ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 1 Discussion
Study of Ethics
The study of ethics brings together many kinds of thinkers. Most people agree on some basics about human behavior (see Aristotle's appeals to moderation in his virtue ethics in our lesson this week as an example). But we also understand that there is no one system of ethics that is totally correct. In this session, we will be examining not only how specific philosophical systems and professional codes of ethics are created and followed, but also how we develop and act on our own "moral," personal systems of ethics. How we reveal our moral principles.
Ethics is a foundation for (but not identical to) law, which is constructed on moral principles. So let's begin there! Answer one of the following questions (or, if you begin posting later in the week, respond to your classmates' posts).
Do we need ethics if we have laws? Why or why not?
Should governments legislate ethics? Why or why not?
Is there a universal code of ethics that applies to all humans?
How does Aristotle's virtue ethics (Links to an external site.) download (Links to an external site.) mirror--or not--your ethical view?
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/philhavenpresentation-170207195157/95/ethical-decisionmaking-models-and-application-13-638.jpg?cb=1486497286
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 2 Discussion
Majority Who?
What do numbers have to do with conscience?
American writer Mark Twain warned, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
These approaches to majorities aren't news. Your parents probably warned you when you were young to follow your conscience, not the crowd.
So, the United States is a "hybrid" democratic republic. In a democracy, what is the role of a majority group in regard to any related minority group? Is it to defeat? To protect? To maintain dialogue? Something else? Why? And consider how a "representative democracy" differs from a "constitutional republic," too... (Links to an external site.)
Please do a little research to support your points. Identify a situation in American society or politics today that concerns at least one majority group and at least one minority group. How does this situation illustrate, positively or negatively, the role of a majority group in regard to any related minority group as you see it? Links are great, and remember to explain why you're choosing what you're choosing! (P.S. This does not need to be a racial or ethnic minority.)
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 3 Discussion
The Social Contract
Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of (often "unwritten"?) rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) runs the reasoning akin to a logical syllogism:
We are all self-interested,
Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,
Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
Hobbes feared a primitive “State of Nature” in which there was no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" -- in a kind of perpetual state of warfare. He demanded top-down order to quell revolt. His conception of a strong monarch ensures that control is sustained over chaos.
John Locke (1632-1704) disagreed, and countered that the state exists (Links to an external site.) to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. This is only, however, when all legal means have been exhausted. Normally, a just ruler is in power.
Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attributed this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature (remember, this was ~400 years ago). For this purpose, he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrongdoers, as in a state of nature. (Today, we may ask if any societies still exist without political jurisdiction, territorial authorities, policies of the UN, and global influences altering "nature.")
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued for waiving one's natural rights in favor of state protection, which would reconcile equality and freedom. An elected legislature of representatives backs up this trust placed in it by the people, so their "general well-being" resists "special interests." Democracy remains pure. A "civil" secular "religion" (~American patriotism + French laïcité) commands loyalty.
So, which philosopher do you support? Why? Give "real world" not "textbook" examples. Do not cut + paste secondary sources. This discussion stimulates your thoughts, original ideas.
Remember to keep your responses in the context of our social contract discussion and stay connected with the ethics of justice. Emphasize relevant and practical cases.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 4 Discussion
Week 4: Deontological Ethics
Deontology (from the Greek for "duty") is a system of ethics that uses rules (versus more flexible beliefs) to establish right and wrong. Although every system of ethics rooted in deontology may not be absolute (black or white), it's close. Immanuel Kant is our best-known Western deontological/ rules-based philosopher. He believed, for example, that lying is wrong almost 100% of the time because it violates the categorical imperative (Links to an external site.).
Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying, for any reason, is universally wrong. We have a duty to obey a rule, no matter the consequences, applying this non-optional principle. It applies across borders, species, time, space, or categories: there's no "opt-out" button. And, you must follow a rule that plays no favorites: everyone is treated the same.
Apply this to a situation more relevant than most of us anticipated until recently: how to conduct ourselves in public spaces? Does each individual get to make his or her "rule"? Or does "society" impose a "universal law" that everyone everywhere has a duty to follow? Recall that if one follows Kant, what you agree on for yourself must be equally enacted by everyone else if the tables were turned, to prevent bias and achieve fairness. (I compare this to two teams both agreeing to play by rules set in advance, without any bias to either team.)
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 5 Discussion
Utilitarianism and Care-Based Ethics
Three basic propositions in utilitarianism (aka ends-based/ Consequentialism):
Actions are judged right and wrong based solely on their consequences; that is, nothing matters but consequences, so right actions are simply those with the best consequences.
To assess consequences, we need to consider only degrees of happiness.
In calculating happiness and unhappiness, nobody's happiness counts any more than anybody else's; that is, everybody's welfare is equally important, and the majority rules.
In specific cases wherein justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration of justice. In short, utilitarianism's critics say that it may favor short-term gains for expediency over long-term, truly lasting and effective, "good."
Care-based ethics is, in a sense, the opposite of utilitarian ethics. Care-based ethics focuses on interpersonal motives and mutually supportive relationships more than it does on outcomes. Compromise is key, and consensus that all can agree on.
Here is a choice. It illuminates the value of and the issues surrounding utilitarianism.
It's very relevant that the "founder" of economics, Jeremy Bentham, ca. 1800 proposed how to "calculate" greater "happiness" (long-term positive gain for all affected by a moral implementation, not only those approving it, so no selfishness) by a "cost-benefit" theory. John Stuart Mill elaborated it about 50 years later. He eliminated "God" from moral mathematics. He sought to add up pros/cons that could be weighed as possible solutions so as to estimate the ethical outcomes of a particular action before it happens~"the end justifies the means" and "greatest good for greatest number" are rough simplifications.
You're a "junior senator" (Links to an external site.) in your home state. The House has passed a bill that will make public college education free for any American who wants one. It is now up to the Senate to sign it into law. You're also an entrepreneur, and like most American grads, you paid for your own education with loans. It took you almost 20 years to pay yours back. Your home state is split 50/50 for and against this bill. Arguments for benefits of a debt-free education include strengthening of consumer power (less debt) and a more educated workforce and populace. Current student loan debt=$1.5-1.8 trillion. Arguments against include that almost all college students have paid for their own educations (or earned them via the G.I. Bill) and that individuals and businesses will pay more taxes. Current Federal debt=$28 trillion, growing at $45,586 per second (Links to an external site.) download. As a senator, cite research (see 13 websites in my first post) to crunch data (e.g., the potential number of students who will benefit, potential dollars in tax burden for individuals and businesses, and the potential number of ex-students who've paid off or are paying off their student loan debt; may debt forgiveness--up to $10k perhaps--be an option?) Do not rely on emotion or opinion, only logic and fact--if you follow utilitarianism. If care-based, "feelings" apply.
Majority rules: so you must be careful, as a utilitarian, not to abuse that power: You are looking out for the most happiness -- as beneficial, sustained, measurable, long-term, practical gain in true "good"-- for the most people, regardless of any personal, partisan, or procedural beliefs.
How would you as a utilitarian senator vote on this dilemma? Why?
How would another senator using care-based ethics vote on it? Why?
In the broader view, what do your own reactions to this dilemma as a senator/ entrepreneur and as the actual "you" show you about the human mind and how it processes "by the numbers," and by care/empathy
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 6 Discussion
Working Conflict Resolution Methods
This week, we are discussing conflict resolution in the context of ethics. We've all met with conflict at home, at work, with friends, or in public. The way we take on conflict can tell us a lot about our ethics. For our discussion this week, please do the following.
Investigate a conflict (political, economic, family, workplace, school, military, ideological, ethnic, religious, social?) you've heard about in the media lately. (Neither BLM nor Jan. 6th, as these have been discussed in detail previously.) Explain it briefly and provide a link/source. (My first post offers "raw material.")
Apply one of the conflict resolution methods from our lesson (Laura Nash, Front Page of the Newspaper, Blanchard and Peale, or egoism/ Ayn Rand's Objectivism) to this conflict. You might do some role-playing, perhaps becoming one of the parties involved. How would your chosen method solve this conflict? Who are the major actors in this conflict, and what steps or processes would they need to follow in this method, to what result? As this week progresses, we will expand this discussion, looking at conflict resolution in our own lives and comparing methods based on possible strengths and weaknesses. Check out the excellent pro/con controversies at Britannica (Links to an external site.). Let's share ideas!
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 7 Discussion
Personal and Business Ethics
This week we look at codes of ethics and career applications. Let's try on professional roles as we work on this scenario, adapted from this case.
Auto Autos
"Self-driving cars are being tested, and the results look good. For a few years now, auto manufacturers have been developing a variety of crash-prevention features for new cars, such as forward-collision warning systems (which alert the driver and even brake the car when it gets too close to the car in front), blind-spot monitoring systems, and lane-departure warnings. Such technologies most likely will be integrated into fully automated cars when they are developed.
Since a vast majority of current accidents are caused by human errors, many advantages will probably accrue as more and more cars become self-driving. Traffic congestion should also be eased as the new cars will not hesitate or become confused, they will maintain a steady and safe speed, and they will select alternate routes to avoid heavy traffic, accidents, or construction.
Some issues remain murky, however. If a self-driving car does get into an accident, who is liable, the driver or the automaker? Arguably, the driver may still be at fault were he or she to fail to override the car’s actions manually when possible. The manufacturer could also be in an especially vulnerable position if a death were found to be caused by a decision programmed into the car. If a car, for example, swerves to avoid hitting another car and hits a pedestrian instead, the car will have done so because it was programmed to save the driver’s life at the expense of a pedestrian’s.
Besides legal dilemmas, there are knotty ethical ones as well. Were every car on the road to drive itself, there would still be hazards caused by cyclists, pedestrians, pets, road conditions, and obstructions. Such hazards call for value-based decisions and someone has the task of selecting those values that will determine the car’s actions. Obviously, if a car cannot brake in time to avoid hitting either a person or a dog, the car will hit whichever one it has been programmed to hit. As cars are programmed to be better able to identify and categorize objects around them, more nuanced action alternatives may be available. If killing one or another person is unavoidable, should both persons be rated identically, or should children be favored over adults? Those in their "prime" or the elderly? Women over men? People in suits over people in jeans? Disabled over able-bodied? Obese rather than agile? People in the car’s address book over all others? Kittens over pitbulls? The car itself over every non-human?"
download
https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/the-ethics-and-morals-of-self-driving-cars
Our class is a team of lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:
A-G: Attorney
H-N: Project Manager
O-S: Engineer
T-Z: Congressional Aide
Join the team corresponding to your surname. Now to the task at hand:
Utilizing your profession's code of ethics (if applicable), principles you've studied this term, and/ or compliance standards, what would be your first step? Who would you talk to first? Would you go to the press? Would you go to your boss? Should you do anything at all?
Find out your alphabetical group before answering this initial query. Stick together to respond to other team members accordingly, so we all can cover the four roles collectively.
ETHC445 Principles of Ethics
Week 8 Discussion
Guess what? It's Week 8 of our session. Thank you for applying strong critical thinking to human beliefs and behavior, including your own, during our time here together studying ethics!
What concepts from this course will you use most often in your future studies and career? Why?
Is there anything from this course that you plan to investigate further—a philosopher, a burning question, something from your own research or experience that influences or is influenced by ethics? What do you think you'll find?
20th-century British philosopher Bertrand Russell (yes, there's always another philosopher to meet) has the final word before yours this session:
"Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself."
