Moral Reasoning

Defining MoralityMoral Problems and DilemmasSelf-interest and Ethical EgoismRelating and Contrasting values

Four types of Theories

Introduction• Sometimes it becomes unclear to the individuals involved which, if any,

moral considerations or principles apply to their situations.• An engineer starting a new job, for example , may have doubts whether it is

morally permissible to accept an expensive desk set as a gift from a salesperson with whom her company does business.

• Would this become a bribe ?• Would it create a conflict of interest ?• There will always be troublesome cases where there is considerable

vagueness about whether the gift is an innocent amenity or an unacceptable bribe.

• On the other hand, it may be perfectly clear which moral principles apply to one’s situation.

• The difficulty instead might be that two different moral principles, both of which apply to one’s situation, come into conflict or that one principle seems to point simultaneously in two different directions.

• These kinds of moral problems are called Moral Dilemmas….PG 25.

Defining Moral Dilemma and Morality

• Moral Dilemmas are situations in which two or more moral obligations , duties, rights, goods, or ideals come into conflict with one another, and at least on the surface it appears that not all of them can be fulfilled or respected.

• Dilemmas are not always so easily dealt with like an apology. Resolving some of them can require searching, even agonizing, reflection.

• Contemporary engineering practice makes it virtually inevitable that nearly all engineers will be confronted with some moral dilemmas during their careers. Indeed this is true of all professionals , including physicians, lawyers, and teachers.

Morality ( Cont.)

• Morality normally concerns what ought or ought not to be done in a given situation, what is right and wrong about the handling of it or what is good or bad about the actions of the people involved in it.

• But for two reasons this definition is not sufficient.• First, Morality concerns not just actions, but also good and bad

character, relationships and ideals.• Second, mere references to words like ‘ought’, ‘right’, and ‘good’

does not suffice to define even the dimension of morality concerned with conduct. There are many non moral usage of these terms.

• Thus to define morality is not that easy. We will discuss some theories on it to offer precise characterization of morality, but even they may remain controversial.

• We will make three contrasts before discussing the theories regarding moral value and other values.

Relating and Contrasting values

• Self-Interest and Ethical Egoism• Laws and Ethical Conventionalism• Religion and Divine Command Ethics

Self-interest and Ethical Egoism : Self interest is what is good for oneself in the long run. In general, people should always and only pursue their self-interest but in doing so they should be careful to assess that interest rationally in light of the facts.

This view is called Ethical Egoism.Ethical, because it is a theory about morality and egoism because it

says that the sole duty of each of us is to maximize our own good.According to this proponents, moral values are reduced to concern for

oneself, but always a rational concern requiring consideration of one’s long term interest.

Cont.

Laws and ethical Conventionalism: A different challenge to the distinctiveness of moral values is the idea that morality reduces to law or to the customs and conventions of a society.

According to this view, which is called Ethical Conventionalism, an act is morally right when it is approved by law or convention, it is wrong when it violates laws or customs.

Because laws seem so tangible or visible and clear-cut.They provide a public way of cutting through seemingly endless

disputes about right and wrong.Laws seem to be an ‘objective’ way to approach values.Religion and Divine Command Ethics: It is the view that to say an

act is right means it is commanded by the God and to say it is wrong means it is forbidden by God. Accordingly, if there were no god to issue command , then there would be no morality. Though there are disputes regarding the religious beliefs and practices.

D.C.E ( Cont.)

• From the definition of religion it is known that the social and personal function that religion provides motivational affect upon morality.

• The personal function of religion is very important because it has sustained many people in trying to follow their convictions, and it can promote tolerance and moral concern for others when those motivated by it are confronted with the wide variety of beliefs and individual needs to be found in the world.

• Many engineers are certainly among those so motivated, which is why these paragraphs on religion are an appropriate part of our larger topic, Engineering Ethics.

Moral reasons

• Moral reason is a reason which requires us to respect other people, to care for their good as well as our own. In addition, moral reasons are such that they set limits to the legitimate pursuit of self-interest.

• They can be used to evaluate laws, to praise some and criticize others.

• They are not reducible to religious matters, although religious beliefs may provide an additional motivation for responding to them.

Four theories of Morality• More than two millennia of philosophical reflection since Socretes have not led to a consensus

about how to answer questions regarding morality. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement that there are four main types of theories about morality.

• These theories differ according to what they treat as the most fundamental moral concept: Good consequences for all or utility ( Two types of utilitarianisms.) Duties Human Rights Virtue Why it was wrong for the engineers to make secret payments can now be illustrated through these

theories.Though , some answers are as that 1. more bad than good resulted. 2.Other engineering farms were harmed by not having a chance to obtain the contracts

they may have been best qualified to receive. 3. The system also removed the potential benefits of healthy competition among a wider

range of firms, benefits such as lower costs and better products for the public.Besides it led to a loss of trust in public officials, a trust important for the well-functioning of

government. •

Cont.

• Good consequences for all or Utility: The overall balance of good over bad is called Utility.

• High utility will usually mean much good and little bad.• Utilitarianism holds that e ought always to produce the most utility,

taking into equal account every one affected by our actions.• Good and bad consequences are the only relevant moral

considerations and hence all moral principles reduce to one- we ought to maximize utility.

• Duties: A different answer to what was wrong with engaging in the kickback scheme focused directly on the actions involved, rather than their consequences

• The actions violated at least two basic principles of duty• A. Avoiding deceiving others• B. Be Fair

• Duty ethics asserts there are duties like these which ought to be performed even though doing so may not always produce the most good.

• Human Rights Another answer to why it was wrong to participate in the kick back scheme is that it violated the rights of other people.

• A shared understanding exists that there will be equality of opportunity in seeking public contracts and that elected officials will grant contracts based on merits not bribes.

• Against this background, qualified persons or farms acquire a right to unbiased consideration of their contract proposals and these rights were violated by the scheme.

Virtue A very different answer to why it was wrong to enter into the kickback scheme makes reference to virtues and vices, that is too good and bad traits of character.

Sometimes the authority at power may display unfairness, dishonesty and greed.

And the engineers may display moral weakness, dishonesty, deceptiveness.

Virtue ethics regards actions as wrong in so far as they menifest bad character traits , and right in so far as they display or support good character traits.

Here, the fundamental concept is a morally good person, rather than right action.

Now we will discuss the theories in sequence.

Mill: Act Utilitarianism and happiness

• It is the view that we ought to produce the best for the most people, given equal consideration to everyone affected.

• The standard of right conduct is the maximization of goodness.• But what is the goodness that is to be maximized and how is the

‘production’ of goodness related to everyday moral rules.• Act-utilitarinism says that we should focus on individual actions,

rather than general rules.• An act Is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most

people involved in particular situation.• Everyday maxims like ‘keep your promises’, ‘do not deceive’, and

‘do not bribe’ are rough guide lines.• According to Jhon Stuart Mill, these maxims are useful rules of

thumb that summarize past human experience about the types of actions which usually maximize utility.

Cont.

• But the rules should be broken whenever doing so will produce the most good in a specific situation.

• If the standard of right action is maximizing goodness, what goodness itself is .

• Mill believed that happiness is the only intrinsic good that is, something good in and of itself or desirable for its own sake.

• All other good things are instrumental goods in that they provide means for happiness.

• A trip to the dentist is an instrumental good that promotes the happiness by avoiding or removing the pain of the tooth ache.

Brandt: Rule-utilitarianism and Rational Desires

• It is the second main version of utilitarianism, regards moral rules as primary.

• According to it we ought to always to act on those rules which if generally followed would produce the most good for the most people.

• Individual actions are right when they conform to the rules.• Thus we ought to keep promises and avoid bribes, even when those acts do

not have the best consequences in a particular situation, because the general practices of promising and not bribing produce the most overall good.

• He believes that the rules should be considered in sets which he calls moral codes.

• The moral code is justified when it is an optimal code which would maximize the public good more than alternative codes would.

• The codes may be society- wide standards or specific codes for a profession like engineering

Kant: Duties and respect for persons

• Immanuel Kant regards duties, rather than good consequences, as fundamental.

• Right actions are those required by a list of duties : Be honest, keep promises, be fair etc..

• There are duties to ourselves: improve ones own intelligence, develop ones talents etc..

• These are our duties because they meet three conditions … • 1. Each expresses respect for persons• 2. Each expresses an unqualified command for the next step.• Each is a universal principle.• Kant valued Good will in accordance with respect.• Duties are categorical imperatives- be fair, be honest etc.• It will be clear if it is compared with the non-moral commands which

Kant called Hypothetical Imperatives.

Cont.

• H.I. command on the basis of the condition such as : If you deserve to be healthier, than stop overeating.

• But categorical command : We have to keep promise as it is our duty.

• Moral reasons are those which we are willing to have everyone act upon and which we can conceive of all people heeding.

Rawls’s Duty Ethics• According to Rawls valid principles of duty are those which would be

voluntarily agreed upon by all rational people.• The person in this hypothetical situation are categorized by several

features :• 1. They lack all specific knowledge about themselves.• 2. They do have general knowledge about human psychology.• 3. They have rational concern for promoting their long term interest.• 4. They seek to agree with each other about the principles they will

voluntarily and autonomously follow as a group.• All rational people will agree in this hypothetical situation to abide by two

moral principles applicable to societies and social institutions like professions;

• 1. Each person is entitled to the most extensive amount of liberty compatible with an equal amount for others.

• 2. Differences in social power and economic benefits are justified only when they are likely to benefit everyone,. Including members of the most disadvantaged groups