Ethical Considerations
Ethics
What do we mean by “ethics” or
“unethical”?
Motivations to behave unethically:
– Personal gain, especially power
– Competition
– Restoration of justice or fairness
What is “fairness?”
Some Ways to Behave Unethically
Selective disclosure &/or
misrepresentation to others
Deception
False threats or false promises
Provide false information (lie)
Inflict intentional harm on the other party
Selective disclosure or misrepresentation
to constituencies
Ethical Decisions Have Complexity
Multiple alternatives
Broad & long-range consequences
Uncertain consequences
Mixture of economic, legal, ethical, social,
and personal benefits and costs
Some Ethical Systems
Eternal law: "capital-T truth"
Ethical Egoism: seek self-interests & promote greatest
balance of good over bad for self, with ethical constraints
Utilitarianism: greatest good for the greatest number, or
maximize the social benefit function
Universalism (Categorical imperative): would I be willing
to make the basis for my action a general law binding
everyone, given similar circumstances?
Enlightened self-interest: self-interest rightly understood,
with long-term perspective or judging from my deathbed
Ethics of interdependence: interdependence between
individuals is fundamental; be willing to compromise to
help the other side achieve goals
Some Ethical Introspections
Is it right?
Is it fair?
How does it smell?
Who benefits and who gets hurt?
What if details were made public?
What would you tell your child to do?
What if everyone did this?
Consider
Learning from your mistakes
Look in the mirror & see how you like what
you see
Put yourself in the other person’s shoes
and see how they see you
However, don’t be naive
Case: A Tragic Choice
Review silently the questions at end of the
case
We discuss Q.1
Each group takes one of questions 2-5
plus the general question: If you were Jim,
what would you do and why? - reports
back
All join in discussion of each
Tragic Choice Questions
2. It could be argued that, if Jim does shoot one of the
hostages, he is not merely killing that hostage, he is
murdering that person. What do you think about this? Can
such a shooting be excused? ...justified?
3. What if Jim had arrived in the clearing with his young son
and the captain had threatened Jim by saying, "Either shoot
one of the hostages or we'll shoot your son." Would this
change your reasoning and decision?
4. Suppose you were one of the twenty hostages; what
alternative would you prefer?
5. Suppose that all of the hostages wanted Jim to kill one
hostage so that the rest could go free. Does such
"permission" justify such an action by Jim?
 With any alternatives you consider or select, try to be aware
of assumptions that may be implicit in your reasoning - try to
make them explicit and examine them.
Exercise
Individually, consider each of the
Scenarios, one at a time:
– Write your decision
– Write your reasoning
In small groups, discuss reasoning for
each Scenario, one at a time
Scenario 1
A woman was near death from a unique kind of
cancer. There is a new drug that might save her with
a single dose, available only from the scientist who
developed it. The drug costs $4,000 per dose,
although it only costs the scientist $100 to make it.
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to
everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried
every legal means, but he could only get together
about $2,000. He asked the scientist who
discovered the drug for a discount or to let him pay
later, but the scientist refused.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the
drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Scenario 2
Heinz broke into the laboratory and stole the
drug. The next day, the newspapers reported the
break-in and theft. Brown, a police officer and a
friend of Heinz, remembered seeing Heinz near
the laboratory last evening, behaving
suspiciously. Later that night, he had seen Heinz
running away from the laboratory.
Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why
not?
Scenario 3
Officer Brown reported what he saw. Heinz
was arrested and brought to court. Heinz was
found guilty and could be sentenced to as
much as two years in prison.
Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison?
Why or why not?
The Insufficiency of Honesty
*/honesty.doc
Honesty: refusal to steal, lie, or deceive
in any way
Integrity: trustworthiness & incorruptibility
to a degree that one is incapable of being
false to a trust or responsibility
Integrity
Honesty is necessary, but not sufficient
The most important thing in acting is
honesty; once you learn to fake that,
you’re in.
- Sam Goldwyn
Integrity
Honesty
Discerning
– Examining beliefs & assumptions
– Searching for "truth," avoiding error
– Allowing others the same
Acting on what you have discerned
– Even at personal cost
Fulfilling moral obligations
– Do no harm to others
– Not just the minimum
Star Trek Case
“Measure of a Man”
Star Trek Characters
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (of Starship
Enterprise)
Capt. Phillipa Louvois (Chief JAG officer for
the sector)
Cmdr. Bruce Maddox (Starfleet Professor of
Robotics)
Lt. Cmdr. Data (android science officer on
Enterprise)
Guinan (bartender, wise old soul)
Cmdr. William Riker (2nd to Picard)
Star Trek Case
Refer to the posted case material you
were asked to bring
At two times in the video, you will need to
respond to several questions in the case,
writing individually & then discussing
Pay particular attention to how the
characters, you, and others in the class
think
Questions at First Stop
1. Define the issue (or dilemma) faced by Captain
Picard and Lt. Commander Data at this point in
time.
2. Which of the six ethical frameworks* would
each of the following characters (a) claim to be
using in justifying his position? ...and (b) is
actually using, in your opinion?
– Lt. Commander Data
– Commander Maddox
– Captain Picard
Questions at End
3. How was the issue in the case finally defined in
the hearing for the purpose of making a ruling?
4. What was Guinan's contribution to Picard's
thinking & approach to the hearing? Be
specific in explaining how she contributed to
clarifying the issue for him. What advantage
did she have over the other characters in
advising him?
5. What are the pros and cons of using an
adversarial process in examining an ethical
issue?
6. What was Commander Data's position on the
decision of his "disassembly?" Did it change
during the course of the story? If you think his
position did change, why do you think he
changed it?
7. When Captain Picard said that the mission of
the Starfleet was “to seek out new life,” how did
this relate to the issue in the hearing? How do
mission and values differ? How do values and
ethics differ?
8. Is there a BEST framework for deciding ethical
issues? What lessons does this case have that
can be applied to your work or life situation?