ETHICS
FINALS
Origins of Virtue Ethics:
• The
theory of virtue ethics originates in
Ancient Greece, though some connections can
be drawn as far back as Ancient China.
• In Greek, virtue (arête) means ‘excellence’.
• Socrates once claimed: “it’s the greatest good
for a man to discuss virtue all day … on the
grounds that the unexamined life is not worth
living” (The Apology).
Socrates/Plato’s theory of virtue
• Virtue is supposed to be a kind of knowledge;
• It is identified with wisdom (sophia);
• Wisdom is both necessary and sufficient for
virtue;
• Knowledge
about virtue is somehow
analogous to mathematical knowledge;
• Both kinds of knowledge are the result of a
self-reflective process called ‘recollection’.
A Problem of Knowledge:
• Since virtue concerns action, it is possible to
act well without knowing how to act well;
• As long as someone has the right belief
about which actions are good, he or she will
act virtuously;
• But belief without knowledge is unstable and
fleeting;
• This is why it is necessary to have, not just
true belief, but knowledge, which is justified
true belief.
Practical Wisdom or Prudence
• With Aristotle, we distinguish the kind of
wisdom necessary for ethical action from
wisdom in the sciences.
• The wisdom necessary for action is “practical
wisdom” (phronêsis) or good moral judgment.
Aquinas calls this “prudence” (prudentia).
• Judgment applies to a range of different
situations, which is why it requires experience
to acquire.
• Good judgment enables a person to make the
right sort of decision in the right kind of
circumstances at the right time.
Intellectual and Moral Virtues
• Aristotle
and Aquinas distinguish between
intellectual and moral virtues:
• Intellectual virtues can be taught formally.
They involve knowledge and understanding
of causes and ends (the why and how).
• Examples:
theoretical wisdom, scientific knowledge,
insight or understanding, technical skill or art, and
practical wisdom.
• Moral virtues can only be acquired through
practice and experience. They involve
acquiring habits of character and have to do
with the appropriate management of
emotions.
• Examples: temperance or moderation, justice, courage or
fortitude, generosity, friendliness, wittiness, truthfulness,
etc.
Virtue and Character
• To be virtuous is to have a virtuous character.
• Character is an engrained habit or disposition
to act in certain ways.
• Virtuous action must come from a virtuous
character (as opposed to some external force).
• The virtuous person wants to act virtuously
and does so for that reason.
Character continued:
• Dispositions or character traits are to be understood
broadly, so that a virtuous person is virtuous in
many different situations.
• For example, an honest person not only tells the
truth, but doesn’t cheat, respects contracts, obeys
the laws, and doesn’t misrepresent him/herself.
• And the honest person does this because he or she
prefers to be honest, not because he/she wants to
avoid some bad consequence.
• For this reason, it is unwise to attribute a virtue to
someone on the basis of one or a few actions.
Habit: how to acquire virtue
• With respect to the moral virtues, Aristotle thinks
we “learn by doing”.
• Virtue requires discipline and practice.
• Repeated virtuous actions help to engrain the
character traits or dispositions that make a person
virtuous.
• Making virtuous decisions requires good moral
judgment (reason), so there is an essential,
rational component as well.
An analogy:
• One of the easiest ways to think of how to
acquire moral character is by comparing it to
skills like the ability to play a sport or a musical
instrument.
• A person who practices hard and trains her body
acquires the skills to be able to do that skill well.
• The skilled athlete or musician is also the one
who is better able to practice, reinforcing her
skill.
• The skilled athlete or musician actually
physically changes his or her body through
repetitious actions.
• In the same way, the virtuous person finds it
easier to act virtuously; she actually changes her
physical and emotional characteristics.
Character and the Will
• Aquinas emphasizes the importance of will in his
account of the moral virtues.
• For Aquinas, even if a person has the right
characteristics and is inclined by nature to do the
right thing, that person still has a choice either to
follow commands of reason or not.
• The individual, human will is right when it
conforms to divine will.
• Divine will is the ultimate lawgiver: God ordained
right and wrong, good and bad, when God
created the world. So, failure to conform to God’s
will is to violate the natural law.
Virtue and happiness
• For Greeks (and all subsequent virtue theories),
the goal of action is the ultimate human good:
happiness (eudaimonia).
• Human happiness is to be understood as the
highest achievement of what it means to be
human, of the human essence. It is a kind of
flourishing, health, or well-being of the soul or
mind.
• While happiness seems to be subjective, the
idea of human flourishing implies an objective
notion of happiness. (Think of it on analogy with
health.)
• Virtue makes a person good, or excellent, and
so it is the means by which we acquire
happiness.
Supernatural Grace and Beatific Vision
• Aquinas recognizes Aristotle’s idea that virtue
leads to happiness, but he sees this as an
imperfect, natural, or human form of happiness.
• Complete and perfect happiness is not to be
found in this life, for Aquinas. It is the beatific
vision: complete intellectual union with the divine
(seeing God in God’s essence).
• This sort of blessed happiness is impossible as
long as our intellect is embodied and operates
through the senses (since God’s true essence is
not perceivable by the senses.)
• Additionally, human beings are unable to obtain
this perfection without the grace of God. So, this
ultimate end or purpose of humanity is
supernatural, it requires divine intervention.
Two approaches to Theological Ethics
Divine Command
&
Natural Law
Natural Law also has a secular appeal
Natural Law
• EMP (15 pages)
• The Tradition of Natural Law
(Lucas), pp. 195-198; from
“Summa Theologica (St.
Thomas Aquinas), pp.
199-202; from The Ethics of
Natural Law (Harris), pp.
203-209.
Objectives from reading:
Natural Law
Know difference between descriptive
(scientific ), prescriptive (natural and
divine), & human (civil, positive,
statue) laws
Comprehend Aquinas’ features of a
law, how natural law can be explained
in terms of moral standards and the 4
natural inclinations of human beings.
Comprehend the concept of “the
common good” vs. concept of
“greatest good for the greatest
number.”
Know & apply the Principle of
Forfeiture and the Principle of Double
Effect
Questions of the Day…
Is it Right because God
commands it?
or
Does God command it
because it is Right?
Natural Rights & Natural Law
• In
the
“Declaration
of
Independence,” Thomas Jefferson
(following the English philosopher,
John Locke) makes reference to
“self-evident” truths, among which
are certain “inalienable rights”
• Martin
Luther
King
makes
reference explicitly to “natural law”
(as well as the U. S. Constitution)
to argue that racist laws are
inherently
unjust
What is this “natural law”?
Natural Law
Two important things about natural law
theory:
(1) Natural laws are prescriptive; they tell us
how we ought to behave.
In this sense, they are unlike physical
laws aka laws of nature (e.g., gravitation),
which tell us how things do in fact behave
and are, therefore, descriptive.
“Unlike rocks, we are always at liberty to
disobey the natural laws that pertain to
us. This is how we sin.”
Natural Law
(2) Natural laws are absolute, because
the goods in which they are grounded are
incommensurable
- that is, there is no common metric that would
allow us to compare them.
Hence, there can be no ‘trade-offs’
between, say, protecting life and seeking
knowledge; or, more importantly, between
protecting this life rather than that life.
Natural Law
• Encompasses
tradition of moral and legal
philosophy reaching back to Aristotle & Roman
Stoics (Cicero)
• There is a secular and a theological version
• (the latter connect nicely to the notion of “divine
command” theory; cf. St Paul)
• Neither focuses upon “civil” law (what we normally
mean by “law”);
• instead, these traditions use “Law” in the same sense as
Kant – the “moral law”
Transition from Secular to Sacred
Solution: Common legal core, the Roman code
But of this code, Cicero writes:
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature;
it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it
summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing
by its prohibitions. . .
…We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we
need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it . . .
Cicero(106 BC-43 BC)
…There will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different
laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law
will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one
master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this
law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
Natural Law: St Thomas
Aquinas
• God’s law is “imprinted upon us . . . The light of natural
1225-1274
reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil,
is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light”
• There are at least some moral truths, derived from God
and grounded in God, that everyone, regardless of their
religious beliefs or cultural background, must be
responsible for knowing
• Distinguish this (as Romans did) from “civil” or “positive”
law, and also from “divine” or “revealed” law (the Church
has custody of this)
In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas acknowledges universal moral truths
Examples of Natural Law
• “Golden” Rule
• Principle of reciprocity
• Prohibition of unjustifiable
homicide
• Respect for Life
Everyone, everywhere
seems to have some
versions of these
Danger: mistaking one’s own
cultural or religious habits (or even
prejudices) for universal natural law
e.g., Which of the 10 Commandments
would you challenge as not being a
“Natural Law”?
Relation of Natural Law to
Other Kinds of Law
• Descriptive “laws of nature” by contrast
summarize known physical conditions or
constraints that apply in fact w/o exception
• i.e., cannot be “disobeyed”
• e.g., Law of Gravity
• Civil or Positive Law:
• speed limits, tax laws, torts and contracts, property
• Can be added to, but cannot contravene natural law (cf.
Martin Luther King)
Definitions
• Eternal Law
• The law of God’s regulative reason
• Divine Law
• The Law that man receives by special revelation
from God
• Natural Law
• That part of God’s Law that is incorporated into
human nature
• Human Law
• Law devised by man for specific purposes
Divine, Natural and Civil Law
Eternal Law (Divine+ Natural)
“Divine” or
“Revealed” Law
(From Deity)
Natural Law
(from Reason)
Law of
Nature
(Descriptive)
Human Laws
Civil Laws
Impact/Influence of Natural Law
Tradition
• International Law (Grotius,
Pufendorf)
• Constitution & U. S. Declaration of
Independence (Jefferson)
• JUST WAR THEORY (jus ad bellum
AND jus in bello – law of war)
• Kant and the Categorical Imperative
• Gandhi, King, and notion of
principled civil disobedience
Natural Inclinations
• Self-preservation
• Natural inclination to live
• Procreation
• Natural inclination to reproduce
• Knowledge
• Natural inclination to learn
• Sociability
• Natural inclination to love and seek affection
Two Important Principles of Natural Law
(“Casuistry” in Harris’s essay)
1. The Principle of Forfeiture
and
2. The Principle of Double Effect
Principle of Forfeiture:
If I threaten your life…
(i.e., violate the principle concerning the
protection of life),
…I forfeit my right to life.
Thus, killing in self-defense is morally
permissible.
“If you take another life, you forfeit your own right to life”
Principle of Double Effect
• A wrong or evil result brought about as a consequence of
some morally right action (undertaken with intention to do
good) is not itself blameworthy
• Most common in medicine & military
• Sometimes it is permissible to perform an action that has,
besides its desired (good) effects,
a second effect that it would be impermissible to bring
about, either as an end or as a means.
Secondary evil must be a consequence…not a catalyst!
Principle of Double Effect
• Is the act good / morally permissible?
• Is the bad effect unavoidable?
• Is bad effect means to achieve good effect?
• Does good effect outweigh bad effect?
Sometimes the answer to the middle two questions is not readily apparent…
Key points are: “intentions” and “avoidability”
Doctrine of Double Effect
Act
No
Yes
Is the Bad
Effect
Avoidable?
Yes,
It is
avoidable
No
Is the Bad
Effect the
Means of
Producing a
Good Effect?
Not
Intended Is the Bad Effect
(Side
Effect
Only)
Yes, Bad
Effect is
Intended
Not Permissible…
…Forbidden
Disproportionate?
Yes
No
Act is Permissible
Is it
Permissible?
Part 1
Kant and deontological
ethics
Deontology
• The theory of duty or moral obligation.
• Duty:
• Role-related duty
• General duty
• Obligation:
• Requirement set on a person because of his/her
identity.
Basic Kantian themes
1.
Personal autonomy:
The moral person is a rational self-leglislator.
2.
Respect:
Persons should always be treated as an end, not a
means. ‘No persons should be used.’
3.
Duty:
the moral action is one that we must do in
accordance with a certain principle, not because of
its good consequence.
Kant’s philosophy:
• What can I know?
• Critique of Pure
Reason (1781)
• What ought I do?
• Groundwork for the
Metaphysic of Morals
(1785); Critique of
Practical Reason
(1788)
• What can I hope for?
• Critique of Judgment
(1790); Religion within
the Limits of Reason
Alone (1793)
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
Phenomena and Noumena
• Phenomena:
• things as they appear to us; empirical and therefore
changeable.
• Noumena:
• things-in-themselves, which can’t be known by the use
of senses.
• Kant argues that if there is such a thing as moral
reality, it must be founded on the noumena, and
this is because…
The moral law is in its character
absolute, and it can allow no
exception. And empirical
knowledge simply cannot
establish such a law.
Part 2
Kant’s Conception of Moral
Values
The moral worth
•On Kant’s view, the moral worth of an
action
is
not
determined
consequences because:
by
its
1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil
intention, but ends up bringing good consequences
to society.
2. It is also possible that someone does something out
of good intention, but ends up bringing about bad
consequences.
3. The consequences of an action are not under our
control.
4. We can only control our motives when acting as a
moral person.
5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given by our
good will.
The right motive
• ‘For example, it is always a matter of duty that a
dealer should not over charge an inexperienced
purchaser; and wherever there is much commerce
the prudent tradesman does not overcharge, but
keeps a fixed price for everyone, so that a child
buys of him as well as any other. Men are thus
honestly served; but this is not enough to make us
believe that the tradesman has so acted from duty
and from principles of honesty: his own advantage
required it;
•it is out of the question in this case to suppose
that he might besides have a direct inclination
in favour of the buyers, so that, as it were, from
love he should give no advantage to one over
another. Accordingly the action was done
neither from duty nor from direct inclination,
but merely with a selfish view.’
(http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/metaphys-of-mo
rals.txt)
•The right motive can be a motive out of
either:
• self-interest,
• sympathy (natural inclination), or
• a sense of duty (the voice of conscience).
•Only the final motive will count on Kant’s
view.
Hypothetical Vs categorical imperatives
•Hypothetical imperative:
• What I ought to do if some conditions hold.
• E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I
want to pass my examination.
•Categorical imperative:
• What I ought to do unconditionally.
• E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter
what goal I have.
Two formulations of the categorical
imperative
1.
2.
Act only on that maxim that you can will
as a universal law.
Always treat humanity, whether your own
person or that of another, never simply
as a means but always at the same time
as an end.
One Kant’s view, all moral
imperatives are categorical
imperatives.
They are universally valid and have
equal forces to EQUALLY FREE and
RATIONAL AGENTS.
An example: why lying is wrong
•
•
If we use consequences as the basis
of moral worth, sometimes lying is
right because it makes a lot of people
happy.
But the maxim that supports lying
cannot pass the ‘universality test’ and
the ‘humanity test’.
Lying is wrong because:
1.
2.
If everybody lies, then words lose its function
to express truth. The principle of lying therefore
cannot be universalized.
Lying can be successful only if we use other
people’s ignorance. But in this case we are
treating them only as a means to our ends.
Freedom and the kingdom of ends
• Given that all rational beings are equal, a
kingdom comprising those beings must not favour
any party or treat the other as inferior.
• It follows that in the kingdom of ends everybody
should be equally free and should not be a means
to other people’s end.
• The law thus set up is a contract between free
and rational agents.
Morality is thus a matter of
social contract made between
free and rational agents.
Part 3
Questions about Kantian
Ethics
Motivational problems
•Why should I obey to the moral law?
• Answer: Because I want to be a wholly free
(autonomous) person who acts on the principle
that I find most reasonable.
•Why should I respect other persons?
• Answer: This is simply because rational persons
are equal.
Freedom or equality?
• Is autonomy or equality the fundamental value in
ethics? What if they conflict each other?
• Answer: In principle they do not conflict each other,
because both are built up in the idea of reason.
• But in practice…?
Conflicts of duties
• If duty A conflicts with duty B, how can they be
universalized?
• Example:
• I have a universal duty not to kill the Fat man.
• I also have a universal duty to save the five workers.
• What should I do?
Non-rational beings
• The moral law is set up by rational agents who
mutually respect each other. Non-rational beings
such as animals are not protected by that law
because they don’t have this sense of
responsibility.
• If we have a duty not to be cruel to animals, it
cannot be for their sake, but for the reason that
we will hurt our own rationality in doing so (that
we will develop a bad personality in this practice).
59
Part 4
Application:
Research ethics
Using human beings in experiments
• Stanley Milgram’s experiment
• Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study
• Main question:
• When will be wrong to use a person in academic
research?
The doctrine of informed consent
•
The Nuremberg code:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is
absolutely essential. This means that the person
involved should have the legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free
power of choice, without the intervention of any element
of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other
ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have
sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject
matter involved as to enable him to make an
understanding and enlightened decision.
Autonomy: A Kantian interpretation
By saying that we respect persons as
autonomous agents, we imply that they are
having equal statuses with us, that we cannot
treat them as a means only.
• Using somebody implies an imbalanced power
structure, meaning that the users are
•
•
•
•
in a higher rank;
have more power;
have ends in the action plan that the inferior party
cannot share.
Autonomy thus requires that if I am to
be treated as a means, I must also be
able to recognize the experimenter’s
end as my end. If I can recognize the
promoting of collective interests as an
end that I share without contradiction, I
can say being deceived is my choice.
64
Milgram’s experiment
I am a learner. And I
have to remember the
…SNOOPY
words of the teacher
and read them back.
Teacher, give him a
punishment. A 15 volt
electric shock.
APPLE--PEACH;
LEMON—HONEY;
CAR—TRASH;
DEMOCRACY—PLATO;
ICHINGWA—TEDDY
am a teacher
CHINGWA-now.
BEAR…
Wrong!
Move on to
the next
word!
If
the
answer
is
you
say…
Another
In
You
If
itthe
isgive
are
experiment
incorrect…
participant,
hired
the learner
bycorrect,
an
you
after
experimenter
some
play
drawing
the
words
partthe
to
toofremember,
conduct
lot,
a
teacher.
plays
an experiment.
and
ask
thehim
parttoofread
a learner.
out after some time.
65
The punishment part
High voltage: 450
Dangerous
Low
Medium voltage:
voltage:
250
Do it. I am in
15 charge of all
this.
are
in regret.
control
of a instructing
machine
generating
a
TheYou
experimenter
You
keeps
‘Why
didn’t
I
stop,
you
man?’
to
increase
You
do15
it accordingly.
voltage
ranging
from
to
450
volts.great pain.
The
learner
screams
and
shows
voltage, saying that he takes
full
responsibility
for that.
Milgram’s trick
You fooled
me?
No one in fact got
hurt. The learner is
a great pretender.
You are cheated, man.
There’s no electric
shock at all.
You lucky
are angry.
think
it is
unethical.
The
thing,You
or the
bad
thing
is that…
66
Final questions
• Which experiment is more unethical according to
Kantian ethics?
• Is the respect to autonomy something absolute?
Is a lesser degree of autonomy totally
unacceptable?
• How can we respect people when they are not
fully rational?
Ethical Judgments
• Ethical philosophy differs from the sciences
because it is normative or prescriptive,
rather than descriptive.
• In other words, ethics tell us how we ought
to act or what we should do, while the
sciences are more likely to observe how
things are in nature or society.
Making Ethical Judgments
Making Ethical Judgments in
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism says that the Result or the
Consequence of an Act is the real measure of
whether it is good or bad.
• This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.
• Theories, like this one, that emphasize the
results
or
consequences
are
called
teleological or consequentialist.
Bentham’s Formulation of
Utilitarianism
• Man is under two great masters, pain and
pleasure.
• The great good that we should seek is happiness.
(a hedonistic perspective)
• Those actions whose results increase happiness
or diminish pain are good. They have “utility.”
Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic
Calculus
• In determining the quantity of happiness that
might be produced by an action, we evaluate the
possible consequences by applying several
values:
• Intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty,
propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity,
and extent.
Four Theses of Utilitarianism
• Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is
determined solely by their consequences.
• Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act
produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that
pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek
and that we should seek.
• Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest
good consequences and the least bad.
• Universalism:
The
consequences
to
be
considered are those of everyone affected, and
everyone equally.
Two Formulations of Utilitarian
Theory
Greatest Happiness:
Principle of
Utility: The best
action is that
which produces
the greatest
happiness
and/or reduces
pain.
We ought to do
that which
produces the
greatest
happiness and
least pain for the
greatest number
of people.
Two Types of Utilitarianism
•Act: An Action is
right if and only if it
produces the
greatest balance of
pleasure over pain
for the greatest
number. (Jeremy
Bentham)
•Rule: An action is right if
and only if it conforms to
a set of rules the general
acceptance of which
would produce the
greatest balance of
pleasure over pain for
the greatest number.
(John Stuart Mill)
Application of Utilitarian Theory
•A) You attempt to
help an elderly
man across the
street. He gets
across safely.
•Conclusion: the Act
was a good act.
You attempt to help
an elderly man across
the street. You
stumble as you go, he
is knocked into the
path of a car, and is
hurt.
•Conclusion: The Act
was a bad act.
• B)
Application of Utilitarian Theory
• If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war,
and thereby attack an enemy force and kill several
hundred enemy soldiers, that is a morally good
choice even though the eighty might be lost.
• If lying or stealing will actually bring about more
happiness and/or reduce pain, Act Utilitarianism
says we should lie and steal in those cases.
Application of Utilitarian Theory
Actual Cases
• The decision at Coventry during WWII.
• The decision was made not to inform the town that they
would be bombed.
• The Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicle would
sometimes explode when hit.
• The model was not recalled and repaired by Ford because
they felt it was cheaper to pay the liability suits than to recall
and repair all the defective cars.
Criticisms of Bentham’s theory
Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people
would be happy watching a man being eaten by
wild dogs, it would be a morally good thing for the
10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone
whose death would not cause grief to many others)
and throw the man into a cage of wild, hungry dogs.
John Stuart Mill’s Adjustments to
Utilitarianism
• Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the
happiness, not merely the quantity.
• For example, some might find happiness with a
pitcher of beer and a pizza. Others may find
happiness watching a fine Shakespearean play. The
quality of happiness is greater with the latter.
Mill’s Quality Arguments
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a
different opinion, it is because they only know their
own side of the question. The other party to the
comparison knows both sides.”
Mill’s Quality Arguments
“As between his own happiness and that of
others, utilitarianism requires him to be as
strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of
Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit
of the ethics of utility. ‘To do as you would be
done by,’ and ‘to love your neighbor as
yourself,’ constitute the ideal perfection of
utilitarian morality.”
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the
greatest number, not putting my own happiness
above others, that may lead to a dilemma. I live in
a neighborhood where 83% of my neighbors use
drugs. I could make them most happy by helping
supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel
uncomfortable doing that. What should a utilitarian
do?
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
• Bernard Williams criticizes the implied “doctrine
of negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For
example, a thug breaks into my home and holds
six people hostage, telling us he will kill all of us.
“However,” the thug says, “if you will kill two of
your family, I will let you and the other three live.”
• With Utilitarianism, the good thing to do is to kill
two members of my family.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
•Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with
God’s commandments. If lying, stealing, or
killing could lead to an increase of
happiness for the greatest number, we are
told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a
rejection of God’s commands?
Mill’s Answer to the “Godless
Theory” Criticism
• What is the nature of God?
• Does God make arbitrary rules just to see if we will
obey?
• Does God make rules that He knows will lead to our
happiness?
• If the latter statement is true, doesn’t it make
sense God would want us to use our
God-given reason to look at the situation?
Mill’s Answer to the “Godless Theory”
Criticism
“If it be a true belief that God desires, above
all things, the happiness of his creatures,
and that this was his purpose in their
creation, utility is not a godless doctrine, but
more profoundly religious than any other. . . .
.whatever God has though fit to reveal on
the subject of morals must fulfill the
requirements of utility in a supreme degree.”
A Second Criticism of Utilitarianism
If one must decide the probable outcome of
an act before knowing whether it is good or
bad, how can children learn to evaluate acts,
since they know so little of what
consequences might arise from their
actions?
Mill’s “Rule” Utilitarianism
“ . . . Mankind must by this time have acquired
positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on
their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus
come down are the rules of morality for the multitude,
and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in
finding better.” Mill concludes, however, that we
should always seek improvements.
Rights and Utilitarianism
• Many philosophers hold that we have certain
rights, either from God, nature, or from a social
contract
• Can the idea of rights be made compatible with
Utilitarianism?
• If ignoring rights brings about more happiness to
the greatest number, should we ignore so-called
rights?
• Mill’s rule-based view in On Liberty; having a right
to liberty will bring the greatest happiness
Consequences of Unethical Practices
• Baucus & Baucus (2000)
• Singled out 67 companies out of the Fortune 500
that had at least one illegal act – ex: antitrust,
product liabilities, discrimination
• Performance of the convicted firms were
compared to unconvicted firms (five year after the
fraud was committed)
• Convicted firms experienced significantly lower
return on sales (three year lag)
• Multiple convictions are more disastrous
• Unethical activities can affect long term
performance
Forms of Justice
•Distributive Justice
• Was the result of the decision fair
•Procedural Justice
• Was the process used to make the decision fair
•Interaction or Interpersonal Justice
• Way leaders conduct themselves
treatment of employees
in
the
Factors Helping to Shape Ethical
Behavior
•The person
•The organization’s culture
•The Boss
Solid Framework
• Is it legal?
• Is it right?
• Who will be affected?
• Does it align with our values?
• How will it “feel” afterward?
• Guilt and Shame in Western Cultures
• How will it look on the front page of the Bee
• How will it change the way the organization is
viewed by the public?
Organizational Culture
• The invisible glue that holds an organization together
(Estenson)
• Values, traditions, and shared behaviors
• Values
• I would resign or close the company before I would
do it. Anything else is just poetry. (Estenson)
• Leaders and Managers model the behavior, set the
expectations and enforce the standards.
Managing Perceptions
• Engage people in a conversation about the issue
• Explain your actions
• Clarify expectations
Employee Discipline
•Slaves and Indentured Servants
•Free to quit and free to fire
•Expectation of fair treatment
•Job as a right
Grounds for Dismissal
• Performance
• Misconduct
• Gross to repeated inappropriate
• Lack of qualifications
• Changed job requirements or elimination of the
job
• Possibility of personal liability for actions as an
agent of the company
Layoffs and Work Realignment
•60 days notice if you have 100 or more
employees
•Downsizing
•Mergers and Acquisitions