Moral Reasoning 2

To deal with a moral issue, we need to start with a good understanding of the relevant facts, concepts, principles and theories. In addition, we need to think about why different people may have different views about the issue.

Whenever there is disagreement, not only is it necessary to understand what is at stake in the debate (i.e. what exactly is the point of the debate), we also have to evaluate the arguments on both sides of the debate.

In other words, to deal with disagreements, we should examine the evidence and the reasoning (i.e. the supporting arguments) behind people’s beliefs and judgments to determine whose view is more reasonable.

Once we have examined the views of others and arrived at a conclusion of our own, the next thing to do is to construct reasoned arguments to support our own standpoint.

To illustrate, let us consider the moral dilemmas that can be found in the ‘Sample Exam Questions’.

Situation 1: A drug has been developed which could cure a hitherto incurable disease. But it may have side-effects worse than the disease it is intended to cure. The only way to be sure is to test it on living human beings. If the drug is then found to have no side-effects, it will save thousands of lives.

In the prisons are men who have committed serious crimes that they will have to be kept in isolation for the rest of their lives. Do you think it is morally justified to use these prisoners as test subjects for this medical experiment? Why or why not?

Notice that different people may respond differently to this dilemma Notice that different people may respond differently to this dilemma. For example, some may say that there is a strong utilitarian justification for the experiment in view of the potential benefits that may result from it.

However, opponents may say that using the prisoners as test subjects for the experiment violates the Kantian Categorical Imperative because the prisoners are being treated as mere means (i.e. mere objects for use) if they are forced to participate in the experiment against their will.

Those who oppose the experiment may also draw attention to the fact that doing so is morally impermissible because it involves violation of the prisoners’ basic human rights (e.g. the right to autonomy, the right to personal security or the right against torture).

Situation 2: The European parliament has urged the drafting of a set of regulations to govern the use and creation of robots and artificial intelligence, including a form of ‘electronic personhood’ to ensure rights and responsibilities for the most capable AI.

The proposed legal status for robots would mean that some machines would possess similar rights and duties to those of human persons. Do you think legal personhood status should also be granted to intelligent non-human animals such as dolphins and chimpanzees? Why or why not?

To answer this question, we should think about what it means to be a ‘person’, i.e. whether or not you think that dolphins and chimpanzees have the same (or very similar) morally relevant properties as robots with artificial intelligence.

If the answer is ‘yes’, then according to the ‘principle of equality’, like cases should be treated alike, which means that the same legal personhood status should also be granted to dolphins and chimpanzees.

Opponents, however, may say that legal personhood status should not be granted to dolphins and chimpanzees because we cannot expect these animals to behave responsibly in the same way that we can expect robots to observe and perform their duties.

To conclude: Before making judgments of our own, we should weigh the relative strengths or merits of different arguments, and make sure that we will have good justifications to support our own point of view.