Describe some of the key differences between utiliarianism, deontological, and character-based ethical issues..

User Generated

znelcrrml

Writing

Description

In your own words, describe some of the key differences between consequence-based (utilitarianism), duty-based (deontological), and character-based (virtue) ethical theories. Detail the strengths and weaknesses of each.

**answer must be at least 300 words, double-spaced in 12pt Times New Roman with 1in margins, formatted as .docx**

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Information Technology Ethics  Competency 2: Basic Ethical Theories & Principles Presentation Author, 2006 Where we’re at… • Understand that various ethical issues have emerged as technology evolves • But there is debate over whether these are uniquely due to the technology itself • One aspect of new technology that creates unique ethical issues is the tendency to create “policy vacuums” and “conceptual muddles” • So, how do ethical theories help us deal with all this… 2 Morality • Much of our discussions about ethics and IT related to issues of morality… • Morality: system of rules for guiding human conduct – Rules and principles – Deciding right from wrong • But how do we derive our moral rules? – Is it ok to break into a store to steal food and feed your hungry family? – Is it ok to torture a suspect in order to find the location of a bomb hidden in a crowded city? 3 Religious-based Rules • Consider the following rationale for why stealing is morally wrong: – “Stealing is wrong because the Qur'an or Bible says not to” • From the point of view of institutionalized religion, stealing is wrong because of it offends God or because it violates the commands of a supreme authority. • But what about religious differences or atheists? How to create a universal moral system? 4 Legal-based Rules • An alternative rationale would be: – Stealing is wrong because it violates the law. • If stealing violates a law in a particular nation or jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be declared to be wrong independent of any religious beliefs that one may or may not happen to have. • Dueling jurisdictions? Different cultural norms? Unjust laws? 5 Ethically-based Rules • A third way of approaching the question is: – Stealing is wrong because it is, simply, wrong • On this view, the moral "rightness" or "wrongness" of stealing is not grounded in some external authority, either theological or legal • Stealing is deemed morally wrong by criteria that reason alone is sufficient to determine – reason can inform us that there is something either in the act of stealing itself, or in the consequences that result from this kind of act, that makes stealing morally wrong. 6 The Usefulness of Ethical Theories • Ethical theories can guide us in our analysis of moral issues involving technology. • The purpose of ethical theory, like scientific theory, is to provide us with a framework for analyzing moral issues. – Understand the logic and reasoning behind what makes particular actions right & wrong – Provide a framework for determining the morally correct course of action 7 Some Basic Question(s) of Ethical Theories • “How aught I act?” – Act-based ethical theories, where the outcome of my actions determine what is the ethical thing to do • “What kind of person should I be?” – Character-based ethical theories, where the results of act isn’t important as who my personal character might be enhanced Ethical Theories Act-Ethics Character-Ethics What sort of actions should we perform? Consequentialism The right action produces the most “good” in the outcome Egoism Maximize MY happiness What sort of people should we be? Deontology The right action is based on “duty”, not the outcome Utilitarianism Maximize society’s happiness Virtue Ethics Be a virtuous person 9 Ethical Theories Act-Ethics Character-Ethics What sort of actions should we perform? Consequentialism The right action produces the most “good” in the outcome Egoism Maximize MY happiness What sort of people should we be? Deontology The right action is based on “duty”, not the outcome Utilitarianism Maximize society’s happiness Virtue Ethics Be a virtuous person 10 Consequentialism / Utilitarianism • Ethical norms are determined by the consequences of our actions • Right and wrong are determined according to that course of action that produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people – Will this maximize happiness for everyone? • Applied: – It is morally permissible to break into a store to feed your hungry family – It is morally permissible to torture a single person 11 if it will save the lives of thousands Rule Based / Deontology • Fazeena is an expert in disaster relief. She has, however, taken time off work because her family needs her. She is a widow, her elderly father has Alzheimer’s , and one of her children is seriously ill. • But when a devastating earthquake strikes, her employer implores her to help out. “We need you,” he says. “Thousands of lives are at risk, and without your experience, we will be less effective” • Fazeena thinks for a short while, but replies, “I’m sorry, I have to put my family first. It is to them I am duty-bound” 12 Rule Based / Deontology • Ethical norms are based on adherence to rules and principles, not measuring consequences – No matter how much good might be accomplished, you have a duty to follow certain rules/principles" • How do we know which rules we have a duty to follow? How do we determine the correct principles? 13 Rule Based / Deontology • Kant’s “categorical imperative” – Act only in such a way that can be universally binding, without exception, to all people in all cases – Act only in such a way that ensures that all individuals are not treated as a means to an end • Applied: – It is not morally permissible to break into a store, since the world would be worse if everyone always broke into anything to get what they needed – It is not morally permissible to torture since it uses a person as a means to an end 14 Character-oriented Approaches • Ethical norms determined according to acting in certain ways considered to be virtuous – The goal is to be a virtuous person; so you behave in a way to reach that end • Emphasizes strengths of character necessary for human flourishing & reach our full potential – Example: wisdom, courage, temperance, justice • Applied: – It is not morally permissible to break into a store, or to torture, as these are not characteristics of virtuous people, and reflect poorly on one’s moral 15 character Ethical Theories Act-Ethics Character-Ethics What sort of actions should we perform? Consequentialism The right action produces the most “good” in the outcome Egoism Maximize MY happiness What sort of people should we be? Deontology The right action is based on “duty”, not the outcome Utilitarianism Maximize society’s happiness Virtue Ethics Be a virtuous person 16 Case of Adam Zapple • Adam Zapple is feeling peckish. • On his way home, he notices an elderly woman biting into an appetizing apple • Although only 10 minutes away form his wellstocked fridge, Adam considers mugging Granny to steal her juicy apple. • Should he do so? 17 Case 1 • A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. • Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. • Should you flip the switch or do nothing? 18 Case 2 • You find yourself at a Nazi rally in 1942 Germany, and you are in reach of Hitler, and you know of all of Hitler’s acts of atrocity. • You have a clear chance to steal Hitler’s wallet, which contains 250 DM. Your chance of being caught is less than 2%. • Would you be ethically justified in stealing Hitler’s wallet? (Or, killing him?) 19 Case 3 • You are doing very well in class, but a friend is struggling. An exam is tomorrow, worth 40% of the grade. • You promised your friend you would help him study this evening, as he needs a good grade in this class to keep his scholarship. • On you way to his place, another friend invites you join your buddies for pizza and beer, and you owe them a round of drinks from the last time you were out. • What do you do? 20 Case 4 • A billionaire has a warehouse full of vintage and expensive cars, but doesn’t drive them. • You have always wanted one of the cars in his collection. If you steal it, the billionaire would not notice, nor miss, the vehicle. You, however, would drive and enjoy it daily. • Would you steal the car? 21 Limitations of Utilitarianism • Focuses only upon consequences – disregards the “act” that is done • Thus, any action can be called good as long as there are more good consequences than bad • This allows some people to be hurt and used for the “greater good” – Slavery – Child labor 22 Limitations of Utilitarianism • How do we measure “good” or “happiness” – Different visions of was is “good” – How do we measure “good” – Long term vs. short term • Consequences for whom? – Just me (egoism) – My family? My country? – All humanity? Just the nice people? • We can’t analyze every single decision – Need to rely on urges, principles, guiding values in day-to-day decisions 23 Limitations of Duty Ethics / Deontology • How does one decide what to do when there are conflicting duties? – Family vs. job – Duty to follow orders vs. religion • Kant provides some help, but can we expect everyone to follow the “categorical imperative” in their daily decisions? • Shouldn’t happiness/utility have some role in our decision? 24 Limitations of Virtue Ethics • Virtues vary from culture to culture, sub-culture to sub-culture • What is virtuous might change – How do you determine when something has become socially acceptable…or unacceptable? 25 Table 2-3: Types of Ethical Theories Advantages Disadvantages Consequence- Stresses promotion of Ignores concerns of justice based (Utilitarian) happiness and utility for the minority population; hard to measure Duty-based Stresses the role of duty Underestimates the (Deontology) and respect for persons importance of happiness; conflicting duties Character-based Stresses personal moral Depends on homogeneous (Virtue) development and moral community standards for education morality 26 Applying Ethics… • We now have a basic understanding of core ethical theories, and an appreciation of the complexities and limitations among them • So, how do we apply these in the realm of information technology? • We can take various examples of contemporary IT, and analyze them ethically – What is unique about the technology – Apply various ethical frameworks – Address conceptual muddles and policy vacuums 27 The case of Adam Zapple Getting to grips with the main features of the different ethical theories can be daunting. Daniel K Sokol and Gillian Bergson make it a bit simpler Adam Zapple is feeling peckish. On his way home, he notices an elderly woman biting into an appetising apple. Although only 10 minutes away from his well stocked fridge, Adam considers mugging Granny to steal her juicy looking apple. Should he do so? Over to our expert panel. Y Colin, the consequentialist—Well, this is an easy one. It’s obvious that, on balance, mugging Granny will cause more harm than good. Sure, Adam will enjoy the apple, but Granny’s misery will far outweigh his enjoyment. And let’s not forget any bystanders who may get upset by the mugging. In fact, Adam himself might feel guilty afterwards and get depressed. But if Adam were about to starve, however… Dan, the deontologist—It’d still be wrong, Colin, you spawn of the devil. It’s just wrong to beat up innocent people, whether it’s to steal an apple or save your own life. There are some things people just shouldn’t do. Colin—Oh, so you’d rather die of hunger than steal an old lady’s apple? Dan—Definitely, stealing is wrong. Simple as that. What if everyone stole things whenever it suited them? No, I would kindly ask the lady… Colin—To give you a new brain? No, seriously, why are some things “just wrong?” Dan—Too complicated for you, I’m afraid. Wait. Let me work out the consequences… [Dan mockingly takes out a calculator and presses on the keys.] Colin—Go on. I’ll try my best. Dan—All right. One answer is that we should do—or not do—certain things because God said so in the Bible. “Thou shalt not steal” is an example. Colin—I don’t believe in God, sorry. Dan—Fine. Have you ever heard of Kant? Colin—Sure: I love football. Dan—No, the 18th century German deontologist philosopher. Colin—Oh. What’s a deontologist? Dan—Someone who believes that we should do things because we have duties or moral obligations to do them. We have a duty not to beat up innocent people or steal their property, for example, which is why Adam Zapple should not mug Granny. Colin—Even if he’s about to die of starvation, and Granny is sitting on a barrel full of fresh apples? Dan—Yes: stealing is wrong. Full stop. Colin—Weirdo. Dan—Well, the World Medical Association has some deontological rules for doctors. Colin—Like what? “Avoid deontology at all costs.” Dan—No. “The doctor shall not participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim’s beliefs or motives, DS ou may already have heard a little about some of the ethical theories that are used to guide and justify ethical decisions. The four principles approach to ethical decisions comprises consequentialism, deontology (duty based ethics), virtue ethics, and principlism. To provide an insight into each of the main approaches, we have invited representatives of each ethical theory to comment on the case of Adam Zapple, a naive young man who is tempted. LP WO O education Ethics made easy 404 STUDENTBMJ | VOLUME 14 | NOVEMBER 2006 studentbmj.com maleficence prevents us from causing net harm and here, clearly, Adam is causing more harm than good. Colin—Ah, I like this consequentialist thinking. Paula—The principle of respect for autonomy, which tells us to respect people’s freedom to make choices, also prevents him from mugging the old woman because she hasn’t consented to this. Dan—Sounds quite deontological to me. It reminds me of the formula of humanity: always treat people as an end and never only as a means. Paula—Yes, it’s a mixture really. It takes into account both consequences and moral rules, but it’s not as black and white as Colin or Dan’s theories. It depends on the situation. Do I need to know that much about ethical theory? theories are wrong. Mugging Granny for an apple is wrong not because of consequences or deontological rules, but because it’s unkind and disrespectful. No virtuous person would do such an awful thing. Dan—Sure. But what’s a virtue? Veronica—Good question. It’s a character trait that’s necessary for living well or that promotes human flourishing, such as courage, honesty, friendship, compassion, kindness, and so on. Colin—Sounds a bit vague to me. This case is easy, but how do I know what a virtuous person would do in a really difficult ethical dilemma? What happens if two virtues clash with each other? If kindness requires me to be dishonest, for example? How do I decide which one trumps the other? Paula, the principlist—Mmm, interesting. But let me try to break down Adam’s case using the four principles. Colin—Oh gosh, here we go again. Good thing I always keep a pillow handy. I can snooze a little. Dan—What are the four principles? Paula—In a nutshell, there are four things you should and shouldn’t do as an ethical person. Firstly, you should respect the autonomy of other people. A person should be allowed to make his own choices because only he knows what’s best for him… unless he’s not fit to make those choices, of course. Secondly, you shouldn’t harm others, net harm that is, because almost every action can potentially cause harm. Thirdly, you should produce net benefit to certain people. And finally, you should be fair in offering your help, treat people equally, and not discriminate. There, respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Dan—Sounds pretty good to me. Paula—Now, applying the principles to the case at hand, the principle of non- This dialogue briefly introduces some of the main ethical theories, but is there any need to know them? Most non-philosophers will run a mile at any talk about ethical theories. But a basic understanding of the main moral theories in medical ethics is useful for several reasons. Firstly, it gives an understanding of the origin of key concepts such as consent and confidentiality, which can be derived from the principle of respect for autonomy, and why they are important. The theories in the discussion have influenced many “rules” of medical ethics. Secondly, it allows flexibility. The boundaries of medicine are constantly shifting, and ethical positions may need to be reconsidered in the light of new developments. Take, for example, the current debate on abortion. Should we change the date limit for social terminations to match the ever decreasing age at which premature babies can survive? Scientific progress regularly presents new ethical dilemmas. Knowledge of ethical theory can provide tools to analyse new problems. And, finally, ethical theories can be used to justify the ethical decisions that you make, either as a practising doctor or as a medical student sitting exams. An awareness of the main counterarguments to your chosen solution can make your reasoning even stronger. Daniel K Sokol PhD student in medical ethics, Medical Ethics Unit, Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial College, London daniel.sokol@talk21.com Gillian Bergson foundation year 1 doctor, Horton General Hospital, Banbury, Oxfordshire This article is a modified extract from Medical Ethics and Law: Surviving on the Wards and Passing Exams by Daniel Sokol and Gillian Bergson, published by Trauma, London, 2005. Competing interests: None declared. 405 education and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.” That’s a deontological statement. Colin—Well it’s a fair point, but you should get out more. Dan—Now, back to Kant. Colin—Oh good: I love football. Dan—Colin. Kant was a Christian, but he also believed that morality could be justified without invoking God. People, according to Kant, should follow the categorical imperative, which basically tells us what we should do. Colin—Wait. I know the answer: maximise happiness and minimise unhappiness. Dan—Forget your consequentialist rubbish for a second. To satisfy the categorical imperative, Kant said we should follow two main formulas. The first is called the formula of universal law. It tells us to “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Colin—You’ve lost me. Dan—Basically, before you do something, ask yourself, “Could I accept a world in which everyone did that?” Colin—I see. So Adam should ask himself, “Could I accept a world in which everyone who was feeling peckish could beat up people to steal their food?” Dan—Exactly. If the answer is no, then you shouldn’t do it. It basically prevents people from being partial to themselves. The second formula is the formula of humanity. It tells us to always treat people as ends and never merely as a means. Colin—Give me an example. Dan—When you take a taxi, for example, you’re using the taxi driver as a means to your end—to get to your destination, but you’re also paying him for it, so you’re not using him only as a means. If you have a slave, however, then you are using him only as a means to your end. He’s a tool which you can use as you wish. He has no choice in the matter. Colin—So Adam should not mug Granny because he would be using her merely as a means of getting the apple. Dan—Precisely. But if he asked her and she consented, then it would be all right because he would be satisfying her wish as well as getting the apple. Colin—I understand. Deontology sounds fine in parts. After all, we’re told as children not to lie and not to steal and stuff, but I don’t like the fact that consequences don’t seem to matter much. Surely if your life is at stake, then it’s all right to lie? Dan—Well, I don’t like the fact that you’re only concerned with consequences. If you’re willing to break a promise if you think the consequences are better, for example, then how can people trust you? Veronica, the virtue theorist—Sorry, can I speak now? I think both your pet
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running Head: ETHICAL THEORIES

1

Describe some of the key differences between utilitarianism, deontological, and
character-based ethical issues

Institution Affiliation

Date

ETHICAL THEORIES

2

Describe some of the key differences between utilitarianism, deontological, and
character-based ethical issues

Utilitarianism is a consequential moral theory that is based on maximizing the good of
oneself, others and as well as the overall good (Hare et al, 1981). The people associated with this
theory are Jeremy Bentham and John S...


Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags