L01 Normative Ethics

Question 1

Ethics is?

Answer 1

Ethics is the systematic reflection on what is moral.

Question 2

Morality is?

Answer 2

Morality is the totality of opinions, decisions, and actions with which people express what they think is good or right

Question 3

Why should we care about ethics?

Answer 3

Systematic reflection on morality increases our ability to cope with moral problems, and thus moral problems that are related to technology as well.

Ethics, however, is not a manual with answers; it reflects on questions and arguments concerning the moral choices people can make. Ethics is a process of searching for the right kind of morality.

Question 4

Descriptive ethics:

Answer 4

Descriptive ethics is involved with the description of the existing morality, including the description of customs and habits, opinions about good and evil, responsible and irresponsible behaviour, and acceptable and unacceptable action. It studies the morality found in certain subcultures or during certain periods of history.

Descriptive ethics can discuss the morality of Indians or monthly magazines for men without passing judgment.

Question 5

Prescriptive or normative ethics:

Answer 5

By definition normative ethics is not value-free; it judges morality. It considers the following main question: do the norms and values actually used conform to our ideas about how people should behave?

Normative ethics does not give an unambiguous answer to this question, but in its moral judgment various arguments are given based on various ethical theories. These ethical theories contribute to provide viewpoints from which we can to critically discuss moral issues.

Question 6

Values:

Answer 6

“Moral values are lasting convictions or matters that people feel should be strived for in general and not just for themselves to be able to lead a good life or to realize a just society.”

“A distinction can be made between intrinsic and instrumental values. An intrinsic value is an objective in and of itself”

Question 7

Norms

Answer 7

Norms are rules that prescribe what concrete actions are required, permitted or forbidden. These are rules and agreements about how people are supposed to treat each other. Values are translated into rules, so that it is clear in everyday life how we should act to achieve certain values.

Question 8

The difference between values and norms can be described as follows

Answer 8

The difference between values and norms can be described as follows.

Values are abstract or global ideas or objectives that are strived for through certain types of behaviour; it is what people eventually wish to achieve.

Norms, however, are the means to realize values. They are concrete, specific rules that limit action. Without an interpretation, the objective cannot be achieved

Question 9

Moral virtues:

Answer 9

Moral virtues are character traits that make someone a good person or that allow people to lead good lives

Question 10

Next to values and norms we have another moral point of departure: virtues.
The philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre describes virtues as a certain type of human characteristic or qualities that has the following five features:

Answer 10

1. They are desired characteristics and they express a value that is worth striving for.
2. They are expressed in action.
3. They are lasting and permanent – they form a lasting structural foundation for action.
4. They are always present, but are only used when necessary.
5. They can be influenced by the individual.

Question 11

The three primary ethical theories can be distinguished on two things, which are?

Answer 11

1. their approach to the structure of human action
2. primary focus or point of departure

Question 12

Table 1.2 Differences between ethical theories:

Answer 12

Theory: Virtue Ethics | Actor based | POD: Virtues
Theory: Deontology (Duty Ethics) | Action based | POD: Norms
Theory: Utilitarianism | Consequence Based |POD: Values

Question 13

Utilitarianism:

Answer 13

“In consequentialism, the consequences of actions are central to the moral judgment of those actions. An action in itself is not right or wrong; it is only the consequence of action that is morally relevant.

Utilitarianism is characterized by the fact that it measures the consequences of actions against one value: human pleasure, happiness or welfare. Utilitarianism therefore is a monistic type of consequentialism.

Question 14

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism:

Answer 14

Utilitarianism makes the consequence of an action central to its moral judgment: an action is right if it is useful and wrong if it is damaging. The next question of course is ‘useful for what?’ In other words, what is the purpose for which the action is a means? This purpose has to be something that has intrinsic value.

Bentham calls pleasure and pain the sovereign masters of man. That which provides pleasure or avoids pain is good, and that which provides pain or reduces pleasure is evil

The only moral criterion for good and evil lies in what Bentham calls the utility principle: the greatest happiness of the greatest number (of the members of the community). This principle is the only and sufficient ground for any action – both for individuals and collectives

Here, the costs and benefits for each possible action must be weighed against each other. The action with the best result (providing the most utility) is the one to be preferred

Question 15

There are 2 things which make Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism hard to apply. What are those?

Answer 15

1. the pleasure of different people cannot be compared; pleasure is a rather subjective term. A person can enjoy a composition by Mozart, while someone else experiences this quite differently.
2. Second, it is not easy to compare actions: is reading a good book worth more than eating an ice cream? While applying this hedonistic calculus this will often lead to problems, because it is not clear how much pleasure a given experience produces for each person.

Question 16

John Stuart Mill (Mill and the freedom principle)

Answer 16

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) extended and revised Bentham’s thinking. There are two main respects in which Mill’s thinking differs from that of his predecessor:

1. According to Mill, qualities must be taken into account when applying the utilitarian calculus: forms of pleasure can be qualitatively compared, in which it is possible that a quantitatively smaller pleasure is preferred over a quantitatively larger one because the former pleasure is by nature more valuable than the latter. (‘higher’ desires, like intellectual ones, are to be preferred above ‘lower’ desires, like physical or animal desires)
2. The second distinction was a response to the criticism that the position of individuals cannot always be protected if the calculation indicates that the pleasure of the majority outweighs the unhappiness of a few individuals. This could result in the exploitation and abuse of minorities, because Bentham’s utilitarianism does not say anything about the division of pleasure and pain among people. According to Mill we must choose the action that provides the most pleasure but does not conflict with human nature and dignity.

–> For the latter point he introduces the freedom principle (no harm principle): everyone is free to strive for his/her own pleasure, as long as they do not deny or hinder the pleasure of others.

Question 17

Criticism on Utilitarianism:

Answer 17

1. Happiness cannot be measured objectively.
2. Utilitarianism can lead to exploitation.
3. The first criticism is that the consequences cannot be foreseen objectively and often are unpredictable, unknown, or uncertain.
4. The problem of the distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the value of having a just distribution of certain important goods, like income, happiness, and carrier. Utilitarianism can lead to an unjust division of costs and benefits
5. A of criticism is that utilitarianism ignores the personal relationships between people.
6. Certain actions are morally acceptable even though they do not create pleasure and some actions that maximize pleasure are morally unacceptable.

Question 18

According to duty ethics (also known as deontological ethics), an action is morally right if:

Answer 18

An action is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule (law, norm, or principle) that is applicable in itself, independent of the consequences of that action.

Question 19

There are two important points of difference between the various duty ethics theories:

Answer 19

1. some theories rely on one main principle from which all moral norms can be derived (monistic duty ethics). Other theories, the pluralistic theories, are based on several principles that apply as norms for moral action.
2. The second important difference concerns the foundation or origin of the moral rules. These rules can be given by God, such as in the Bible or the Koran, or they make an appeal to a social contract that the involved parties have implicitly agreed to (e.g. a company code), or they are based on reasonable arguments.

Question 20

Immanuel Kant argued that normatice ethics can not be based on happiness, why?

Answer 20

Since Aristotle, the bases for ethics had been sought in striving for happiness or welfare (e.g. Bentham and Mill). According to Kant, moral laws or normative ethics cannot be based on happiness. Happiness is an individual matter and changes for each person during his/her lifetime. Moreover, it is hard to determine what increases happiness, so striving for happiness can even lead to immorality. Thus, Kant argued that duty was a better guide for ethics.

Question 21

Kantian Theory:

Answer 21

According to duty ethics (also known as deontological ethics), an action is morally right if it is in agreement with a moral rule (law, norm, or principle) that is applicable in itself, independent of the consequences of that action.

According to Kant, moral laws or normative ethics cannot be based on happiness. Happiness is an individual matter and changes for each person during his/her lifetime. Moreover, it is hard to determine what increases happiness, so striving for happiness can even lead to immorality. Thus, Kant argued that duty was a better guide for ethics.

A core notion in Kantian ethics is autonomy. In Kant’s opinion man himself should be able to determine what is morally correct through reasoning. This should be possible independent of external norms, such as religious norms. The idea behind is that we should place a moral norm upon ourselves and should obey it: it is our duty. We should obey this norm out of a sense of duty – out of respect for the moral norm. It is only then that we are acting with good will.

Question 22

First categorical imperative (Imannuel Kant)

Answer 22

According to Kant there is one universal principle from which all moral norms can be derived, which makes his ethics a monistic duty ethics. This principle, which is the foundation of all moral judgments in Kant’s view, is referred to as the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative was formulated by Kant in different ways.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative, the universality principle, is as follows:

“Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

A maxim is a practical principle or proposition that prescribes some action. Kant states that the maxim should be unconditionally good, and should be able to serve as a general law for everyone without this giving rise to contradiction.

Question 23

The second categorical imperative

Answer 23

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is, according to Kant, equivalent to the first.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the respect principle, is as follows:

“Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as means only.”

Humanity in this version of the imperative is presented as equivalent to ‘reason’ or ‘rationality’, for humans differ from things without reason (objects and animals) because humans can think.

This imperative states that each human must have respect for the rationality of another and that we must not misguide the rationality of another. In other words, Kant here stresses the rational nature of humans as free, intelligent, self-directing beings. In saying they must never be treated as a means only, he means that we must not merely “use” them as means to our selfish ends. They are not objects or instruments to be used. To use people is to disrespect their humanity.

“By failing to inform them, the rational agency of the consumer was undermined, and they were used as a means to achieve Ford’s aim: increasing Ford’s turnover.”

Question 24

Criticism of Kantian theory

Answer 24

1. The question arises whether all these laws form an unambiguous and consistent system of norms. Often there are several contradictory norms, as we saw earlier in the case of the whistle-blower. Another example is the situation in which one can only save one’s friend from an emergency situation by lying. It means breaking a norm: either you break the norm that you must always speak the truth or you break the norm about helping people when they need it.
2. A second problem is that duty ethics, and thus Kantian theory, often elicits the objection that a rigid adherence to moral rules can make people blind to the potentially very negative consequences of their actions

Question 25

William David Ross

Answer 25

William David Ross developed a pluralistic theory of moral obligations. Ross states that good is often situated on two levels: what seems to be good at first and that which is good once we take everything into consideration. The norms of the first level are called prima facie norms and those of the second level are called self-evident norms (‘duties sans phrase’). Usually, the prima facie norms are our self-evident norms, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. You should pick the self-evident norms.

Question 26

Virtue ethics

Answer 26

Rather than taking action as point of departure for moral judgment, virtue ethics focuses on the nature of the acting person. This theory indicates which good or desirable characteristics people should have or develop and how people can achieve this. Virtue ethics is not exclusively aimed at reason, as the previous two theories were, but is more a mixture of ethics and psychology with an emphasis on developing character traits. Virtue ethics is based on a notion of humankind in which people’s characters can be shaped by proper nurture and education, and by following good examples. The central theme is the development of persons into morally good and responsible individuals so that they can lead good lives. “This can be translated as ‘the good life’ (or as ‘welfare’ or ‘happiness’). This does not refer to a happy circumstance that brings pleasure (the goal of classical utilitarians), but a state of being a good person. It means leading a life as humans are meant to lead it; one should excel in the things that are part of being human. The good life is not only determined by activities related to reasoning, but is also realized by virtuous activities according to Aristotle. The good life therefore is an active life in agreement with the virtues necessary to realize one’s uniquely human potential. “Sagacity implies a capacity for moral judgment, which is the middle course. Moral virtues and the intellectual virtue go hand in hand”

Question 27

Criticism virtue ethics

Answer 27

1. It appears that not all obligations to act can be reduced to virtues and vice versa. Virtues characterize the person and provide insight into the background to action. A person’s good character traits do raise expectations, but they do not provide a measure for judging an action. 2. We can join Kant in wondering whether we can simply declare a moral virtue to be good in itself without any reservation.

Question 28

Normal Daniels’ discussion of wide reflective equilibrium.

Answer 28

According to Daniels the method of wide reflective equilibrium is an attempt to make cohere three types of beliefs: 1) considered moral judgments, 2) moral principles and 3) background theories. The background theories include ethical theories, but also other relevant data such as psychological and sociological theories about the person The inclusion of theories is important because they block the possibility of simply choosing those principles that fit our (considered) judgment.

Question 29

Responsibility

Answer 29

Whenever something goes wrong or there is a disaster then the question who is responsible for it often quickly arises. Here responsibility means in the first place being held accountable for your actions and for the effects of your actions. The making of choices, the taking of decisions but also failing to act are all things that we regard as types of actions

Question 30

Passive responsibility

Answer 30

Typical for passive responsibility is that the person who is held responsible must be able to provide an account why he followed a particular course of action and why he made certain decisions. In particular, the person is held to justify his/her actions towards those who are in a position to demand that the individual in question accounts for his/her actions.

Question 31

Blameworthiness

Answer 31

Passive responsibility often involves not just accountability but also blameworthiness. Blameworthiness means that it is proper to blame someone for his/her actions or the consequences of those actions. You are not always blameworthy for the consequences of your actions or for your actions themselves. Usually, four conditions need to apply: (1) wrong-doing, (2) causal contribution, (3) foreseeability (4) and freedom.

Question 32

Wrong doing

Answer 32

Whenever one blames a person or institution one usually maintains that in carrying out a certain action the individual or the institution in question has violated a norm or did something wrong.

Question 33

Causal contribution

Answer 33

A second criterion is that the person who is held responsible must have made a causal contribution to the consequences for which he or she is held responsible. Two things are to be kept in mind when judging whether someone made a causal contribution to a certain consequence. (1) First, not only an action, but also a failure to act may often be considered a causal contribution, like in the case of the Challenger the failure to stop the launch. (2) Second, a causal contribution is usually not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the consequence under consideration. Often, a range of causal contributions will have to be present for the consequence to occur.

Question 34

Foresee ability

Answer 34

A person who is held responsible for something must have been able to know the consequences of his or her actions. The consequences are the harm actually arising from transgressing a norm. People cannot be held responsible if it is totally unreasonable to expect that they could possibly have been aware of the consequences. What we do expect is that people do everything that is reasonably possible to become acquainted with the possible consequences.

Question 35

“Freedom of Action”

Answer 35

Finally, the one who is held responsible must have had freedom of action, i.e. he or she must not have acted under compulsion. Individuals are either not responsible or are responsible to a lesser degree if they are, for instance, coerced to take certain decisions. The question is, however, what exactly counts as coercion. A person can, for example, be ‘forced’ or manipulated to work on the development of a particular technology under the threat that if he does not cooperate he will sacrifice his chances of promotion. In this case, this person is strictly speaking not coerced to work on the development of the particular technology, he can still act differently. Therefore the person remains responsible for his/her actions. However, since he/she is also not entirely free we could say that her responsibility is somewhat smaller than in the case where she had freely chosen to be involved in the development of this technology.

Question 36

Active Responsibility

Answer 36

“We considered above questions of responsibility when something has gone wrong. Responsibility is also something that comes into play beforehand, if nothing has yet gone wrong or if there is the chance to realise something good. We will refer to this as active responsibility. If someone is actively responsible for something he is expected to act in such a way that undesired consequences are avoided as much as possible and so that positive consequences are being realised.

Question 37

Mark Bovens (1998) mentions the following features of active responsibility:

Answer 37

Mark Bovens (1998) mentions the following features of active responsibility: * Adequate perception of threatened violations of norms * Consideration of the consequences * Autonomy, i.e. the ability to make one’s own independent moral decisions * Displaying conduct that is based on a verifiable and consistent code * Taking role obligations

Question 38

Problem of many hands

Answer 38

The Herald of Free Enterprise illustrates a number of issues with respect to responsibility in organizations. First, it shows how difficult it may be to pinpoint responsibility and blame in cases in which many people are involved in an activity and in which many causes contributed to a disaster. This is known as the problem of many hands.

Question 39

Moral responsibility

Answer 39

(1) “Moral blameworthiness based on conditions of wrong-doing, causality, freedom and knowledge” (2) “Can be established more informally; you can also consider whether you are yourself responsible (3) “Not necessarily connected to punishment or compensation (4) “Backward-looking and forward-looking”

Question 40

Legal liability

Answer 40

(1) “Based on conditions formulated in the law” (2) “Established in well-regulated procedure in court; juridical proof of conditions required” (3) “Usually implies the obligation to pay a fine or to repay damage” (4) “Backward-looking”

Question 41

corporate liability

Answer 41

Not only individual persons, but also corporations can be held liable for the law. In such cases, the corporation is treated as a legal person. This is called corporate liability Second, most modern corporations are characterized by limited liability. This means that the shareholders are liable for the corporation’s debts and obligations up to the value of their shares. Corporations may, however, well inflict more damage than the total value of their shares. Thirdly, both the moral fairness and the effectiveness of corporate liability to a large extent depend on how the liability of the corporation is translated to individuals within the organization.

Question 42

CSR

Answer 42

The assumption is that companies have a corporate social responsibility, i.e. a responsibility towards stakeholders and to society at large. This assumption has been contested by several authors who maintain that the responsibility of a company is limited to making profit within the limits of the law.

Question 43

According to Friedman (1970):

Answer 43

“companies only have responsibilities towards their shareholders and not to any other stakeholders, society or the environment. He considers it undesirable that companies take into account other stakeholders’ interests and views. He provides two arguments for this statement. (1) First, money spent by a corporation on social responsibility is ultimately the money of the shareholders and this expenditure conflicts with their goal to maximize profits. (2) Second, corporations are not democratically elected. When companies formulate their own ideas about what is morally allowable or desirable they are enforcing their own particular view upon others without any democratic legitimization. If any limits on corporate behaviour are desirable, they have to be formulated by the government, not by companies.”

Question 44

Objections against friedman

Answer 44

(1) First, although responsibilities to other stakeholders can conflict with shareholders’ interests, this is not always the case. Companies are aware that corporate responsibility initiatives do not necessarily have a negative impact on their bottom line, and that they can have an extremely positive impact. In other words, the thought that “ethics is a luxury we can’t afford” is replaced by “ethics pays”. (2) Second, laws are not always adequate or effective in preventing immoral behaviour. Not everything that is morally desirable can be laid down in the law. Laws also tend to lag behind technological development and companies might be in a better position to foretell moral issues raised by new technology than the government. Hence, they have a responsibility that extends beyond what the law requires.

Question 45

Most modern organizations are characterised by a division of tasks and roles. This has implications for who can be held responsible for what in organizations. In this section, we will discuss three different models for distributing responsibility in organizations:

Answer 45

1. The hierarchical model where those highest in the organization’s hierarchy are held responsible; 2. The collective model in which each member of the organization is held to be jointly and severally responsible for the acts of the organization as a whole; 3. The individual model in which each member of the organization is held responsible in relation to his or her contribution “Two considerations are then, again, important. (1) First, whether the model is morally fair in how it allocates responsibility and, (2) second, whether, it is effective in avoiding undesirable behaviour. Below, we will discuss these issues for the three models”