ETHICS
Thinking Ethically
A framework for moral decision making
'S
Developed by Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Thomas Shanks, S. J., and Meyer, M. J. (1996) Issues in Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
2-4.
Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in decisions made every
day, nag us from the sport's field, and bid us farewell on the evening news. We are
bombarded daily with questions about the morality of surrogate motherhood, the justice of
foreign policy, the morality of technologies that prolong life, the legitimacy of publicizing
the names of AIDS victims, the ethics of exposing the private lives of political candidates,
the justice of welfare and the rights of the homeless.
Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, do we think through an
ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?
The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: get all the facts.
Some moral issues create controversies simply because people do not bother to check out
the facts. This first step of analysis, although obvious, is among the most important one
and the one that is most frequently overlooked.
But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell
us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires
an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to value systems
to deal with moral issues. One such system is called:
The utilitarian approach
Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill
suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.
To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we must first identify the various courses
of action available to us. Second, we must ask who will be affected by each action and what
benefits or harm will be derived from each action. And third, we choose the course of action
that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that
provides "the greatest good for the greatest number."
The rights approach
The second important approach to ethics is one that has its roots in the philosophy of the
18th century thinker, Immanuel Kant, and others like him, who focused on the individual's
right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human
beings different from mere things is that people have a dignity based on their ability to freely
choose what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental
right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a
violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.
There are, of course, many different but related rights besides this basic one. These other
rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to
be treated as we freely choose to be treated:
•The right to the truth: People have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about
matters that affect their choices in significant ways.
•The right of privacy: People have the right to do, believe, and say whatever they
choose in their personal lives, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.
•The right not to be injured: Individuals have the right not to be unwillingly harmed or
injured, unless they freely and knowingly did something deserving of punishment or they
freely and knowingly chose to risk such injuries.
•The right to what is agreed: People have a right to what they have been promised by those
who freely chose to enter a contract or agreement with them.
In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must
ask: "Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone?" Actions are wrong to the extent
that they violate the rights of individuals, and the more serious the violation, the more
wrongful the action.
The fairness or justice approach
A third approach to ethic is one that focuses on the concepts of justice and fairness. It has its
roots in the saying of the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who wrote that "equals should
be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: how
fair is an action? Does it treat everyone the same, or does it show favoritism or
discrimination?
Justice requires that we treat people in ways that are consistent, and not arbitrary. Basically,
this means that actions are ethical only if they treat people the same, except when there are
justifiable reasons for treating them differently. Favoritism is giving benefits to some people
without a justifiable reason for singling them out, while discrimination is imposing burdens
on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism
and discrimination are unjust and wrong.
The Common-Good Approach
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is
inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the
shared pursuit of common values and goals.
The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of
Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the
common good as "certain general conditions that are... equally to everyone's advantage."
In this approach, people focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems,
institutions, and environments on which they depend are beneficial to all. Examples of
goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among
nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.
Appeals to the common good urge individuals to view themselves as members of the same
community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society they want to
become and how they are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom
of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges
individuals also to recognize and further those goals they share in common.
The Virtue Approach
The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which individuals
should strive, which provide for the full development of their humanity. These ideals are
discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people they have the potential to
become.
Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable individuals to be and to act in ways that
develop their highest potential. They enable people to pursue the ideals they have adopted.
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and
prudence are all examples of virtues.
Virtues are like habits; that are, once acquired; they become characteristic of a person.
Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways
consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.
In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, one might ask, What kind of
person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my
community?
Ethical problem solving
These five approaches suggest that once the facts have been ascertained, there are five
questions one should ask when trying to resolve a moral issue:
(1) What benefits and what harms will each course of action
produce, and which will produce the greatest benefits or
the least harm for the public as a whole?
(2) What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which
course of action best respects these moral rights?
(3) Which course of action treats everyone the same except
where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does
show favoritism or discrimination?
(4) Which course of action advances the common good?
(5) Which course of action develops moral virtues?
This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is
not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important factors
that should be considered when thinking about a moral issue, and the questions that are
important to ask. In some situations, these approaches may conflict. The course of action
that will produce the most benefits for everyone may also violate the rights of some or
may be unjust to some, or perhaps several conflicting rights are involved. What should
be done in such cases? When conflicts like these arise, individuals must weigh the
various moral values identified by each of these approaches and make up their own
minds about which values are decisive. Are the overall benefits so large that limiting the
rights of some is justified? Does a commitment to justice require people to forego the
greatest good for the greatest number? Is this right or that one the more significant one?
In the end, moral issues are issues that each person must decide for herself or himself,
keeping a careful eye on the facts, and on the benefits, the ethical considerations
involved.
For further reading
Ashmore, R. B. (1987). BuildingA Moral System, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics, 2nd edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halberstram, J. (1993). Everyday ethics: inspired solutions to real life dilemmas, New York:
Penguin Books.
Martin, M. (1995). Everyday morality, Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Rachels.
J. (1993). The elements of moral philosophy, 2"d edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
Regan, T. (Ed.) (1980). Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral
Philosophy, New York: Random House.
Velasquez, M. & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and Practice, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
An American Story
Brandishing a meat cleaver, Trisha Marshall burst in the apartment of a disable man in
his early sixties. She demanded money but the man, both of whose legs had been
amputated, had been robbed before. Now he was prepared. He pulled out a gun and shot
Marshall in the head. Then he called the police.
This incident took place on the night of 19 April 1993, in North Oakland, across the bay
from San Francisco. Two days later, Marshall, now in the intensive care unit at Highland
General Hospital, was declared brain dead. She was twenty-eight years old, and the
mother of four children, all of them being cared for by other people. Berkeley police said
that she was under investigation for several other robberies. She had cocaine and alcohol
in her blood. She was also seventeen weeks pregnant.
Although Marshall’s brain was dead, a respirator maintained her breathing, her heart was
beating, her body was warm, and her bodily functions were continuing. Her parents and
her boyfriend came to the hospital. Her boyfriend said he was the father of the child. Both
he and the Marshall’s parents wanted the hospital to do everything possible to allow the
baby to be born…
Trisha Marshall’s treatment was discussed extensively by the ethics committee at
Highland’s hospital. The committee tried to establish what she would have wanted, and it
also tried to do what it thought to be in interest of the foetus. What it deliberately did not
consider were circumstances in which Marshall died, the fact that she had either not
wanted to, or had not been able to, care for existing children, and the cost of the intensive
care required. The ethics committee agreed with the doctors that Marshall’s bodily
functions should be maintained as long as possible, so that the foetus could have a chance
of developing to a stage at which it could be born.
When this decision became known, Highland General Hospital was criticised for what it
was trying to do. The critics pointed out that, like most American public hospitals in run
down urban areas, Highland hospital tries to care for the victims of crime, mental illness,
AIDS, drug addiction and malnutrition, on a budget which is simply not adequate to the
task. Maintaining Trisha Marshall’s pregnancy was estimated to cost $200, 000, with at
least and additional $200,000 needed for the care of the baby, who would be born
prematurely. Dashka Slater, a journalist who covered the story, later wrote: “Nearly every
telephone receptionist, desk clerk, cop or librarian who learned what I was working had
an opinion about the Marshall case, and that opinion could usually be summed up in one
blunt statement: ‘What a waste of money.’”
Jim and the Indians
(from A Critique of Utilitarianism in J. J. C. Smart and B. Williams, Utilitarianism
for and against, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 1973
Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against
the wall are a row of Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed
men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in
charge, and after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes he got there by
accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group
who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to
remind other possible protesters of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim
is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s
privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of
the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no
special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived and
kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders
whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the
soldiers to threat, but it is clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work:
any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself.
The men against the wall and the other villagers, understand the
situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
by Julian H. Kitching IB Coordinator SOS-Hermann Gmeiner International College Tema Ghana
I would like to share an idea for a Theory of Knowledge unit.
The so-called Prisoner's Dilemma describes the choices available to two players
within a closed system with different values ascribed to their combined decisions.
Each player will receive points according to the following scale:
Player A
Player B
X
Y
X
Y
Y
Y
X
X
Points Gained by Points Gained by
Player A
Player B
4
1
3
3
2
2
1
4
I have the students organized themselves into pairs. Then I give them the above
information and a small card one side of which is marked "X" the other "Y". The
only other information I divulge are that:
• the two players must reveal their cards simultaneously
• the more points the better
• the scores in successive games are cumulative.
Thus they are supplied with the rules of the game but not its precise object.
The almost universal assumption adopted by each player is that the object is to
defeat the other player, and accordingly there is usually a period of
experimentation in each game in which both X's and Y's are played. The next
phase is often a pattern of successive X's which results in stalemate or the
perpetuation of an already existing inequality of scores. Those individuals
adopting this strategy have, whether they are explicitly aware of it or not, made a
rational "damage limitation" decision to make the best of their inability to control
the other player's decision. This is one response. Another is to turn the game into a
dice variant by flipping the cards at random. This behaviour, though somewhat
mindless, is born of the same frustration.
After establishing the assumed object of the game, we can discuss what we mean
by "to win", and then we are in a position to alter the consensus definition from
something like "to beat an opponent" to "not to finish at the bottom of the class" or
"to finish in the top half of the class." Then we play the game again.
Often there is little change in strategy at first, with each player viewing the other
as an opponent. But a shift towards cooperation gradually emerges group by
group, as both players start to play "Y's". When we compile results it is usually
those who have not entered into this relationship of mutual trust have the lower
scores and thus have "lost" in the wider context.
I find this exercise provides a fruitful platform for discussing a number of issues.
The Dilemma is one in which separate rational choices do not yield the best
mutual result as long as both individuals are competing with each other. So
perhaps there are limitations on the applicability of the logic practically imposed
by society. The random flippers might agree. Or at least that logic leads us to
different conclusions in differently perceived situations. We can look at situations
in which cooperation is explicit (in cartels, biological mutualism) or more implicit
(agreed meanings in language, etc.), situations of strong competition (market
economics, Darwinian evolution), and those where both cooperation and
competition seem to co-exist (within firms, political parties, IB classes). There is
thus a spectrum, of which the variants of the game we played are the extremities.
This heterogeneity is equally well demonstrated with reference to everyday
decisions in students' lives.
The lesson can go in many directions from here: towards a consideration of ethical
input (moral judgment), towards the relationships of the above to selfishness and
altruism in the context of human sciences, or sociobiology and its controversial
overtones for political judgments. It depends, as usual, on the class.
An exercise on Ethics
(from Craig
Boyce)
Use skills learnt earlier: questioning evidence and authorities, evaluating
explanations, making assumptions explicit, drawing well-founded conclusions,
clarifying ethical concepts, applying principles and coming to a definite decision
on the issue.
In this exercise bring together earlier discussions and attempt to present a well-argued
case which answers a broad ethical question. This exercise could involve both group
discussion and journal writing.
1. What moral restrictions are there on the ways in which we treat animals?
2.
Is abortion morally wrong? Give a justification for your answer.
3.
In what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia morally justifiable?
4.
Can going to war, or intervening in a war, be morally justifiable?
5. What moral restrictions are there upon the ways in which wars should be
conducted?
6.
Do we have moral obligations to conserve other species?
7.
Should capital punishment be widely used? Give justification for your answer.
8.
What moral responsibilities do individuals in relatively affluent countries have
towards those in other countries who suffer famine?