Chapter 2Sumarry PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter 2Sumarry...

Description

Chapter 2 Terminology Factual Issues: Questions about what the facts are. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.) Conceptual Issues: Questions about the meaning of terms. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.) Conflict of Interest: Conflict between a professional obligation and some private interests that might conflict with this obligation. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.) Application Issues: Questions about whether a given term or expression applies to a person, an individua action, or a general practice. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.) Common Morality: The stock of common moral belief to which most of us adhere. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.) Virtues: Character traits that motivate morally desirable action. (Harris, C, Pritchard, M., Rabins, M., James, R., Englehardt, E., “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases,” 5th edition, 2013, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, USA.)

Summary Cases: -

The revelation that Germany’s Heidelberg University had in the past used more than 200 corpses in automobile crash test was condemned strongly by public. According to many debates from trustworthy organizations, using cadavers in crash testing is allowable within 3 criteria: (1) assurance that the data sought by the test cannot be gained from using dummies, (2) prior consent by the deceased person, and (3) informed consent of the family.

2.1 Introduction -

Technology raises moral and social issues of considerable importance, but reference to professional codes and general concepts of professionalism may not be sufficient to resolve the issue. This chapter provide several methods that go beyond the codes and are useful in analyzing and then resolving moral issues.

2.2 Determining the Fact

-

First, often, moral disagreements turn out to be disagreement over the relevant facts. Second, factual issues are sometimes very difficult to resolve. Third, sometimes important moral issues must be decided in the light of irresolvable factual uncertainty.

2.3 Clarifying Concept -

Responsible moral thinking requires not only attending carefully to the fact, but also having a good grasp of the key concept we are using.

2.4 Determining How Concept Apply: Application Issues -

See definition of Application Issues Application issues can be resolved by getting clear about the relevant facts and agreeing on the meaning of the relevant concept.

2.5 Deciding Moral Issues: Line Drawing. -

-

Line drawing technique can be useful in resolving application issues. Victor, as an engineer in large engineer firm, decides to recommend ACME rivets for the job because he determines they are the lowest cost and highest quality. After his decision, ACME representative offers him a voucher for an all-expense-paid trip, which has not only considerable value but also personal gain, to the annual Technical Forum in Jamaica. Victor can use line drawing to help him decide whether he should accept the vendor’s offer. Even if accepting this offer is not accepting a bribe, it might not be wise to accept it. Features of bribery: o Gift size is greater than 10000 dollars. o Timing is before recommendation. o Reason is personal gain. o Responsibility for decision is sole. o Product quality is worst in industry. o Product cost is highest in market.

2.6 Conflicting Values: Creative Middle Way Solutions -

Creative middle way solution is an option that would satisfy the favor consideration and the against consideration – or at least satisfy as many of the competing consideration as possible.

2.7 Common Morality -

-

To resolve some moral issues-especially those involving larger social policy-the moral basis of these policies must be looked into, which requires additional resources come from common morality. See definition of Common Morality.

Formulation of Common Morality: Virtues -

See the definition of Virtues. Virtue is consisting four elements: an affective component, a dispositional component, a cognitive component, and an identity component.

-

Virtue may be useful in practical ethics because: o First, the virtues are an essential part of evaluating person, as opposed to action. o Second, promoting the development of the virtues is an important part of promoting ethical action. o Third, using the vocabulary of the virtues is often necessary for moral analysis.

Formulation of Common Morality: Rules and Duties -

-

-

Ross’s list of prima facie: o Duties resting on our previous act.  Duties of fidelity.  Duties of reparation for wrong done. o Duties of gratitude. o Duties of justice. o Duties of beneficence. o Duties of self-improvement. o Duties not to injure others. Gert’s list of ten moral rules: o Don’t kill. o Don’t cause pain. o Don’t disable. o Don’t deprive of freedom. o Don’t deprive of pleasure. o Don’t deceive. o Keep your promise. o Don’t cheat. o Obey the law. o Do your duty. Exceptions to moral duties and rules, however, must have a justification.

Evaluating Action vs. Evaluating the Person -

-

Actions are evaluated in terms of moral rules and duties, while a person is evaluated primary in term of the intent behind the action. Engineering codes say little about intent, but intent is of paramount importance when actions are evaluated from the standpoint of common morality. Provision regrading a “right of conscience” should be a part of engineering code because violating one’s conscience by doing something one understands to be wrong is a serious moral issue.

2.8 The Structure of Common Morality -

-

Judgment in Common Morality o There are four types of judgments in common morality: permissible, impermissible, obligatory, or supererogatory. Levels of Common Morality

o The first level is the general moral statements. The second level is moral judgments about general practices or classes of actions. The third level is moral judgments about particular actions. 2.9 Modeling Common Morality -

-

-

-

Modeling in Ethics o An ethical model can enhance our ability to understand ethical concepts and to apply them more effectively. Two Models in Common Morality o Utilitarian Model  Moral standard: Actions or practices should be follow that maximize human well-being. o Respect for Person Model  Moral Standard: Actions or practices should be followed that protect and respect the moral agency of human being. Limitation of the Two Model o Utilitarian Model’s Limitation:  Although intent is a crucial idea in common morality, it is difficult to account for the importance of intent in utilitarian terms.  The utilitarian perspective is often thought to have difficulty giving a proper account of justice.  Utilitarian thinking is often thought to have difficulties in accounting for supererogatory actions. o Respect for Person Model’s Limitation:  Approach’s tendency to disallow actions that common morality might permit.  The respect for person model is often difficult to apply because of the problems encountered in defining and applying crucial terms. Convergence and Divergence of the Two Model o Problem that utilitarian and respect for person models have in explaining all aspects of common morality is called the problem of incomplete extension. o The two models can either converge on the same solution to a moral problem or give different solutions. If the two models lead to the same solution, the solution is believed to be correct. If they lead to different solutions, it must be decided which line of reasoning is more convincing in the circumstance.

2.10 Test or Application Procedures for Using the Two Models -

-

Utilitarian Thinking o Taking utilitarian approach requires to focus on the idea of bringing about “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Although the problem of this approach is determining the scope of audience, utilitarian approach can be useful in many situations. The Cost-Benefit Approach o Cost-benefit approach is considering the course of action that produces the greatest benefit relative to cost.

-

-

-

o Cost-benefit analysis involves three steps:  Identify the available option.  Assess the cost of each option.  Make the decision. o Limitation:  Cost-benefit approach assumes that economic measures of cost and benefit override all other consideration.  It is often difficult to ascertain the cost and benefits of the many factors that should enter into a cost-benefit analysis. o Despite the limitations, cost-benefit approach can make an important contribution to moral problem solving. The Act Utilitarian Approach o The act utilitarian approaches require trying to determine what will maximize good consequence. This approach is often helpful in analyzing options in situations that call for making moral decision. o The utilitarian analyses seem to carry considerable moral weight even if the turn out not be decisive. The Rule Utilitarian Approach o In situations covered by well-understood, generally observed rules or practices that serve utilitarian ends, one should justify one’s actions by appealing to the relevant rules or practices. o One limitation is that if there are widespread departures from rules or practices, it is less clear whether overall utility is still promoted by continuing to conform to the rule or practice. Another limitation is that determining the precise nature of the rule to be followed is sometimes difficult and controversial. o The rule utilitarian approach is useful in thinking about legal and social policy issues having broad social consequence. o Steps to apply:  Identify the particular action or general policy  Formulate the rules that describe action or general policy.  Identify the audience.  Select the rule has the best consequence for human well-being.  If the rule is justified, apply the rule to the situation or social policy in question. Respect for Person Approach o The moral standard for respect for person approach requires treating each person as worthy of respect as a moral agent. From the standpoint of this approach, the percepts of common morality protect the moral agency of individual human well beings. o There are three approaches to respect for the person thinking  The Golden Rule Approach:  The basic idea behind Golden Rule Approach is the idea of universalizability, in which reversibility is a special application.  Universalizing our thinking by applying the idea of reversibility can help us realize that we may be treating others in ways that we would object to if done to us.

The golden rule mandates that we understand the perspective of agent and recipient. The Self-Defeating Approach:  A universalized action can be self-defeating in two ways. First, sometimes the action cannot be performed if it is universalized. Second, sometimes the purpose in performing action is undermine if everyone else does what I do.  Using self-defeating criterion does not depend on everyone making promises without intending to keep them.  The self-defeating criterion has limitations.  Some unethical actions might avoid being morally self-defeating. The Right Approach:  A right may be understood as both an entitlement to act and an entitlement to have another individual act in a certain way.  There are positive right and negative right.  One problem any account of rights must face is how to deal with conflicting right.  Step could be taken to address the hierarchy of rights: o Identify the basic obligations, values, and interests at stake, noting any conflicts. o Analyze the action or rule to determine what options are available and what rights are at stake. o Determine the audience of the action or rule. o Evaluate the seriousness of the rights infringements or violations that would occur with each option, taking into account both the tier level of rights and the number of violations or infringement involved. o Make a choice that seems likely to produce the least serious rights infringements or violations, all things considered. 





Questions I have: -

Are these features in TABLE 2.2 all of features of paradigm bribery? How can we know the creative middle way solution works in specific situation?...