ERS Week 2 Ethical Standards Additional Information PDF

Preview

Summary

tutorial work...

Description

Ethical Standards: Additional Information Ethics-as-consequences Basic Definition According to Ethics Unwrapped (2020), ‘consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.’ History One form of consequence-based ethics is known as utilitarianism. This theory, according to Rachels and Rachels (2007, p. 100) comes down to ‘three propositions: (a) Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely because of their consequences. (b) In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created; everything else is irrelevant. (c) Each person’s happiness counts the same.’ When it was developed in the 19th century, this was a radical idea. At the time, most people’s view of right and wrong consisted in obeying rules that came from religious codes. In this setting, utilitarianism said that ethics was NOT about obeying ‘some divinely written moral code’ but maximising ‘the happiness of beings in this world’ (Rachels and Rachels, 2007, p. 91). Also, at that time, societies were organised with a handful of powerful people at the top and the majority of the people living with very little power or money. In this setting, it was a radical idea to suggest that the well-being of EVERY person should count exactly the same. Some limitations and problems According to Ethics Unwrapped (2020a), ‘consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good. For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”’ The basic criticism here is that focussing ONLY on consequences can ignore some considerations that most of us consider to be central to ethical behaviour. Many of us think that there are some things (stealing, lying, killing innocent people) that are always wrong, regardless of the consequences.

Applying a consequence-based ethics 1. When you are considering an action, identify ALL of the people who will be affected by that action. 2. Determine exactly how each person on that list will be affected: Who will be affected positively (and to what extent)? Who will be affected negatively (and to what extent)? Make sure that you are considering long-term consequences and not just the immediate impacts of the action. 3. Determine whether the action creates the best possible set of consequences for all concerned. It is not enough to show that the action creates more positive than negative outcomes. You must also consider whether there are any available alternatives that would generate a better set of outcomes.)

Ethics-as-categorical-rules Basic definition The idea of categorical rules comes from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who tried to set out the set of moral rules that human beings are morally bound to follow. He argues that we can find these rules by using our reason, and that the rules we experience a duty to follow them. Because these rules are based on duty, this philosophy is sometimes known as deontology (from Latin, the science of duty). Alasdair MacIntyre says that for many people ‘who have never heard of philosophy, let alone of Kant, morality is roughly what Kant said it was’, namely ‘a system of rules that one must follow from a sense of duty, regardless of one’s wants or desires’ (Rachels &Rachels, 2007, p. 127). Limitations and weaknesses Ethics Unwrapped (2020b) argues that the simplicity of ethics-as-categorical rules is both its biggest advantage and its main weakness. They say: ‘Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical. Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to follow set rules. Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the

launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die. So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.’ Two formulations Kant explained his theory of ethics in two different ways 1. He said that we should only act in ways that we would be happy for everyone else to act in the same way. For instance, if we were to think about lying, we would NOT be happy to live in a world where everyone else lied (in such a world, ‘people would quickly learn that they could not rely in what other people said’ and social communication would become impossible (Rachels & Rachels, 2007, p. 123)) Therefore, we shouldn’t lie. We would never want for lying to become a universal law of conduct. 2. He also said that we should also follow rules because they are a way of treating other human beings with the ultimate respect that all human beings deserve. For instance, if you need money to achieve some good and important purpose, would it be ethically acceptable to ‘trick a friend into giving you the money’ by lying about your ability to repay the loan? (Rachels & Rachels, 2007, p. 132). Kant would say “no”. He says that ‘we may never manipulate people, or use people, to achieve our purposes, no matter how good those purposes may be’ (Rachels & Rachels, 2007, p. 132): we should never treat other people as a tool to get what we want (a means to an end) but rather as ultimately valuable beings (an end in themselves.)

Further reading Ethics Unwrapped (2020a). Consequentialism. Available at: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism Ethics Unwrapped (2020b). Deontology. Available at: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ethics based on relational values Basic definition Relational values are a way of thinking of ourselves as interrelated to other humans, plants, animals, the natural world, and to spirit. This gives a focus more on the community, than the individual players, as our actions affect all those around us. To act ethically, is to be a good member of your family, of society, of the environment. Ethics are centred on relationships (Selman & Derickson, 2020; Spiller et al., 2011; Verbos & Humphries, 2014). History Indigenous ethical behaviours are passed down through stories. Modern interpretations of ethics embody the wisdom of generations before. In many cases, these stories have survived centuries of sustained efforts to colonise, assimilate, and supersede such knowledge (Selman & Derickson, 2020; Verbos & Humphries, 2014). Limitations and weaknesses Verbos and Humphries (2014) talk about the limitations of relational ethics being accepted in mainstream thought. Relational ethics derive from a worldview that is dissimilar to what is taught in mainstream Western education. Privileging relationships and feelings over rational economic thought can be a barrier for many students. These authors “anticipate a tendency to dismiss a relational ethic as either too simplistic, romantic, or, paradoxically, too complex for the speed of business today” (p. 7). Variations The Mauri Model (Morgan 2006; Fa’aui & Morgan, 2014) is used in this paper as one model that emphasises relational ethics, but we must note that this is not the only model. The version discusses in class gives equal weighting to all four dimensions (environmental, culture, society, economy), but this may not always be the case. Other models may give more weight to environmental wellbeing (over the economy and society). Others have an element of spiritual wellbeing. One size does not fit all, but the common theme is to highlight the relationality between all things Application The Mauri Model separately assesses the mauri of the ecosystem (environmental well-being); hapū or kinship group (cultural well-being); community (social well-being); and whānau or family unit (economic well-being). It also takes into account long-term effects of an action. To assess if something was ethical, you would decide whether it was enhancing or diminishing the mauri in each of the 4 dimensions here, and then create an overall assessment of the entire decision. Note that in this framework, there could be cases where you may not be able to come up with specific assessments of one of the wellbeing dimensions (for example, you may not be sure if there is any impact on environmental wellbeing), however, the imperative here is that all dimensions are considered in depth, and justifications made as to why something is unaffected..

Further reading Fa'aui, T., & Morgan, T. (2014). Restoring the mauri to the pre-MV 'Rena' state. MAI Journal, 3(1), 3-17. Morgan, T. K. K. B. (2006). Decision-support tools and the indigenous paradigm. Engineering Sustainability, 159(ES4), 169-177. Selman M., & Derickson, C. (2020). LAW 631Q - Business ethics & Indigenous values. Retrieved from: https://law.arizona.edu/course/business-ethics-indigenous-values. Spiller, C., Erakovic, L., Henare, M., & Pio, E. (2011). Relational well-being and wealth: Māori businesses and an ethic of care. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 153–169. Verbos, A., & Humphries, K. (2014). A Native American relational ethic: An Indigenous perspective on teaching human responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 1-9....