The ethical cycle Chapter 1 Responsibility 1 Responsibility

The ethical cycle Chapter 1: Responsibility 1

Responsibility • Roles & Responsibility • Passive responsibility • Active responsibility 2

Conditions passive responsibility • Wrong-doing • Causal contribution • Foreseeability • Freedom of action 3

Moral responsibility • Moral responsibility has to do with the rightness (or permissibility) of actions and/or the goodness of the effects of actions. • Whether someone did something morally wrong by – Violating a norm – Causing unacceptable damage to the welfare or well being of others 4

Moral competence • Moral sensibility • Moral analysis skills • Moral creativity • Moral judgment skills • Moral decision-making skills • Moral argumentation skills 5

Moral competence and the ethical cycle 6

Argumentation • Argument: a set of statements, of which one (the conclusion) is claimed to follow from the others (the premises). P 1: If it rains, the streets become wet. P 2: It rains C: The streets become wet. • Modus Ponens If p, then q p So, q 7

Possibilities to challenge a conclusion All premises true are Some false premises are The argument is Conclusion cannot be Conclusion valid challenged can be The argument is Conclusion can be Conclusion invalid challenged can be 8

Deductive and non-deductive Deductive • Valid arguments are of a deductive nature, i. e. the conclusion is enclosed in the premises: the result, the conclusion, says no more and is not logically stronger than the totality of premises that the argument is based on. Non-deductive • The conclusion is logically stronger than the premises. In other words, the premises – if true – give a limited amount of support to the conclusion. • Plausibility principle 9

Inductive argumentation • Argumentation from the particular to the general • Limited number of experiments • Critical questions 1. Were the experiments carried out relevant for the conclusion? 2. Were sufficient experiments carried out to support the conclusion? 3. Are there no counterexamples? • Rash generalization 10

Argumentation by analogy • We try to reach a moral assessment of an unknown or new situation by basing that assessment on a situation in which the moral assessment is clear and the comparison is sufficient. Formal description – Situation q is comparable with situation p (premise of analogy). – If situation p occurs then r applies. – So, if situation q occurs then r applies. Critical questions 1. Are the two situations comparable? • Are there important relevant similarities? • Are there no important relevant differences? 2. Is what is asserted about the example situation true? In other words, is it true that ‘if situation p occurs then r applies’? • False analogy 11

Fallacies • Attack on the person • Confusion of law and ethics • Straw person • Wishful thinking • Naturalistic fallacy • Ambiguity 12

The ethical cycle Chapter 2: Codes of Conduct 13

Codes of conduct • Aspirational code • Advisory code • Disciplinary code 14

Professional codes • Professional codes are guidelines for the exercising of a profession that are formulated by a professional society. Domains • Integrity and competent professional practice • Obligations towards clients and employers • Social responsibility and obligations towards the public 15

Corporate codes Main elements • Mission statement • Core values • Responsibility for stakeholders • Norms and rules • Do corporations have a social responsibility? 16

Limitations of codes of ethics • Codes of ethics and self-interest • Vagueness and potential contradictions • Can ethics be codified? • Can codes of ethics be lived by? • Enforcement 17

Whistleblowing – confidentiality duties • Freedom of speech • Legal requirements to make public certain information • Professional duty • It is in the public’s interest 18

The ethical cycle Chapter 3. Normative ethics 19

Ethics and morality • Morality is the totality of opinions, decisions, and actions with which people express what they think is good or right. • Ethics is the systematic reflection on what is moral. • Descriptive ethics • Normative ethics 20

Points of departure • Values • Norms • Virtues 21

Values • Values help us determine which goals or states of affairs are worth striving for. • Moral values are related to a good life and a just society. • Intrinsic values • Instrumental values 22

Norms • Norms are rules that prescribe what concrete actions are required, permitted or forbidden. • Moral norms are indications for responsible action. 23

Values and norms Values Norms Ends Means Global Specific Hard to achieve without norms Ineffective without values 24

Virtues • Certain type of human characteristic or qualities that has the following five features: 1. They are desired characteristics and they express a value that is worth striving for. 2. They are expressed in action. 3. They are lasting and permanent – they form a lasting structural foundation for action. 4. They are always present, but are only used when necessary. 5. They can be influenced by the individual. • Intellectual virtues • Moral virtues 25

Normative relativism • Normative relativism argues that all moral points of view – all values, norms and virtues – are relative. Problems • There are no universal norms – yes they use one • Any meaningful moral discussion is totally impossible • Can lead to unworkable or intolerable situations 26

Absolutism • A rigid form of universalism • Universalism states that there is a system of norms and values that is universally applicable to everyone, independent of time, place or culture. Problems • Does the norm prescribe what is best in all situations? • What to do in case of conflicting norms? • No room for independent moral judgment 27

Ethical theories Theory Points of departure Actor Action Consequences Virtue ethics Deontology Utilitarianism Virtues Norms Values 28

Utilitarianism / cosequentialism • The consequences of actions are central to the moral judgment of those actions. • An action in itself is not right or wrong; it is only the consequence of action that is morally relevant. • It measures the consequences of actions against one value: human pleasure, happiness or welfare 29

Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) • Utility principle: the greatest happiness of the greatest number (of the members of the community). • We can calculate the expected pleasure or pain and can even indicate quite accurately how much will be produced by a given action. • An action is morally right if it results in pleasure, and it is morally wrong is it gives rise to pain. Problems • Pleasure is a subjective term • Comparing actions is not easy • How much pleasure does an act gives us? And how much pain? 30

John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873) • Differs froms Bentham: – Qualities must be taken into account – We must choose the action that provides the most pleasure but does not conflict with human nature and dignity • Freedom principle: everyone is free to strive for his/her own pleasure, as long as they do not deny or hinder the pleasure of others 31

Criticism of utilitarianism • Happiness cannot be measured objectively • Utilitarianism can lead to exploitation • Consequences are often unpredictable, unknown, or uncertain • Distributive justice • Ingorance of personal relationships • Some actions that maximize pleasure are still morally unacceptable 32

Arguments in an utilitarian plea (1) Means-end argumentation • If you wish to achieve end x, then you must carry out action y. Formal – x (the end) – carrying out action y (the means) realizes the end x (means-end premise) – So: do y Critical questions 1. Does action y indeed realize end x? 2. Can action y be carried out? 3. Does execution of action y lead to unacceptable side effects? 4. Are there no other (better) actions to achieve x? 5. Is the end acceptable? 33

Arguments in an utilitarian plea (2) Causality argumentation • In this argumentation, use is made of the fact that a certain expected consequence can be derived from a certain situation or action. Formal description – p – ‘p causes q’ or ‘p has q as a consequence’ (the causality premise) – So: q Critical questions 1. Will the given situation or action indeed lead to the expected consequence? 2. Have no issues been forgotten, for example, with respect to the expected consequence? 3. How do you Fallacies • Post hoc propter hoc (afterwards so therefore) • Slippery slope 34

Duty ethics / deontological ethics • An action is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule (law, norm, or principle) that is applicable in itself, independent of the consequences of that action. • Monistic duty ethics versus pluralistic ethics • Foundation of the origin of the moral rules 35

Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) • Autonomy: man himself should be able to determine what is morally correct through reasoning • Duty • Categorical imperative: – Universality principle – Respect principle 36

Universality principle • “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. ” 37

• Question: Is ‘I will not keep my promise’ (not-A) morally acceptable? Foe example if you are in need of money. • Structure: the maxim ‘if I am in need of money, I may break my promise’ leads to a contradiction as soon as a general law is made of it • General law: ‘anybody may break his/her promises if he/she is in need of money’ (A). • Result 1: From this general law we can derive that it makes sense to break my promise (p), because then I will get out of my money problems. • Result 2: We can derive it makes no sense to break my promise (not-p), because nobody will value his/her promises any more. Promises no longer make sense, because everybody is allowed to break their promises. • Conclusion: From the contradiction that it both makes sense and no sense to break a promise, we can deduce ‘not-A’: you cannot make a general law of ‘if I am in need of money, I may break my promise’. Thus, (A) one must keep one’s promises. 38

Respect principle • “Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as means only. ” 39

Criticism of Kantian theory • Do all laws derived from the principles form an umbiguous and consistent system of norms? • What about actions with very negative consequences? 40

Virtue ethics: Aristotle (384 -322 BC) • People’s characters can be shaped by proper nurture and education, and by following good examples. • Developing good character traits, both intellectual and personal character traits, is essential. • Eudaimonia • Equilibrium • An action is morally acceptable if and only if that action is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. 41

Argumentation in virtue-ethical reasoning Characteristic-judgement argumentation • If someone or something X displays certain characteristics s 1, s 2, . . . , sn, then judgement A is justified for that person or thing. Formal: – X has the characteristics s 1, s 2, . . . , sn – characteristics s 1, s 2, . . . , sn are typical of A (characteristic-judgement premise) – So: A applies to X Asessment questions: 1. Do the characteristics mentioned justify judgement A? 2. Are the characteristics mentioned all typical of A? 3. Are there any other characteristics necessary for A? 4. Does X possess characteristics that justify the judgement not A? 5. Does X possess the characteristics mentioned? 42

Criticism of virtue ethics • Virtue ethics is the same as duty ethics • Intentions are hard to check • No concrete clues about how to act • Does having the right virtues always results in responsible action? • What about the consequences of an action? 43

Care ethics • By recognizing the vulnerability of the other and by placing yourself in his or her shoes to understand his or her emotions, you can learn what is good or bad at that particular time. • Connectedness of people, mutual responsibility • Types of relations and the roles we play • Criticism – Vague, what entails care exactly? – No concrete indications how to act 44

The ethical cycle Chapter 4. The ethical cycle 45

The ethical cycle 46

Moral statement • There are two or more positive moral values or norms that cannot be fully realized at the same time Conditions • What is the problem • Who is the actor • What is the moral nature of the problem 47

Problem analysis • Relevant elements of the moral problem • Stakeholders and their interest • Moral values that are relevant • Relevant, uncertain and possible missing facts 48

Options for action • Black-and-white-strategy Other options for action might be • Strategy of cooperation • Whistle-blowing 49

Ethical judgment • Informal moral frameworks – Intuition – Common sense • Formal moral frameworks – Codes of conduct – Ethical theorys 50

Reflection • Criticisms on theories • Does an ethical framework provide reasons that support my intuitive opinion? If not, do I have other reasons that support my intuitive opinion? If I have other reasons are they strong enough to override the reasons within the ethical framework? If not, do I have to revise my intuitive opinion and in what way? • Does an ethical framework succeed in selecting those features of a situation that are morally relevant? Are there any other moral relevant features that are not covered? Why are these relevant and how could they be accounted for? 51

52