Ethics Module Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

ETHICSModule 1: Moral vs. Nonmoral StandardsEthics is a philosophical study of morality.The Difference between Ethics and Morality Ethics and Morality Ethics is a branch of Philosophy. It attempts to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us—of how we ou...

Description

ETHICS

a kind as to be according to some code or theory of ethics.

Module 1: Moral vs. Nonmoral Standards Ethics is a philosophical study of morality. The Difference between Ethics and Morality Ethics and Morality Ethics is a branch of Philosophy. It attempts to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us—of how we ought to live, and why (Rachels 2003). Morality, more specifically, concerns what we ought to become, how we ought to relate to others, and how we ought to act. These moral oughts to differ from other oughts like what one ought to do to fix his laptop, or what he ought to do to improve his academic performance. However, if morality is defined in terms of moral oughts, it seems to be a circular or empty description. (Martin 2007). HOW DOES MORAL EXPERIENCE START? The foundations of evolving moral systems rest on a complex process that sustains and preserves the human species. This is a dynamic process that drives the creation of moral and ethical standards. Every human action inspires a corresponding reaction whether subtle in nature or violent. Some people are more emotionally reactive than others. Emotions can get out of control if not regulated by laws, customs, moral codes, professional codes and even the rules of etiquette. Rules are a stabilizing force that enhance the survivability of individuals, families, and nations. If an action consistently leads to unnecessary pain, suffering and death, it is an action discouraged by new rules and regulations designed to prohibit it. Thus, by the destructive consequences of human actions, the notion of "right" and "wrong" evolves.

Moral actions or events are areas of interest where moral categories can be applied and of such

It also involves human intention, volition, or behavior described in terms of moral categories. Non-moral actions would be those actions where moral categories (such a right and wrong) cannot be applied (such as matters of fact in scientific descriptions). A non-intentional action such as reflex or an accident would be ordinarily a non-moral action. An unintentional action resulting from ignorance is sometimes called "non-moral" and other times called "immoral" depending upon the code of the society as to whether or not a person is morally responsible for knowledge. Defining a moral standard is a complex task considering the diverse theories of morality. Given this fact, an initial step would involve describing the more fundamental characteristics of morality. Martin (2007) identifies some of these elements, namely 1. Morality requires recognizing the inherent value of people, both ourselves and other, a value that is not reducible to how others benefit us. 2. Morality involves moral reasons that guide how we should act, the kind of persons we should become, the kind of relationships we should have, and the kind of community’s ad institutions we should promote. First, a moral code is that picked out by the correct set of norms for feeling guilt and anger— norms that a rational person would endorse violation of which make guilt and anger appropriate. These norms involve matters for praise and blame, or other social sanctions. Second, the important thing about a moral code is that it would be put forward by all the relevant agent, namely the rational subjects. Third, the relevant agent does not simply endorse or advocate a moral code, he accepts it and intends to conform his behavior to that code. Finally, the moral code consists of the

most basic norms in terms of which we justify ourselves to others. Moral standard and non-moral standard differ on the following grounds: A moral standard is one which a rational person would endorse violation of which entails guilt and anger. Similarly, it involves acts or subjects appropriate for phrase or blame. In contrast, nonmoral standards do not necessarily entail guilt and anger. Acts in violation of a standard of etiquette need not make one feel guilty or elicit anger from others. A moral standard is one advocated or put forward by all the relevant agents—for example, all rational agents would want the standard complied with. This sense of moral standard is consistent with Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. On the other hand, a nonmoral standard need not be willed to be applicable to all. Characteristics of Moral Standards There are several characteristics of morals standards as mentioned by Velasquez (2012) such as and vocabularies such as:  Moral standards entail serious harm or benefit. Examples of this are the following: theft, the murder of innocent people, respect others, a feeding program for the poor, etc. The first two examples cause harm, and the next two examples produce benefits, and the action has done is helpful to human beings  Moral standards are not determined by authority figures. Moral values should always be upheld, even though they are at odds with self-interest. Cheating on examination is an example wherein the students should not cheat during exams as a rule in an educational institution and in doing such an act, cheating, is wrong. It’s not because students are afraid of the teacher, instructor, or professor but the students know that is a wrongful act.  Moral standards should be adopted over other values, including self-interest. Moral standards should always be retained even if they are at stake with self-interest.







Moral standards are focused on objective considerations. The basis of considerations and decisions must not be favorable only to a particular person or Anyone who commits mistakes and wrongful acts then is punished accordingly. It must be an unbiased or impartial consideration. Moral standards are perceived to be what we want everyone to live up to these norms and feel resentful when somebody doesn't live up to them. Moral standards are believed to be universal as it is applicable anywhere and anytime. For instance, lying. Telling the truth is a universal standard. Hence, we should not lie. Moral standards are correlated with different feelings and if anyone doesn't live up to the norm or standards, he will feel guilty, bad, and wrong. The same is true when someone else does not live up to the expectations, norms, and standards, others may feel disgusted at this person.

Drawing from our understanding of morality and moral codes, the following characterization of a moral standard may be made:  A moral standard pertains to moral reasons that guide how we should act, the kind of persons we should become, the kind of relationships we should have, and the kind of communities and institutions we should promote  A moral standard involves recognizing the inherent value of people, both ourselves and other, a value that is not reducible to how others benefit us. Especially in everyday language, the distinction between the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ is not always clear. Even in some philosophical texts both are used synonymously, while others seem to draw a clear distinction between them. Historically, the term ‘ethics’ comes from Greek ethos which means the customs, habits and mores of people. ‘Morality’ is derived from Latin mos, moris which denotes basically the same; it was introduced by Cicero as an equivalent to the Greek ethos.

For the sake of clarity, we assume as a standard definition that morality means the customs, the special do-s and don't-s that are shared and widely accepted as standard in a society or community of people — accepted as a basis of life that doesn't have to be rationally questioned. Ethics on the other hand is the philosophical reflection upon these rules and ways of living together, the customs and habits of individuals, groups, or mankind as such. This comes close to the conception of Aristotle. In ancient Greek philosophy the question was to find how to act well and rightly and what personal/individual qualities are necessary to be able to do this. Ethics therefore encompasses the whole range of human action including personal preconditions. This is still true today, but for e.g. Aristotle ethics focused mainly on the pursuit of the ‘good (life)’, the eudaimonia. (“human flourishing”; a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous. The aim was to identify and to practically realize ‘the (highest) good’ in life — which means that you have to evaluate what is ‘good’ as regards content: what life is a good life and what is not? As opinions concerning the question what makes a good life differed more and more in modern times, ethics had and has to face the question how the resulting conflicts of interests and values could be solved peacefully and justly without taking the part of one side or the other. And this leads to the question of what is morally right; moral rightness and ‘good life’ become separate issues. Whereas questions of ‘good life’ are tied to an evaluation of what is good and are answered in the form of recommendations how to achieve that goal, norms or principles of moral rightness generate imperatives.

Today it is common to separate ethics into three sub-branches: 1. Descriptive ethics 2. Metaethics

3. Normative ethics Descriptive ethics aims at empirically and precisely mapping existing morality or moralities within communities and is therefore linked to the social sciences. Another aim is to explain the development of existing moralities from a historical perspective. No normative prescriptions are intended. Metaethics is a relatively new discipline in the ethical arena and its definition is the most blurred of all. The Greek meta means after or beyond and indicates that the object of metaethical studies is morality and ethics itself. The aim is to better understand the logical, semantic, and pragmatic structures of moral and ethical argumentation as such, their origin and meaning. Other fields of inquiry are e.g. whether morality exists independently of humans, and the underlying mental basis of human judgments and conduct. Normative ethics means the methodological reflection upon morality tackling its critique and its rationale. Norms and standards for acting and conduct are being set up or tore down and argued for or against. When “ethics” is talked about in a common sense then we are talking about this general normative ethics. When inquiry is directed towards the principles of moral judgement or the criteria for the ethical analysis of morality, then we talk about fundamental ethics. Finally in the realm of normative ethics, there is applied ethics. Here normative theories are applied to specific, controversial moral issues like animal rights, abortion, euthanasia etc. − generating the classic so-called hyphen-ethics, e.g. bio-ethics, medical ethics, business-ethics, nanoethics etc. Inversely, these special issues constantly challenge theory and demand improvements, changes and specifications.

Alongside hyphen-ethics it is also possible to distinguish between ethics that focuses on societal and institutional dimensions (social ethics) or on the individuum (individual ethics). While we consider applied ethics to be a sub-branch of

normative ethics, other moral philosophers treat it as a discipline on the same level as normative ethics, arguing that it uses normative elements but is independent otherwise.

Looking at the definitions of ethics and morality − what is moral philosophy? - It is most used as a synonym for ethics. Some, like the French philosopher JeanPierre Dupuy use it differently. For him ‘ethics’ stands for the effort to force everything into universal harmonized principles while ‘moral philosophy’ endures colliding or incompatible values or concepts in the discourse. Stefan Gammel.

In normative ethics there are different theories as to how criteria of moral conduct should be defined. The three main theories can be sketched as follows: 1. Deontological, i.e. duty theories locate the basis of morality on specific, foundational principles of duty and obligation. These principles are binding regardless of the consequences that acting on their basis might bring. 2. Consequentialist theories on the other hand determine the value of an action on the grounds of a cost-benefit analysis of its consequences. If the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones, then the action is morally proper. 3. Virtue theories focus on a given set of rules like “do not steal” etc. But instead of defining them merely as obligatory duties, the emphasis lies on the individual to develop good habits of character based on these rules (and avoid vices). Thus, virtue theory emphasises moral education.

What are “codes of ethics/conduct” or what is “ethical research”? Shouldn‘t that be called moral? - by calling research or a code “ethical”, the authors want to point out that the moral rules they set up are based on rational deliberation and can be subject to critique.

Module 2: Moral Experiences What is a Moral Dilemma? A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable.

The person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in the town. It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas: 1) Epistemic and Ontological Dilemmas - Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong. -

Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements.

2) Self - Imposed and World - Imposed Dilemmas - A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. - A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. 3) Obligation and Prohibition dilemmas - Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory. - Prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden.

4) Single Agent and Multi-person Dilemmas: - In single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more

-

equally the same moral options, but she cannot choose both. In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A. A second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization from breaking apart”.

THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS: 1. ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICAL OR MORAL DILEMMA As discussed by Lamberto et. al (2013), an organizational ethical dilemma refers to a situation that causes an organization to respond negatively or positively to an ethical issue that affects staff, shareholders, and society, as well as corporate ethics and customers. It also includes the leaders' ethical actions in preserving financial reporting integrity. Based on the article of Michigan State University online.com (2020) and Small Business Chron.com (2019), there are common ethical issues in the organization such as unethical leadership/bad leadership behavior. A leader of the organization must act with candor, be an example to his subordinates, with upright moral He or she doesn’t

engage in abuse of leadership authority, accepting inappropriate gifts and other related unethical leadership. The following are examples: ○ Toxic workplace culture. A leader of the organization must focus on the development of work culture. He makes sure that his subordinates have work-life balance, motivated and happy working in the organization, if not then the performance and productivity of the employees will be ○ Discrimination and harassment/ Peril of employee favoritism. A leader must treat fairly his or her subordinates and avoid any form of discrimination and ○ Unrealistic and conflicting goals. A leader must have realistic and very clear goals so that his or her subordinates understand what the organization is going through, hence, they can work together thoroughly until they reach the goals of the ○ Use of the organization’s technology, social media use, technology, and privacy concerns. It is ethical that the technology of the organization must only use for the organization’s transactions social media use while in the office must be avoided as much as possible so that important dealings with the clients must be ○ Business travel. There are times that a leader and an employee are in official business and in doing that, they have per diem every meal and must use the fund of the organization appropriately. 2. INDIVIDUAL MORAL DILEMMA As mentioned by Smith (2018), individual ethical or moral dilemma pertains to a situation where individuals confront with a number of factors such as peer pressure, personal financial position, an economic and social status which may influence all individual eth...