1. Moral Systems, Ethical Concepts & Theories
Chapter 2

2. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, right?

3. Ethics is the “study of morality”
Morality is a system of…
Rules that guide human conduct (rules of conduct)
Directives for individual conduct
Social policies for society at large
Principles for evaluating the rules
Standards used to justify the rules
E.g., justice, fairness, respect for others

4. Basic Components of a Moral System
Rules of Conduct
(Action-guiding rules, in the form of either directives or social policies)
Principles of Evaluation
(Evaluative standards used
to justify rules of conduct)
Examples include principles such as of social utility and justice as fairness
directives
social policies
Rules for guiding the actions of individuals (micro-level ethical rules)
Rules for establishing
social policies
(macro-level ethical rules)
Examples include directives such as:"Do not steal" and
"Do not harm others."
Examples include social policies such as:
"Software should be protected“ and "Privacy should be respected."
Tavani

5. Four features of a moral system
Public
The rules are known to all of the members.
Informal
The rules are informal, not like formal laws in a legal system.
Rational
The system is based on principles of logical reason accessible to all its members.
Impartial
The system is not partial to any one group or individual.
Gert

6. Components of a Moral System
Religion Philosophy Law
Grounds for justifying moral principles
Principles of Evaluation 
Rules of Moral Conduct
Moral principles
and rules
Source of moral rules
Core Values

7. Values Value judgments exist in every endeavor Values may be
So do value disputes
Must guard against the many/any fallacy
Values may be
intrinsic or instrumental
moral or non-moral
Core values are special kinds of values

8. Core values Are there universal values at the core of all humankind?
Life and happiness are valued by all cultures
Autonomy
It is rational to possess core human values
It is ethical to respect others’ core values

9. Why we engage in philosophical/ethical analysis
To critically evaluate arguments
To support a position or claim
To convince someone to adopt or reject a certain position
To provide consistent (logical) reasons for our beliefs
To engage in meaningful dialogue

10. How do we do it? State a belief or claim
Produce an argument to support that belief
Evaluate the argument
Go to 1.

11. What ethical theories have in common
They identify what it means to “do the right thing”.
They assume that people have free choice to make their own rational decisions.
Their goal is generally to contribute to the well-being of humanity.
They distinguish obligations & responsibilities from choice & personal preference.

12. Some ethical theories in sound bites
Ethical relativism
“To each his own”
Utilitarian (Mill)
“The greatest good for the greatest number”
Deontological (Kant)
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Social contract theory
“I will if you will”
Virtue ethics (Aristotle)
“Be all that you can be”

13. Ethical (subjective/cultural) relativism
There are no universal moral norms.
This theory suggests that different environments spawn different ethics:
Historical times
Countries
Communities
Families
Individuals

14. Case Against Ethical Relativism
Just because two societies do have different moral views doesn’t mean they ought to have these different views
Descriptive vs. prescriptive/normative
Doesn’t explain how moral guidelines evolve/are determined
Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
Provides no way out for cultures in conflict
Because many practices are acceptable does not mean any cultural practice is acceptable
many/any fallacy

15. Divine Command Theory Good actions are those aligned with God’s will
Bad actions are those contrary to God’s will
Holy books reveal God’s will.
We should use holy books as moral decision-making guides.

16. Case Against Divine Command Theory
Different holy books disagree
Society is multicultural, secular
Some moral problems not addressed in scripture
“The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence fallacy)
Based on obedience, not reason

17. Kantianism/Deontology
An “ethics of principle”
Universal principle
treat everyone equally and respectfully
Logic & rationality
humans can reason about what is good or evil
Human interactions based on the “categorical imperative”
never treat others merely as means to an end; rather, treat them as ends in themselves

18. Categorical Imperative
Act so that you treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves and never only as a means to an end.
What does this mean:
In friendship?
In business?
In school?

19. Scenario from text Carla History class
Single mother --- Works full time --- Takes two evening courses each semester
History class
Requires more work than normal classes --- Carla has an “A” on all work so far --- She doesn’t have time to write her final report
Carla purchases report and submits it as her own work

20. Kantian evaluation of the scenario
Carla submitted another person’s work as her own
She attempted to deceive professor
She treated professor as a means to an end
End: passing the course
Means: professor issues grade
What Carla did was wrong

21. Case for Kantianism Rational Produces universal moral guidelines
Treats all persons as moral equals
Workable ethical theory

22. Case Against Kantianism
Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action.
There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules.
Conflicting duties
Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.

23. Utilitarian Ethics A consequentialist theory
Bentham
Mill
A consequentialist theory
Focus is on the outcome of an act or application of a rule, and not on behavior or attitude.
“Utility” equates to “happiness”
Depending on the context, think of happiness as
Advantage
Benefit
Good
Pleasure
Profit

24. The Principle of Utility
Also called the Greatest Happiness Principle.
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the stakeholders.

25. Act-based vs. Rule-based
Act-based utilitarianism
We should analyze each of our actions from the perspective of how much happiness we believe they will engender.
Rule-based utilitarianism
We should base our behavior on rules that are understood to maximize collective happiness.

26. Case for utilitarianism
Focus on happiness is reasonable
Practical, appealing to most people
An action or rule can be judged as largely good or bad
Comprehensive
Takes all factors of an action into consideration
Rule utilitarian calculus is easy
Long-term consequences of rules matter
Not each individual act

27. Critique of utilitarianism
Could result in harming some for the sake of the majority.
The minority may be treated poorly as a means to social good.
Adding up consequences requires that we calculate them all in the same units of measurement.
Ignores our innate sense of duty

28. Moor’s Just Consequentialism A Two-Step Strategy
1. Deliberate over various policies from an impartial point of view to determine whether they meet the criteria for being ethical policies. A policy is ethical if it:
a. does not cause any unnecessary harms to individual groups
b. supports individual rights, the fulfilling of duties, etc.
2. Select the best policy from the set of just policies arrived at the deliberation stage
by ranking ethical policies in terms of benefits and justifiable (harms). In doing
this, be sure to:
a. weigh carefully between the good consequences and the bad consequences
in the ethical policies and
b. distinguish between disagreements about facts and disagreements about
principles and values, when deciding which particular ethical policy should
be adopted.

29. Social contract ethical theory
Hobbes
Social contract ethical theory
Our “natural” state is “pre-moral”
Living in a society puts our moral behavior in a new light
We enter into a social contract to surrender some absolute freedoms to society’s rules & laws.
Our motivation to be moral is that it is in our self-interest to abide by rules that have been set for everyone

30. Social contract theory
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well”
Rachels

31. Similarities…
Between social contract theory and deontology (Kantian ethics)
Both are based on the notion of universal moral rules
But…
Kant: a moral rule is one that can be universalized (i.e., everyone should follow it)
Focus is on duties
SCT: a moral rule is one that rational people would support for the benefit of the community
Focus is on rights

32. Rights
We classify rights according to the duties they impose on others
Negative right
Others must not encumber you
Considered to be absolute (guaranteed w/o exception)
Positive right
Others must make it possible for you
Considered to be limited (some restrictions apply)

33. Rawls’s Principles of Justice
Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties
Any social and economic inequalities must
Be associated with positions that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to achieve
Be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)

34. DVD Rental Scenario Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores
He collects information about rentals from customers & constructs customer profiles
He sells profiles to direct marketing firms
Some customers are happy to receive more mail order catalogs; others are unhappy at the increase in “junk mail”

35. Evaluation (SCT) Consider the rights of
Bill, customers, and mail order companies.
Do customers have a right to expect name, address to be kept confidential?
If a customer rents DVDs from Bill, who owns the information about the transaction?
If Bill and a customer have equal rights to information, Bill did nothing wrong to sell information.
But…if customers have a right to expect their data or transaction to be kept confidential without giving permission, then Bill was wrong to sell information without asking for permission.

36. Case for Social Contract Theory
Framed in language of rights
Explains why people act in self-interest without common agreement
Provides clear analysis of certain citizen/government problems

37. Case Against SCT No one really signs a contract
Some actions have multiple characterizations
Conflicting rights problem
May unjustly treat people who cannot uphold contract
Can promote minimalist morality

38. Comparing our workable theories
Theory
Motivation
Criteria
Focus
Kantianism
Dutifulness
Rules
Individual
Act Utilitarianism
Consequence
Actions
Group
Rule Utilitarianism
Consequence / Duty
Social Contract
Rights

39. Morality of Breaking the Law
Social contract theory perspective
Kantian perspective
Rule utilitarian perspective
Act utilitarian perspective
Conclusion

40. Virtue Ethics An “ethics of purpose”
Aristotle
An “ethics of purpose”
A person should try to cultivate excellence in everything he or she does.
The emphasis is on building and assessing an individual’s character, and not on rules or actions.

41. Four Types of Ethical Theory
Type of Theory
Advantages
Disadvantages
Consequence-based (Utilitarian)
Stresses promotion of happiness and utility
Ignores concerns of justice
for the minority population
Duty-based (Deontology)
Stresses the role of duty and respect for persons
Underestimates the importance of happiness and social utility
Contract-based (Rights)
Provides a motivation for morality
Offers only a minimal morality
Character-based (Virtue)
Stresses moral development and moral education
Depends on homogeneous community standards for morality