1. Identify the central thesis of your textbook, explain how the author develops and defends it, and critically evaluate the author’s major themes, evidence, and logic.
2. List and explain the fundamental differences between deontology and teleology.
The fundamental point is that we are merely examining the American side or only one side in making the ethical decisions because they are organizational in nature
Look at the ethics and morality of the Japanese government and in “bringing about/compelling” the American government decision to drop the atomic bomb
The fact that stripping the emperor of his power was unacceptable under any circumstances made the susceptible vulnerable exposed
There are two fundamental types of ethical theory:
Teleological or Consequentialist theories are based on the notion of choosing one’s actions so as to maximize the value or values to be expected as consequences of those actions
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first calculate both the good and bad consequences of an action. Then, we determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:
Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions.
Utilitarianism is the predominant teleological ethical theory, which is the group of ethical theories that justify the morality of an action on the basis of its consequences. Teleological theories let “the end justify the means,” and utilitarianism is teleological because it considers happiness to be the end that always sought to be produced.
The centrality of happiness as a value is clearly evident in the professional life of the public administrator. The aim of public organizations such as those concerned with health, education, safety, and poverty is to make the lives of people happier. The notion of happiness as justification for public action is included in the statement in the Declaration of Independence, in which the pursuit of happiness is described as an inalienable right.
Utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and Mill would envision an ideal world in which the happiness of all people is unified so completely that the activities that make any individual happy would also promote the happiness of all. However, the world is not ideal, and there are many conflicts. A corporation’s management, its labor force, its customers, and its investors all have different interests that may converge but will often conflict.
When the happiness of all members of a group cannot be fully provided, promote the greatest total happiness. The problem is exacerbated by the vagueness in the notion of happiness. Mill provides neither any clear definition of happiness nor any means of measuring the quality of one happiness against the quality or quantity of another. Utilitarianism provides little wisdom by recommending solutions that may be theoretically sound but practically useless.
Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is wrong.” Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our preferences.
Deontological theories are based on the notion of choosing one’s actions according to standards of duty or obligation that refer not to consequences but to the nature of actions and the motives that are held by those performing them
Deontological ethical theory is one which maintains that the ethics of an action does not depend upon the consequences, but upon an important feature of the act itself. It is the principle of the thing. For most deontological theories, that feature is the obedience of an action to the principle.
Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation.
There are four central duty theories.
The first is that championed by 17th c. German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a “right” is a justified claim against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of another person.
A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are “part of the fundamental nature of the universe.” However, Ross’s list of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:
Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
Justice: the duty to recognize merit
Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue & intelligence
Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting duties.
But even the theoretical soundness of utilitarianism has been questioned. Some theorists such as Kant have argued that there R cases in which happiness should be sacrificed for higher values.
Professional Ethics and Human Values – Page 40 – Google Books Result
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=8131803066
A. Alavudeen, R. Kalil Rahman, M. Jayakumaran – 2008
goo.gl/K4raUQ
Deontology
The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the individual’s set duties.
Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as those within one’s family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his little sister when they cross a busy road together. This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which is called “supererogation”. For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated that one person would have to die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her duty to the other students and performs an act of supererogation.
Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of flaws. One weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s duties. For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair. A similar scenario unearths two other faults of deontology including the fact that sometimes a person’s duties conflict, and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others. For instance, if the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time? This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist’s decision. Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting obligations.
Deontology
According to Kant, the most important aspect of any principle is consistency. Human beings are naturally rational, and they reject contradictions. To Kant, the golden rule, “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a common sense expression of this concept of consistency.
The intent of the golden rule is not egocentric, but its wording allows selfish manipulations. Vegetarian cattle ranchers Kant claims that we all recognize that we must be consistent, but there is no foolproof way of formulating consistencies in a way that infallibly describes moral action. Kant’s first formulation of his “categorical imperative,” which means “absolute moral command,” was “I should never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”
A lie is a false statement that, unlike a statement in a drama or a joke, is intended to deceive.
Kant rejects lying because of the logical contradiction in making a rule that one must lie all the time. That contradiction is evident in the statement, “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, it is also false; if it is false, is also true.
One could not make a consistent universal law that “Stealing is morally acceptable,” because that would make property rights nonexistent and therefore, the rule would be self-defeating. Similarly, the rule, “It is acceptable to make a false promise,” would contradict itself on the ground that a promise is, by definition, an obligation, whereas a false promise, which does not obligate, would not be a promise in the first place.
To be consistent requires not only that one will obey consistent laws but also that one apply laws consistently. Therefore, Kant says that one should not only obey a universal law, but also follow a law that one could will to be universal.
But despite Kant’s attempt to improve on the Golden rule, his first formulation of the categorical imperative that has similar problems. One could still will an egocentric law such as the cattleman’s “Everyone should eat at least one pound of beef day” to be universal.
And therefore states his second formulation of the categorical imperative as, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, as an end & never as a means only”.
There are two especially noteworthy points concerning the second formulation. First, it presents a point of contact between Kant and the utilitarian concern for happiness. To treat someone as an end in himself or herself entails taking that person’s happiness fully into consideration as a utilitarian would. Secondly, to treat people as ends in themselves rather than as instruments of another person’s will requires that one treats people as free, responsible agents.
People are important because they are people. Public service administrators realize that the people they serve are not means to the administrator’s job, but people who are to be served because of their own inherent value.
Nevertheless, Kant second formulation is not without problems. It’s not always clear when we treat peoples as a means, and, sometimes, treating a person as an end in himself/herself may require treating another as a means. Taxing one group (using it as a means) for the welfare of another (an end) is a case in point. Kantian prohibition of taxation in this context? Kant realized that there were deficiencies in his second formulation as in his first. He therefore attempted to formulate a third statement to cover problematic cases, though it, too, like all human creations is imperfect. The third formulation is not as clearly stated as the first two but it attempts to capture the notion of a society entirely consistent within itself. The third formulation may best be stated as, “Consider all of your acts as if they were laws in a realm of ends,” with a “realm of ends” understood as a society in which all ends unite into a coherent whole.
This seems to overcome the taxation example.
The third formulation has its weaknesses. The image of an ideal provides little guidance concerning moral problems such as capital punishment, abortion, or war. It tells us where we want to go, but it does not tell us how to get there.
Rather than look to Kant’s categorical imperative or any of its formulations as a formulaic solutions to all ethical problems, it is perhaps best to consider his ideas of rational consistencies as a theoretical foundation for ethics and to consider his formulations as guidelines to assist in our moral thinking. Both the general notion of consistency and the formulations must be interpreted when applied to specific cases. There will be many cases of ambiguous interpretation, but they do not suggest that we abandon the general Kantian concepts. The Constitution of the United States admits of great ambiguity of interpretation, but its flexibility may be understood as a strength rather than a weakness. Perhaps it is best that we ask Kant or any other ethical theories to provide us not with a formula, but with a general understanding to tell us how to think about ethics rather than what to think
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying one’s desires, as in Hobbes, or external rational principles that are discoverable by reason, as in Locke and Aquinas. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason reveals the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he also argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality – the CI – is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.
Virtue Theory
Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in the young.
Virtue theory considers an act to be good on the basis of the character trait or virtue that the act evidences. For example, saving a child from a burning building is a good act because it evidences courage, giving money to the poor evidences generosity, and returning an overpayment from bank teller evidences honesty. Unethical actions, such as cheating on income taxes or always letting someone else pick up the restaurant tab, evidence poor character traits.
Virtue theory emphasizes the importance of the whole person in ethical evaluation rather than the details of the action.
Virtue
The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person’s morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person’s character and will be able to judge the friend. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior.
One weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person’s change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him or her.
Rights
In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow the car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a right to the car in the afternoon.
A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what the society’s goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers’ of America was to uphold this right to freedom of religion. However, under Hitler’s reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany’s future success. The American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those who practiced it.
