Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Department of Computer Science and Engineering Mälardalen University 2007
description
Transcript of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Department of Computer Science and Engineering Mälardalen University 2007
1
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Mälardalen University2007
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
CDT409 LECTURE 4
Utilitarianism, Rights, Justice
2
Repetition on Virtue Ethics
Emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking.
In the West prevailing approach in the ancient and medieval ethics. Today one of the three dominant approaches to normative ethics (the other two being deontology and utilitarianism/consequentialism).
Concern for virtue appears in several philosophical traditions, notably Chinese and Indian.
3
Virtue Ethics
In the West found in work of Plato and Aristotle.
Main concepts include: arête (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom), and eudaimonia (flourishing).
Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία) is a classical Greek word commonly translated as 'happiness'. Etymologically, it consists of the word "eu" ("good" or "well being") and "daimōn" ("spirit“, meaning one's fortune).
Although popular usage of the term happiness refers to a state of mind, related to joy or pleasure, eudaimonia refers to the less subjective "human flourishing“.
4
The Seven Virtues
The Seven Virtues were derived from the Psychomachia ('Contest of the Soul'), an epic poem written by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius (c. 410 CE) involving the battle of good virtues and evil vices.
The intense popularity of this work in the Middle Ages helped to spread the concept of Holy Virtue throughout Europe.
Practicing these virtues is alleged to protect one against temptation from the Seven Deadly Sins, with each one having its counterpart.
5
The Seven Virtues Chastity (Latin, Castitas) (purity, opposes Lust, Latin Luxuria) - Moral
wholesomeness and purity of thought. Temperance (Latin, Frenum) (self-control, opposes Gluttony, Latin
Gula) - Mindfulness of others; practicing self-control. Charity (Latin, Liberalitas) (will, generosity, opposes Greed, Latin
Avaritia) - Generosity. A nobility of thought or actions. Diligence (Latin, Industria) (opposes Sloth, Latin Acedia) -
A zealous and careful nature in one's actions and work. Decisive work ethic. Guard against laziness.
Patience (Latin, Patientia) (peace, opposes Wrath, Latin Ira) -Endurance through moderation. Resolving conflicts peacefully. The ability to forgive, show mercy.
Kindness (Latin, Humanitas) (satisfaction, opposes Envy, Latin Invidia) - compassion, friendship, and sympathy.
Humility (Latin, Humilitas) (modesty, opposes Pride, Latin Superbia) - Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one's own self.
Self-control is the keystone of the seven holy virtues.
6
The Seven Capital Virtues as Opposites to The Seven Capital Sins
The Roman Catholic church recognized the Seven Capital Virtues as opposites to the Seven Capital Sins or the Seven Deadly Sins. According to Dante's The Divine Comedy the sins and their respective virtues have an ordering based upon their importance. In order of descending importance:.
Sin VirtuePride (vanity) Humility (modesty) Envy (jealousy) Kindness (admiration)Wrath (anger) Forgiveness (composure)Sloth (laziness) Diligence (zeal/integrity)Greed (avarice) Charity (giving)Gluttony (over-indulgence) Temperance (self-restraint)Lust (excessive appetites) Chastity (purity)
7
The Essential Virtues Defining “Moral IQ”
Empathy Conscience Self-Control Respect Tolerance Fairness Kindness
Wisdom* Courage* Temperance* Justice* Integrity Responsibility Honesty
*Aristotles cardinal virtues
8
Overview
Utilitarianism Rights Justice
Based on: Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D.Director, The Values InstituteUniversity of San Diego
9
UtilitarianismUtilitarianism
10
Basic Insights of Utilitarianism
The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place.
We should do whatever will bring the most benefit to all of humanity.
11
The Purpose of Morality
The utilitarian has a simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all:– The purpose of morality is to guide people’s actions
in such a way as to produce a better world.
Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. (At times, the road to hell is pawed with good intentions!)
12
Fundamental Imperative
The fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is:Always act in the way that will produce the greatest
overall amount of good in the world.
13
The Emphasis on the Overall Good
Utilitarianism is a demanding moral position that often asks us to put aside self-interest for the sake of the whole.– It always asks us to do the most, to maximize
utility, not to do the minimum.– It asks us to set aside personal interest.
14
Bringing Certainty to Ethics
Utilitarianism offers a powerful vision of the moral life, one that promises to reduce or eliminate moral disagreement.– If we can agree that the purpose of morality is to
make the world a better place; and– If we can scientifically assess various possible
courses of action to determine which will have the greatest positive effect on the world; then
We can provide a scientific answer to the question of what we ought to do.
15
Standards of Utility: Standards of Utility: Intrinsic Value
Many things have instrumental value, that is, they have value as means to an end.
However, there must be some things which are not merely instrumental, but have value in themselves. This is what we call intrinsic value.
What has intrinsic value? Four principal candidates:– Pleasure - Jeremy Bentham– Happiness - John Stuart Mill– Ideals - George Edward Moore– Peoples Preferences - Kenneth Arrow
16
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham believed that we should try to increase the overall amount of pleasure in the world.
Jeremy Bentham1748-1832
17
Standards of Utility: Standards of Utility: Pleasure
Definition: The enjoyable feeling we experience when a state of deprivation is replaced by fulfillment.
Advantages– Easy to quantify– Short duration– Bodily
Criticisms– Came to be known
as “the pig’s philosophy”
– Ignores spiritual values
– Could justify living on a pleasure machine or “happy pill”
18
John Stuart Mill
Bentham’s godson Believed that happiness, not
pleasure, should be the standard of utility.
John Stuart Mill1806-1873
19
Standards of Utility: Standards of Utility: Happiness
Advantages– A higher standard,
more specific to humans
– About realization of goals
Disadvantages– More difficult to
measure– Competing
conceptions of happiness
20
Standards of Utility: Standards of Utility: Ideal Values George Edward Moore suggested
that we should strive to maximize ideal values such as freedom, knowledge, justice, and beauty.
The world may not be a better place with more pleasure in it, but it certainly will be a better place with more freedom, more knowledge, more justice, and more beauty.
Moore’s candidates for intrinsic good remain difficult to quantify. G. E. Moore
1873-1958
21
Standards of Utility: Standards of Utility: Preferences Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel Prize
winning Stanford economist, argued that what has intrinsic value is preference satisfaction.
The advantage of Arrow’s approach is that, in effect, it lets people choose for themselves what has intrinsic value. It simply defines intrinsic value as whatever satisfies an agent’s preferences. It is elegant and pluralistic.
Kenneth J. ArrowStanford University
22
May This Help? Lets Make Everyone Happy!
Happy pill as a universal solution?
23
The Utilitarian Calculus
Math and ethics finally merged: all consequences must be measured and weighed!
Units of measurement:– Hedons: positive– Dolors: negative
24
What Do We Calculate?
Hedons/dolors defined in terms of – Pleasure– Happiness– Ideals– Preferences
25
What Do We Calculate?
For any given action, we must calculate:
– How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well as positively (hedons)
– How intensely they will be affected– Similar calculations for all available alternatives– Choose the action that produces the greatest overall
amount of utility (hedons minus dolors)
26
How Much Can We Quantify?
Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify than happiness or ideals
Two distinct issues:– Can everything be quantified?
The danger: if it can’t be counted, it doesn’t count.– Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?
Are a fine dinner and a good night’s sleep commensurable?
27
“…the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”
Utilitarianism doesn’t always have a cold and calculating face.
Besides, in a way we perform utilitarian calculations in everyday life too.
28
Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of Utilitarianism 1. Responsibility
Utilitarianism suggests that we are responsible for all the consequences of our choices.
The problem is that sometimes we can not foresee consequences of other people’s actions that are taken in response to our own acts. Are we responsible for those actions, even though we don’t choose them or approve of them?
29
Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of Utilitarianism 2. Integrity
Utilitarianism often demands that we put aside self-interest. Sometimes this may mean putting aside our own moral convictions.
Integrity may involve certain identity-conferring commitments, such that the violation of those commitments entails a violation of who we are at our core.
30
Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of Utilitarianism 3. Intentions
Utilitarianism is concerned almost exclusively with consequences, not intentions.– There is a version of utilitarianism called “motive
utilitarianism,” developed by Robert Adams, that attempts to correct this.
31
Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of Utilitarianism 4. Moral Luck
By concentrating exclusively on consequences, utilitarianism makes the moral worth of our actions a matter of luck. We must await the final consequences before we find out if our action was good or bad.
This seems to make the moral life a matter of chance, which runs counter to our basic moral intuitions.
32
Criticisms Of UtilitarianismCriticisms Of Utilitarianism 5. Who Does The Calculating?
Historically, this was an issue for the British in India. The British felt they wanted to do what was best for India, but that they were the ones to judge what that was.– See Ragavan Iyer, Utilitarianism and All That
Typically, the count differs depending on who does the counting.
33
Criticisms Of UtilitarianismCriticisms Of Utilitarianism 6. Who Is Included?
When we consider the issue of consequences, we must ask who is included within that circle.
Classical utilitarianism has often claimed that we should acknowledge the pain and suffering of animals and not restrict the calculus just to human beings.
34
Concluding Assessment
Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy decisions, as long as a strong notion of fundamental human rights guarantees that it will not violate rights of minorities, otherwise it is possible to use to justify outvoting minorities.
35
Rights
36
Changing Western History
Many of the great documents of the last two centuries have centered around the notion of rights.– The Bill of Rights– The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen– The United Nation Declaration of Human Rights
37
Human Rights
After the King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, which enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights.
38
Human Rights
Among rights of Magna Carta were the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and be free from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.
39
Rights, A Base for Moral Change
Many of the great movements of this century have centered around the notion of rights.– The Civil Rights Movement– Equal rights for women– Movements for the rights of
indigenous peoples– Children’s rights– Gay rights
40
Justifications for Rights
Self-evidence Divine Foundation Natural Law Human Nature
41
Self-evidence
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Declaration of IndependenceJuly 4, 1776
42
Divine Foundation “We have granted to God, and by
this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our Heirs for ever, That the Church of England shall be free, and shall have her whole rights and liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs for ever.”
The Magna Carta, 1297
43
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
44
Rights-related Questions
Freedom of Speech Death Penalty The Disappeared Economic & Social Rights Terrorism & Anti-Terrorism Corruption
45
Natural Law
According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings.
46
Natural Law Human Nature
Arguments for natural rights that appeal to human nature establish the following:
– Some characteristic of human nature, such as the ability to make free choices, is essential to human life.
– Certain conditions, such as freedom from physical constraints, are necessary for the existence or the exercise of that human ability;
– Conclude that people have right to live in conditions which allow for essential characteristics of human.
47
Two Concepts of Rights The distinction depends on the obligation that is
placed on those who must respect your rights. Negative Rights
– Obliges others not to interfere with your exercise of the right.
Positive Rights– Obligates others to provide you with positive
assistance in the exercise of that right.
48
Negative Rights
Negative rights simply impose on others the duty not to interfere with your rights.– The right to life, construed as a negative right,
obliges others not to kill you.– The right to free speech, construed as a negative
right, obliges others not to interfere with your free speech
49
Positive Rights
Positive rights impose on others a specific obligation to do something to assist you in the exercise of your right– The right to life, construed as a positive right,
obliges others to provide you with the basics necessary to sustain life if you are unable to provide these for yourself
– The right to free speech, construed as a positive right, obligates others to provide you with the necessary conditions for your free speech--e.g., air time, newspaper space, etc.
– Welfare rights are typically construed as positive rights.
50
Positive Rights:Critique
Who is obligated to provide positive assistance?– People in general– Each of us individually– The state (government)
51
The Limitations of Rights Concept
Rights, Community, and Individualism
Rights and Close Relationships
52
The Limitations of Rights Concept Contradicting Rights:
Athos and Women Greek public community is indignant at the decision
recently taken by the Dutch court and at the resolution of European parliament.
In January, a Greek law that allows monks from the Athos Monastery not to let women to the Holy Mount was officially declared in court as contradicting human rights.
53
The Limitations of Rights Concept Contradicting Rights:
Athos and Women
An official response to the declaration was immediate: governmental spokesman told European human rights activists that the right of the Athos monastery republic not to let women to the Holy Mount was confirmed in the treaty of Greece-s incorporation into the European Union.
54
Concluding Evaluation
Rights do not tell the whole story of ethics, especially in the area of personal relationships.
Rights are always defined for groups of people (humanity, women, indigenous people, workers etc).
55
Personal Integrity vs Public Safety
57
Introduction
All of us have been the recipients of demands of justice.– My students expect just grading policy.
All of us have also been in the position of demanding justice.– I told the builder of my house that, since he
replaced defective windows for a neighbor, he should replace my defective windows.
58
Conceptions of Justice
Distributive Justice– Benefits and burdens
Compensatory/Recompensatory Justice– Criminal justice
59
Distributive Justice
The central question of distributive justice is the question of how the benefits and burdens of our lives are to be distributed.– Justice involves giving each person his or her due.– Equals are to be treated equally.
60
Distribution: What?
What is to be distributed?– Income– Wealth– Opportunities
61
Distribution: to Whom?
To whom are good to be distributed?– Individual persons– Groups of persons– Classes
62
Distribution: How?
On what basis should goods be distributed?– Equality– Individual needs or desires– Free market transactions– Ability to make best use of the goods
63
Strict Egalitarianism
Basic principle: every person should have the same level of material goods and services
Criticisms– Unduly restricts individual freedom– May conflict with what people deserve
64
The Difference Principle
More wealth may be produced in a system where those who are more productive earn greater incomes.
Strict egalitarianism may discourage maximal production of wealth.
65
The Difference Principle
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
If a system of strict equality maximizes the absolute position of the least advantaged in society, then the Difference Principle advocates strict equality.
66
The Difference Principle
If it is possible to raise the position of the least advantaged further by inequality of income and wealth, then the Difference Principle prescribes inequality up to that point where the absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.
67
Critics of the Difference Principle (DP)
Strict egalitarians: DP don’t treat anyone differently Utilitarians: DP doesn’t maximize utility Libertarian: DP infringes on liberty through taxation,
etc. Desert-based theorists: argue DP to reward hard
work even when it doesn’t help the disadvantaged. Does not provide sufficient rewards for ambition
68
Welfare-Based Approaches
Seek to maximize well-being of society as a whole Utilitarianism
69
Desert*-Based Approaches Distributive systems are just insofar as they distribute
incomes according to the different levels earned or deserved by the individuals in the society for their productive labors, efforts or contributions. (Feinberg)
Distribution is based on:– Actual contribution to the social product– Effort one expend in work activity– Compensation to the costs
Seeks to raise the overall standard of living by rewarding effort and achievement
May be applied only to working adults
*desert - förtjänst; förtjänt lön, vedergällningaccording to one's deserts efter förtjänst
70
Libertarian Principles
1. People own themselves. 2. The world is initially un-owned. 3. You can acquire absolute rights over a
disproportionate share of the world, if you do not worsen the condition of others.
4. It is relatively easy to acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world.
5. Therefore: Once private property has been appropriated, a free market in capital and labor is morally required.
Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy
71
John Stuart MillEarly Feminist Critique of Liberal
Distributive Structures
Mill in The Subjection of Women (1869):
Principles associated with liberalism require equal political status of women
72
Try to run “Wealth Distribution”, a model that simulates the distribution of wealth.
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/WealthDistribution