Object Oriented Analysis
and Design
COP 3331
Ethics 1
Slides by Daniel Chang
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
Ethical Theories
(Caveperson 101)
•ethical theories
To set a baseline context for our discussion, let us try starting at the very
beginning
As one story goes, way back when there was one caveperson. As a
caveperson you were born free, free to do whatever you want. So in the
middle of empty nature, what do you want? Well whatever makes you
happy.
What would make me happy would be my HDTV (High Definition
Television), but in that situation lets settle for starting a fire.
Unfortunately, not too long afterward a second caveperson was born free.
Since this caveperson can do whatever she wants to do, as it turns out she
wants to come beat you up and take your firewood. So now what you want
is revenge. So you go and hit the gym and a few weeks later you go back
to caveperson #2, whereas you lay down the smack and you steal back
your firewood.
Well, monkey-see monkey-do, and eventually both of you start going
through cycles of buffing up and then stealing each other's firewood. Of
course, the entire time your little soap opera has been going on, a few more
cavepersons are born free, and pretty soon your poor little pack of firewood
is making its rounds through a whole caveperson thieving community
Realizing this is not very productive, you all sit down and talk. Yes,
everyone has the right to do whatever they want, and we all want to be
happy but in the end we’re not getting anything done here, so we're not
happy. So how about we all enter into an agreement We will limit
ourselves to doing whatever we want only up to the point that it does not
interfere with someone else. In effect, we are giving up some of the right we
were born with in exchange for life within a group that is a little more orderly
and predictable. Thus we have the birth of government, society, and law.
general classification:
deontological - based on rules
teleological - based on consequences
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Ethics Foundations
• Individuals vs. Groups
– The Story of the Caveman
• Society
– Group of people organized under a system of
rules
– Members cooperate to promote the common
good
– Members compete to divide limited resources
• Morality
– Rules of conduct within a society
– Describe what ought and ought not to be done
in various situations
• Ethics
– Branch of philosophy that studies Morality
– Rational examination of moral beliefs and
behavior in a Society
– Use of reason and logic to determine why
conduct is right or wrong
• Application to Technology
– New technologies and their application must
be categorized as "good" or "bad"
– Existing moral guidelines may not address
new technology
– What are the existing moral guidelines?
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Relativism
– Theory that there are no universal moral norms of
right and wrong
– Different individuals or groups may have different
views of a moral problem, and both are "right"
• Subjective Relativism
– Each person decides "right" and "wrong"
– Based on the principle that reasonable minds can
differ
– Makes no moral distinctions between individuals
and actions
– Does not require decisions to be based on reason
• Cultural Relativism
– Theory that right and wrong are dictated by a
Society's moral guidelines
– Based on the principle that different societies (at
different times) demand different moral guidelines
– But how do individuals determine moral guidelines
of a society
• Divine Command Theory
– Theory that good actions are dictated by a religious
Diety
– However, there are many religions and many holy
texts and they disagree
– Divine command is not known for all moral
problems
– "Good" exists outside of a Diety
– Based on obedience, not reasoning
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Kantianism
– Proposed by Immanuel Kant
– "Good will" is doing what one "ought to do",
ignoring what one wants to do
– Comes from dutifulness, which compels a
person to act out of respect for moral rules
– Which moral rules are "good"?
• Categorical Imperative
• Rationality
– Moral rules can be derived from logical
reasoning
• Universality (First Formulation)
– Act only from moral rules that can be rationally
applied as universal rules
– If a rule, when applied universally, creates a
logical contradiction it is wrong
– Does not rely on good or bad consequences
• Humanity (Second Formulation)
– Act so that you always treat people as ends in
themselves, and not only as a means to an
end
– It is wrong for a person to "use" another
– All people must be respected as rational
beings, desiring information and capable of
using it
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Value of Kantianism
• Pros
– Kantianism is rational and
universally applicable
– All persons are treated as equals
• Cons
– Difficult to identify applicable
rules, depending on the
characterization of a given
situation
– Rules may conflict
– No exceptions allowed
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
•
Utilitarianism (Act Utilitarianism)
– Proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
– An action is good if it benefits someone, and bad if it
harms someone
– Benefit and Harm are measured by the Principle of Utility
•
Principle of Utility
– An action is right to the extent that it increases total utility
– "Utility" is the satisfaction of individual needs,
establishment of well-being in life, the absence of pain
– Production of "Happiness", very specifically defined
– Calculation of Utility is in the aggregate for any given
action
– Motives are not significant, only the consequence of the
action
– Utility applies to "beings"
•
Weighing of Benefits and Harms
–
–
–
–
Intensity - the magnitude of the experience
Duration - how long the experience lasts
Certainty - probability experience will actually occur
Propinquity - how close the experience is in space and
time
– Fecundity - ability of the experience to produce more of
the same
– Purity - extent to which experience is not diluted by the
opposite effect
– Extent - the number of people affected
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Value of Utilitarianism
• Pros
– Focuses on benefit to individuals
– Practical and pragmatic, based on
reasoning
– Takes into account all aspects of a
given situation
• Cons
– Calculating total Utility can be
subjective
– Calculating total Utility takes a long
time for each single action
– Calculating total Utility can be difficult
or impossible
– Ignores principles, obligation, and
dutifulness
– Subject to Moral Luck, where
consequences are not fully under
control
– A single measure is used to evaluate
different kinds of consequences
– Distribution of Utility is not considered
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Rule Utilitarianism
– Theory that general moral rules, are good if,
when followed by everyone, they increase
total Utility
– Do not depend on Utility of individual actions
– It is understood that some rules, when
universally applied, will increase total Utility
– However, rules are not absolute, only total
Utility
• Pros
– Utility calculations are simpler, focusing on
generality and long-term consequences
– General rules can be used in most situations
instead of case-by-case analysis
– Rules focus on general results, obviating
problems with extreme individual situations or
Moral Luck
• Cons
– Same as above
– Rule Utilitarians may break rules if total Utility
will be served
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Social Contract Theory
– Proposed by Thomas Hobbes, expanded by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
– In order to live in a society individuals form a
Social Contract
– The Social Contract establishes moral rules
governing relations among individuals and a
government to enforce the rules
– Rules that are good are those which rational
people all agree to accept for the common
good of society
• Rights and Duties
– Social Contract supposes that all morally
significant beings have certain inherent rights
– Rights then impose Duties on others not to
violate those rights
– A Negative Right is one that calls for others to
simply not interfere in individual actions
– A Positive Right obligates others to actively
provide for an individual
– Moral problems are evaluated from the point
of view of moral rights
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Principles of Justice (John
Rawls)
– Each person may claim a "fully
adequate" number of basic
rights, so long as these claims
allow all others the same rights
– Any social or economic
inequalities must
• be associated with positions in
society that everyone has equal
opportunity to attain
• overall provide the greatest benefit
to the least-advantaged members
of society (Difference Principle)
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Value of Social Contract Theory
• Pros
– Based on rights
– Justifies action outside of self-interest
– Provides basis for analyzing
relationship between individuals and
government
• Cons
– None of us signed the Social Contract
– Characterization of actions can be
subjective
– Rights may conflict
– Does not account for those who
cannot uphold their side of the
"contract"
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang
• Ethical Theories Generally
• Deontological
– Based on rules or principles
• Teleological (Consequentialist)
– Based on consequences or results
• Theory Distinctions
– The motivation for taking a particular
action in response to a moral problem
– The criteria used to determine whether
an action is right
– Focus on the individual or the group
Theory
Motivation
Criteria
Focus
Kantianism
Dutifulness
Rules
Individual
Act Utilitarianism
Consequences
Actions
Group
Rule Utilitarianism
Consequence/Duty
Rules
Group
Social Contract
Rights
Rules
Individual
Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang