Key Elements of Ethical Decision-Making
1. Is/Ought
A. Moral vs. Prudential Ought
2. Objective/Subjective
A. How Verified—By Feeling or By Evidence.
3. ‘Evidence’ Implies Standards: What Are They in Ethics?
A. Reasoned Arguments
B. Appeals to Moral Intuition
C. Well-Grounded Facts
4. All This Implies Some Method.
A. Can’t be Rules Only
1. Interpretation Problem, Application Problem, Justification Problem
B. Can’t be Intuition Only
1. Whose?
5. Three Possible Methods:
Utilitarianism: Act and Rule (our focus is on the latter)
1. Take Those Actions that Produce the Greatest Aggregate Good (typically, more pleasure
and less pain).
2. Do This Impartially/Equally; i.e., Everyone’s Pl/Pn Counts Equally
3. Do This with Sufficient Vision—Look Beyond the Immediate and Obvious
Problems: Quantifying Happiness or Pleasure; Problem of Justice; Predicting Outcomes
Kantian Deontology: Based in Reason Alone—Universalizability
1. What Should (key: not would) All Persons Do; Can the Rule that Guides Your Action be
Universalized? (E.g., “Lying is ok” or “One should break one’s promises.”)
2. Inherent and Absolute Respect for Persons: “Treat All Persons, Oneself Included, as
Ends in Themselves and Never as Mere Means” (key: “mere”).
Problems: Devoid of Emotions; Conflicting Duties or Principles; Role-Based Duties
Virtue Theory: What Sort of Person Are You?
1. Development of Right, Virtuous, Habits
2. Moderation
3. Role-Modeling (neg and pos)
4. Moral and Practical Wisdom
Problems: Practical Guidance; Sources; Limited Control
Pluralistic Deontology—W.D. Ross
1. Intuitively Known Prima Facie Duties
2. Rationally Determined Actual Duties (as a response to conflict/dilemma)
3. Rooted in (“self-evident”) Rules, but Concerned with Consequences
4. Requires Complex, Difficult Decision-Making Process, but Also Allows for Error—
Accountability only for (reasoned) Intent.
Problems: Intuition; lack of certainty; is he a deontologist or consequentialist?
Result: Process for Ethical Decision Making (http://www.cs.csubak.edu/~cmeyers/phil316/)