Balberan, Jan Maxin R. IT-ETHIC February 6, 2008
BS – IM O0A Mr. Paul Pajo
- What is ethics, and how can it be distinguished from morality?
Ethics is derived from the Greek ethos, and the term morality has its roots in the Latin mores. Both the Greek and Latin terms refer to notions of custom, habit, behavior, and character. Ethics encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.
Morality can be defined as a system of rules for guiding human conduct and principles for evaluating those rules. Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. Sometimes morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions
- What is meant by a moral system? What are some of the key differences between the “rules of conduct” and the “principles of evaluation” that comprise a moral system?
According to Bernard Gert, morality is a “system whose purpose is to prevent harm and evils.” In addition to preventing harm, a moral system aims at promoting human flourishing. Although there is some disagreement regarding the extent to which the promotion of human flourishing is required of a moral system, virtually all ethicists believes that at minimum, the fundamental purpose of a moral system is to prevent or alleviate harm and suffering.
Rules of conduct are action-guiding rules, in the form of either directives or social policies. There are two types of which, first is the rules for guiding the actions of individuals which is at the micro level. Second are the rules for establishing social policies which is at the macro level. On the other hand, principles of evaluation are evaluative standards used to justify rules of conduct. Examples include principles such as social utility and justice as fairness.
- What does Bernard Gert mean when he describes morality in terms of a “public system”? Why is the notion of “personal morality”, an oxymoron?
Gert describes a moral system as one that is both public and informal. The system is public, he claims; because everyone must know what the rules are those define it. Applying it in an analogy game, which has a goal and a corresponding set of rules? The rules are understood by all of the players, and the players use the rules to guide their behavior in legitimately achieving the goal of the game. The players can also use the rules to evaluate or judge the behavior of other players in the game. However, there is one important difference between a moral system and a game: Not everyone is required to participate in a game, but we are all obligated to participate in a moral system. Applying this to our rules, we are all follow the natural rules that everyone must know and follow. If morality is something personal, therefore, we have different rules to follow and no baseline for understanding but in this case, we de have baseline and a common grounds of understanding. Does making morality public matter and not personal.
- Why does Gert believe that morality is an “informal” system? How is a moral system both similar to, and different from, a game?
Morality is also informal because, Gert points out; a moral system has no formal authoritative judges presiding over it. Unlike games in professional sports that have rules enforced by referees in a manner that approaches a legal system, morality is less formal. A moral system is more like a game of card or like a “pickup game” in baseball or basketball. Here the players are aware of the rules, but even in the absence of a formal official or referee to enforce the game’s rules, players generally adhere to them. As mentioned on the previous number, there is one important difference between a moral system and a game: not everyone is required to participate in a game, but we are all obligated to participate in a moral system.
- Describe how the ideals of “rationality” and “impartiality” function in Gert’s moral system.
Gert’s model of a moral system includes two additional features: rationality and impartiality. A moral system is rational system in that it is based on principles of logical reason accessible to ordinary persons. Morality cannot involve special knowledge that can only be understood by privileged individuals or groups. The rules in a moral system must be available to all rational persons who, in turn, are moral agents, bound by the system of moral rules.
A moral system is impartial in the sense that the moral rules are ideally designed to apply equitably to all participants in the system. In an ideal moral system, all rational persons are willing to accept the rules of the systems, even if they do not know in advance what their particular place in that system will be. To ensure that impartiality will be built into a moral system, and that its members will be treated as fairly as possible, Gert invokes the “blindfold of justice” principle. It is in your own best interest to design a system in which everyone will be treated fairly. As an impartial observer who is also rational, you will want to ensure against the prospect of ending up in a group that is treated unfairly.
- What are values, and what are some of the key differences between moral values and non-moral values?
The term value comes from the Latin valere, which means having worth or being of worth. Values are objects of our desires or interests; examples include happiness, love, and freedom. Sometimes descriptions of morals and values suggest that morals are identical to values. Values, however, can be either moral or non-moral, and moral values need to be distinguished from the broader set of non-moral values. Consider again the roles that rationality and impartiality play in a moral system. Rationality informs us that it is in our interest to promote values consistent with our own self-interest; these values are not necessarily moral values. Once we bring in the notion of impartiality, however, we begin to take the moral point of view. When we frame the rules of conduct in a moral system, we articulate one ore more core moral values, such as autonomy, fairness, and justice. For example, the rule of conduct “treat people fairly” is derived from the moral value of impartiality. And our moral values are, in turn, derived from certain core non-moral values. Non-moral values originate from desires and typically involve rational self-interest such as survival, security, and pleasure.
- How do religion, law, and philosophy each provide different grounds for justifying a moral principle?
Considering the rationale for why stealing is morally wrong:
“Stealing is wrong because it offends God or because it violates one of God’s Ten Commandments.”
Here the “moral wrongness” in the act of stealing is grounded in religion; stealing in the Judeo-Christian tradition is explicitly forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments. From the point of view of these particular institutionalized religions, then stealing is wrong because it offends God or violates the commands of a divine authority. Furthermore, Christians generally believe that those who steal will be punished in the next life if they are not caught and punished for their sins in the present life. But this is not suitable for people with different religious belief or with no religious belief at all can disagree with those whose moral beliefs are grounded solely on religious convictions.
Another alternative rationale to the one proposed in the religion is:
“Stealing is wrong because it violates the law”
One advantage of using law instead of religion as the ground is that it eliminates certain kinds of disputes between religious and non-religious persons and groups. If stealing violates the law of a particular jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be declared wrong independent of any religious belief or disbeliefs – Christians, Muslims, etc. and as legal enforcement of rules can be carried out independent of religious beliefs, there is a pragmatic advantage to grounding moral principles in law rather than in religion.: those breaking a civil law can be punished. However, laws are not uniform across boundaries: Laws vary from nation to nation and from state to state within a given nation.
A third way to approach the problem is to say:
“Stealing is wrong because it is wrong.”
The moral rightness or wrongness of stealing is not grounded in any external authority, theological or legal. So regardless of whether God condemns stealing or whether stealing violates existing civil laws, stealing is held to be wrong itself. In any case of both religion and law, sanctions in the form of punishments can be applied to deter individuals from stealing. In religion, punishment for immoral behavior is relegated to the afterlife. And in the law, punishment can be meted out here and now. In the case of philosophical ethics, sanctions take the form of social disapprobation or disapproval and, possibly, social ostracism, but there is no punishment in a formal sense.
- What is the method of philosophical ethics, and what is a “philosophical study”? How is a philosophical study used in an analysis of moral issues?
This is a study of ethical issues using the philosophical way. Philosophical study is essentially a type of scientific study. Philosophical studies and scientific studies are similar in that they both require that a consistent methodological scheme be used to verify hypotheses and theories, and these verification schemes must satisfy criteria of rationality and impartiality.
- How does a philosophical study differ from a descriptive study? Why are sociological and anthological studies of morality usually descriptive rather than normative in nature?
Philosophical studies differ from scientific studies in the following way: whereas scientists typically conduct experiments in a laboratory to test ethical theories and claims. Instead philosophers confirm or reject the plausibility of a certain claim or thesis by testing it against the rules of logical argumentation; these rules are both rational and impartial. Another important feature that distinguishes a philosophical study of morality from other kinds of normative investigation into morality is the use of ethical theory in the analysis and deliberation of the issues. Descriptive is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act while normative is concerned with classifying actions as right and wrong. Normative ethics attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action. It deals with what people should believe to be right and wrong, as distinct from descriptive ethics, which deals with what people do believe to be right and wrong. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes said to be prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Theories are based on their observations and these observations are expressed through description and rarely a normative because normative is something that you prescribe to do.
- Summarize the four different kinds of “discussion stoppers” in ethical discourse that we examined.
Discussion Stopper #1: People Disagree on Solutions to Moral Issues
Because different people often have different beliefs as to the correct answer to many moral questions, some infer that there is no hope of reaching any kind of agreement on answers to any moral question. And from this interference, some conclude that any meaningful discourse about morality is impossible. Three crucial points that people who draw these and similar interferences about morality fail to recognize, however, as a follows:
· Experts in other fields of study, such as science and mathematics, also disagree as to the correct answers to certain questions.
· There is common agreement as to answers to some moral questions.
· People do not always distinguish between disagreements about general principles and disagreements about factual matters are disputes involving morality.
“Discussion Stopper #2: Who am I to Judge Others?”
People are often uncomfortable with the prospect of having to evaluate the moral beliefs and practices of others. We generally feel that it is appropriate to describe the different moral beliefs that others have but that it is inappropriate to make judgments about the moral beliefs held by others. This assumption is problematic on two levels: first, as a matter of descriptive fact, we constantly judge others in the sense that we make certain evaluations about them. Second, from a normative perspective, in a certain case we should make judgments about the beliefs and actions of others. Some arguments for this stopper are the following:
· Persons making judgments versus persons being judgmental
· Judgments involving condemnations versus judgments involving evaluations
· Are we ever required to make judgments about others?
“Discussion Stopper #3: Morality is Simply a Private Matter”
Private morality is essentially an oxymoron, or contradictory notion. For one thing, morality is a public phenomenon. We saw that a moral system includes a set of public rules that apply to all of the members of that system. Thus, morality cannot be reduced to something that is simply private or personal.
You can probably see the dangerous implications for a system in which moral rules and standards are reducible to personal preferences and personal beliefs. The view that morality is private and personal can quickly lead to a position that some ethicists describe as moral subjectivism. According to this position, what is morally right or wrong can be determined by individuals themselves, so that morality would seem to be in the “eye of the beholder”. Moral subjectivism makes pointless any attempt to engage in meaningful ethical dialogue.
“Discussion Stopper #4: Morality is Simply a Matter of Individual Cultures to Decide”
A moral system is on dependent on, or relative to, a particular culture or group. Again, this view might initially seem quite reasonable; it is position that many social scientists have found attractive. But this is another fraud that we must take note. To understand, we must know terms such as cultural relativism and moral relativism. Cultural relativism is the belief that morality is simply a matter for individual cultures to decide is widespread in our contemporary popular culture. It is based in the following assumptions:
· Different cultures have different beliefs about what constitutes morally right and wrong behavior.
· It is wrong to make judgments about the moral behavior of people in cultures other than one’s own.
Cultural relativism is essentially a descriptive thesis. Moral relativism, in contrast, is a normative thesis because it asserts that one should not make moral judgments about the behavior of people who lives in cultures other than one’s own.
- Why are these discussion stoppers problematic for the advancement of dialogue and debate about ethical issues?
This simplistic and non reflective questions those we a likely hears in discussions involving moral issues. These are called “discussion stoppers” because often these close down prematurely what otherwise might be a useful discussion. It is hard to deal with these stoppers for this ends the whole conversation when you can to this point. You can either go on a loop or take another road that is far from the original topic. We should know how to answer these stoppers in order to move the discussion forward.
- What is moral relativism? How is it different from cultural relativism?
Moral relativism is a normative thesis because it asserts that one should not make moral judgments about the behavior of people who lives in cultures other than one’s own. On the other hand, it is through culture that initial beliefs involving morality are transmitted to an individual. In this sense, cultures provide their members with conventional morality, where one’s moral beliefs are typically non-reflective. The belief that morality is simply a matter for individual cultures to decide is widespread in our contemporary popular culture. This view is often referred to as cultural relativism. It is essentially descriptive in nature because it makes no normative judgment about the behavior and belief systems of cultures.
- What is ethical theory, and what important functions do ethical theories play in the analysis of moral issues?
Ethical theories are the foundations of ethical analysis because they are the viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to a decision. Each theory emphasizes different points such as predicting the outcome and following one's duties to others in order to reach an ethically correct decision. However, in order for an ethical theory to be useful, the theory must be directed towards a common set of goals.
We are fortunate to have a variety of ethical theories that provide a substantial framework when trying to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when trying to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.
- What are the distinguishing features of consequence-based ethical theories?
A consequence-based approach to ethics gives priority to the value we attach to the results of actions. It emphasizes that the effects of our actions on us and others tend to play an overriding role in ethical decision-making. It claims that we should assess the probable good and bad effects of the different options open to us in a situation and use these assessments as the basis for deciding what should or should not be done. Essentially, utilitarian draw on two principles in defending their theory:
- The principle of social utility – actions and ought are to be measured in terms of their social usefulness.
- The belief that social utility can be measured by the amount of happiness produced.
- Describe some of the main differences features between act utilitarianism and rule of utilitarianism.
According to act-utilitarianism, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that counts when determining whether the act is right. One objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory, if only the value of the particular consequences of the particular act is great enough. Another objection is that act-utilitarianism seems better in theory than in practice, since we hardly ever have the time and the knowledge to predict the consequences of an act, assess their value, and make comparisons with possible alternative acts.
Instead of looking at the consequences of a particular act, rule-utilitarianism determines the rightness of an act by a different method. First, the best rule of conduct is found. This is done by finding the value of the consequences of following a particular rule. The rule the following of which has the best overall consequences is the best rule. One problem with rule-utilitarianism is this: it invites us to consider the consequences of the general following of a particular rule. Suppose the consequences of the general following of rule R are optimal. We can say that rule R is the best rule, and that everyone ought to follow that rule. But how ought one to act if people are not generally likely to follow that rule? To illustrate: suppose that for every country, the best traffic rule is to keep to the right. According to rule-utilitarianism, I ought to keep to the right. Suppose I am in Britain and know that people will generally keep to the left...Ought I really to keep to the right? Another problem is that the best rules would not be simple. The best rule for promise-keeping would be of the form: 'Always keep your promises except...'(where the list of exceptions would be very long).
- Which features distinguish duty-based ethical theories from alternative types of theories?
The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the individual's set duties.
Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of flaws. One weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual's duties. For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair.
- Describe some of the main differences between act deontology and rule deontology?
Act deontology is a theory that deontological (i.e., non-consequentialist) principles are or should be applied by individuals to each unique circumstance. Situations are seen as too idiosyncratic, in general, to be subsumable under general rules.
Rule deontology holds that in all circumstances individuals should follow a set of predetermined standards or rules, so that behavior is ethical or unethical not as a consequence of the action, but as compared to the standards themselves. An ethical judgment is therefore dependent upon some general principle, and this overall standard may be composed of a series of more particular guidelines, each specifying that individuals should behave in a certain manner in a given set of conditions.
- What is meant by the expression “contract-based” ethical theories?
From the perspective of social-contract theory, a moral system comes into being by virtue of certain contractual agreements between individuals.
Thomas Hobbes believed that the natural state of man was war and strife and that this could only be avoided through the application of rules for social living. Only a covenant kept by the rule of the sword could keep man from falling back into his natural state. This covenant is commonly known as the social contract. This concept is introduced in his classic work, Leviathan.
“Every man operates according to a natural law of self-preservation. We each naturally want what is good for ourselves, and the covenant ensures that this can only be gained by taking into account the good of others”
In the natural state, there is freedom, but this sort of day-to-day living is hardly ideal. Each person must fight for survival. Hobbes believed that it was worthwhile for humans to surrender some of their freedoms to a sovereign in return for the security afforded by the rule of law.
The main virtue of the Social Contract is that it gives humans the motivation for being moral. It is through our own self-interest that we strive to be moral.
- What features distinguish “character-based” (or “virtue-based”) ethical theories from alternative schemes of morality?
The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person's morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person's character and will be able to judge the friend. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior.
One weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person's change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him or her.
- How does James Moor’s “Just Consequentialist” theory incorporate aspects of utilitarian and deontological theories into one comprehensive framework?
Moor proposes an ethical theory for computer and information ethics that fuses deontological and consequentialist forms of analysis. His theory of just consequentialism is a reconciling project that seeks to avoid the limitations of consequentialism by considering the ‘…consequences of policies within the constraints of justice’. In doing so Moor wants to provide a coherent theoretical framework which may be applied to the practical business of framing ethically sound policies for computer and information ethics.
The principal limitation of a traditional consequentialist analysis which Moor seeks to overcome is that of standard consequentialism’s insensitivity to the claims of justice. A strictly consequentialist approach seems to leave open the possibility that we justify the oppression of a minority in the interests of the general welfare. Or alternatively consequentialism fails to recognize that ‘… there are situations where doing the morally right thing are decidedly not doing what would have the best consequences’. Moor addresses this limitation with the help of Bernard Gert’s concept of ‘moral impartiality’: ‘…If the blindfold of justice is applied to computing policies, some policies will be regarded as unjust by all rational, impartial people, some policies will be regarded as just by all rational, impartial people, and some will be in dispute. This approach is good enough to provide just constraints on consequentialism.’
At the same time Moor wishes to retain the notion that consequences count that is that ‘…the evaluation of a given policy requires the evaluation of the consequences and often the consequences of that policy compared with other the consequences of other possible policies’. Moor’s approach involves two stages. Firstly, the application of an ‘impartiality test’ and then secondly the appraisal of the various outcomes and consequences of actions and policies, weighing the good consequences and the bad consequences, of those policies surviving the impartiality test.
Bonus Question:
“Why be morally good when there is no after life to put a foundation into?”
This argument shakes up the foundation of your morality. In the big bang theory and other theories of creation, it is a big break through for science if any of these theories are proven but one major issue will arises. What about God? Does that mean that all our life, we had engulfed by fallacies. The whole concept of morality will fell. Why act morally well when there is nothing you can earn or have reward?
To keep the discussion flowing, a strong response for this argument is saying that foundation is a major reason but it is just one of the reasons behind. Doing morally good is not just about foundation, yes it is the major reason why we do good but it there are still a lot of reasons why we should and keep continue to do moral good things.
Reference:
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.