CSC 208 CTA Example Page 1 of 5 Applying the Procedures CTA Example: Bay will ride the CTA for free* Stakeholders/Morally Significant Beings First identify all possible stakeholders. 1. The CTA is a stakeholder because it is the company that Bay will receive services from without paying. 2. Bay is a stakeholder because she is riding for free. 3. Other riders are considered, because they are paying for services while Bay is not. However, there is no information on them, so they may not be included. Social Contract 8, 9, 13 1. The ethical issue is, “Bay will ride the CTA for free.” 2. The stakeholders are the CTA and Bay. 3. Other riders are considered, because they are paying for services while Bay is not. However, there is no information on them, so they are not included. 4. Rights of each stakeholder CTA The CTA has a positive, limited right to their property. It is positive in that riders need to do something for the right holder, i.e., pay for services. It is limited in that, under emergency situations, governmental forces may utilize the CTA services without (perhaps, immediate) compensation. By not paying for services rendered, a passenger who rides for free is trespassing and violating property rights. Bay Bay has the positive, limited right to ride the CTA. She may ride, but only if she pays for services rendered. Since Bay riding for free violates the CTA’s property rights, the act of her doing so is found unethical by social contract. Problems Applying the Social Contract Procedure11 to this issue: l. None of us signed the social contract. The fact that no one signed the contract is not applicable to this situation. There is an unwritten agreement that riders will pay for services. 2. Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways. © 2013, 2017 Evelyn Lulis, PhD, All Rights Reserved CSC 208 CTA Example Page 2 of 5 The action of Bay riding the bus does not have multiple characterizations. 3. Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a moral problem when the analysis reveals conflicting rights. There are no conflicting rights. If a conflict of rights did exist, the social contract procedure would not render a result, as it offers no way to address this issue. 4. Social contract theory may be unjust to those people who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract. It is unknown if Bay is of sound mind and, therefore, may not be able to uphold contract. If that should be determined, the social contract procedure would still deem the act unethical, perhaps unfairly. Based on the above argument, a analysis of the problems with social contract were not evident in our proof. As a result, we can trust the results that Bay riding the CTA without paying is unethical by social contract. Rawls’s Theory of Justice 11, 13 1. Each person may claim a "fully adequate" number of basic rights and liberties, such as freedom of thought and speech, freedom of association, the right to be safe from harm, and the right to own property, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties. When Bay rides the CTA for free, everyone cannot claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties. Others cannot ride for free. 2. Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume; and second, they are "to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)" [25, pp. 42-43]. When she rides the CTA for free, there is a social and economic inequality. She rides for free, but no one else does. In addition, not everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to ride for free. Bay riding for free may, or may not, be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). Nothing is known about her economic status. © 2013, 2017 Evelyn Lulis, PhD, All Rights Reserved CSC 208 CTA Example Page 3 of 5 However, even if she is a member of the least-advantage of society, not everyone in this group rides for free. Rawls found the act of Bay riding the CTA for free unethical. Moral Rights2 1. The action under consideration: Bay will ride the CTA for free. 2. Relevant moral claim(s) and correlated duty(ies): X’s having a claim is equivalent to Y’s being under a duty 3. Determine if the person, or persons, involved have fulfilled their relevant duty, or duties, and whether rights were violated 4. Moral conclusion: Problems Applying the Moral Rights as Claim Rights2 Procedure to this issue: 1. Inflexible morality. For example, there are no exceptions to lying and stealing 2. Possible conflict of moral duties as interpreted by some philosophers © 2013, 2017 Evelyn Lulis, PhD, All Rights Reserved CSC 208 CTA Example Page 4 of 5 *Acknowledgement Special thanks to protect privacy) for giving me the idea for this example. If he hadn’t tried to ride the CTA for free, I wouldn’t have thought of this. References 1. Aristotle (1955). The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nichomachaen Ethics. (rev. ed.) (J. K. Thomson, trans.). New York: Viking. p. 104. 2. Birsch, Douglas. (2014). Introduction to Ethical Theories, A Procedural Approach. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. 3. Friend, Celeste. (2004). Social Contract Theory. (10 March 2013) Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ 4. HubPages Inc. (2003). Different Types of Modern Utilitarianism. (10 January 2013) Retrieved from http://philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hub/DifferentTypesofModernUtilitarianism 5. Jones, Gary E., and DeMarco, Joseph P. (2007). Law and Bioethics. (20 Jan 2013) Retrieved from http://www.lawandbioethics.com/demo/Main/EthicsResources/act_utilitarianism.htm 6. Kant, Immanuel. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (Allen W. Wood, Edited and Trans.). New Haven and London:Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785) 7. Kant, Immanuel. (1981). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals with On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns, 3rd ed. (James W. Ellington Trans.). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1785) 8. Mastin, Luke. (2008). The Basics of Philosophy, Philosophy Basics, (10 January 2013) Retrieved from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_utilitarianism.html 9. Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6th ed. Boston:McGaw Hill. 10. Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2010). The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy, 5th ed. Boston:McGaw Hill. © 2013, 2017 Evelyn Lulis, PhD, All Rights Reserved CSC 208 CTA Example Page 5 of 5 11. Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 12. Chicago Transit Authority. (2017) Ridership Reports. Retrieved from http://www.transitchicago.com/ridership/ 13. Quinn, M. J. (2012). Ethics for the Information Age, 5th edition. NY:Pearson/Addison Wesley, ISBN-10: 0-13-285553-4; ISBN-13: 978-0-13-285553-2 © 2013, 2017 Evelyn Lulis, PhD, All Rights Reserved
Purchase answer to see full attachment