Utilitarian: Determine the action that results in the greatest utility for the majority Respect for persons: Actions accord equal respect for each person as a moral agent One or both approaches can be applied to come to a resolution

Organizing Ethical Principles