Ethical+Theories

=Ethics has three branches of study:=


 * ====**Meta Ethics**: concerned with the definition of ethical terms and the search for ethical truth.====

Fat books of dense text have been written on these concerns. We will not spend much time on this branch unless you, the class, push us there out of curiosity.

 * ====**Normative Ethics**: concerned with how we “ought to live,” and //**theories of behavior**//====
 * ====**Applied Ethics**: how moral outcomes can be achieved in practical situations. This is where we apply different theories to life.====

=__Ethical Theories (Normative Ethics)__= click on the various links below for more = Consequentialist Theories = || (note that these are not the only examples of each) || ==[|Various Example’s]== || ==Aristotle's moral theory== || ==[|Ayn Rand’s Objectivism]== || ==Immanuel Kant’s ethics== || ==Utilitarianism== ||
 * || = Religious Ethics = || = Virtue Theory = || = Self Interest Theories/Ethical Egoism = || = Deontological Theories/Duty Ethics = || = Teleological/ =
 * = Example =
 * = Description =

|| ===Often focused on rules and duty originating in Divine Command or revelation (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam)===


 * ===Rules are thought to be be objective and universal===

Sometimes focused on methods of determining behavior (i.e Budhism)

 * ===Virtues are emphasized as are the ways to acquire them=== || ===Focus on the character of the person making the moral decision===
 * ===An action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.===


 * ===A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues. A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well.=== || ===Focus on either a denial of ethical behavior existing beyond self interest or...===
 * ===Ethical Egoism: focused on the argument that self interest guided by reason, results in the general good for individuals and as it often happens, the group they are in as well===
 * ===Denies the existence of “real” altruism or..===
 * ===denies the worth of altruism for it’s own sake=== || ===Focus on living up to obligations or following rules (and also on the claiming of your rights relative to others)===
 * ===An action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule or principle.===


 * ===A moral rule is one that is required by rationality.===


 * ===Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become universal law.”===


 * ===The ends do not justify the means=== || ===Focus on morally desirable consequences or outcomes===
 * ===An action is right if it promotes the best consequences.===


 * ===The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized.===


 * ===The proper course is the one which maximizes the overall “happiness”===


 * ===the ends justify the means===

= Discussion = || ===**Does the commonality of so many moral premises across religions indicate that humans intuitively share universal principles?**=== || **Aristotelian virtue ethics explained**
 * ===the greatest good for the greatest number=== ||
 * = Application/ =

media type="youtube" key="PHVuzec6s0c" height="205" width="278"

=[|A Selfless Good Deed]=
 * What virtues are there worth having?** || =Are all forms of altruism really just selfishness in disguise?=

media type="youtube" key="irTolXyHzcI" height="214" width="292" media type="youtube" key="nsgAsw4XGvU" width="560" height="315" || **Do the ends justify the means?** media type="youtube" key="XKQAflZrXpU" height="251" width="336" ||
 * Are some of these acts selfless? Does it matter?** || **Kant's Categorical Imperative**** With so many different contexts (situational, cultural) to human life, is it practical to insist that any moral premiss has to be universal? **
 * = Criticisms = || **Religions tolerate and even dictate acts that are held by many to be wrong**

Plato questioned whether we can gain ethics from religion: Is something good because god says it is good, or does god say that it is good because it is good?
|| **Virtues don’t give clear guidance on how to act in different situations and can’t tell us what rules or laws we should have.**


 * Virtue ethics don’t answer questions (i.e. What responsibility do we have to animals?) in any particular way.**


 * Virtue ethics reject absolutes such as “don’t lie” while extolling the virtue of honesty. In light of this, does Virtue need rules first, or are virtues just internalization of Moral Premisses that are generated by other moral systems?** || **“Selfish” and “altruism” are defined in a way that runs counter to what these words and ideas are commonly thought to mean, hence Self-interest Theory is just a bit of rhetoric and some basic observations about behavior.**


 * Ethical Egoists argue against altruism as an oppressive and unethical demand from others while at the same time suggesting that altruism doesn’t really exist anyway. How is this so?** || ==== ====
 * Rule worship: Moral absolutism is unrealistic and counter-intuitive. Is it sometimes right to lie? Universal rules don’t work in all real life situations/contexts**


 * Does not immediately solve conflicts of duty. Should you steal to feed starving children even though stealing is wrong?** || **Does Utilitarianism mean that individuals and minority groups have no claims to rights balanced against the greater happiness of the majority?**

**As we have noted, the use of the word theory here is problematic (vague words) in that it is not used in the sense of a scientific theory. Think of “ethical theory” here as “ethical model” or “ethical argument” or even just an “ethical proposition.”**
 * Is it even possible to consider all the possible outcomes of a moral act (any act for that matter) to determine the best Utilitarian course of action?** ||

=__Applied Ethics__= ===In applied ethics the focus is on particular case studies and the attempt to consistently apply a particular moral or ethical system to our muddy, complex world. This often leads to many types of applied ethics: medical ethics, business ethics, academic ethics, organization ethics, etc.===


 * Read the case studies below or follow the [|source link] to others. Pick one and write a short analysis of the issue. Be sure to identify your case study and address the following:**
 * **Which ethical theory(ies) are relevant to the situation?**
 * **Whose perspective seems most relevant? Why?**
 * **What would you recommend?**

Source for the following: [|The Institute for Global Ethics]

The Dying Passenger
Mike Nolan knew there was a problem even before the flight attendant knocked on the cockpit door. After 18 years of piloting 747s and their smaller kin across the country and around the world, Nolan had developed a keen sense of the atmosphere aboard his planes. This flight—a December trip from Detroit to Seattle—had been a struggle from the start.

First, there had been the late departure from the Detroit gate—a delay caused by a flat tire on the food-service van a few miles from the gate. The van's driver had been further slowed by the onset of a snowstorm, whose first flurries had begun falling less than an hour before. Compounding the slow start was the packed and cramped cabin to Nolan's back, a precursor to the coming holiday crunch. The flight crew was new, too—each with plenty of experience, but not yet used to one another as a routine team on this westbound route. These things—more disruptive and disjointed than truly troubling—had nevertheless put Nolan on alert.

So when the knock came on the cockpit door, Nolan wasn't entirely unprepared. At the door was Maggie Cho, a flight attendant Mike had worked with a few times before, although not on this route. Maggie, Nolan knew, was new to the route and relatively new to the job, but had the bearings and the brains to stay calm in a crisis—qualifications that made her a good person to have in the cabin. Tonight, Mike soon realized, she was badly needed. Maggie wasted no time in telling Nolan and the rest of the cockpit crew that there was trouble in the back: a passenger had suffered a severe heart attack and needed immediate medical attention. While a doctor aboard the plane had been able to help, a hospital was needed quickly—or the patient would likely die.

Nolan knew his options were few and his time short. The scheduled flight path had led Nolan's plane slightly south in a bid to slip the grip of a growing snowstorm over the northern plains. That tactic, however, had failed. The storm, pushed and pulled by competing air-pressure systems, had spread more widely than forecast, covering America's middle states with a wide swath of snow, sleet, and strong winds. And Nolan's night flight, now 20 minutes from Denver, was in the middle of the mess.

Transferring control to his copilot, Mike took to the radio, calling the Denver tower to seek clearance for an emergency landing. From the other end of the radio, Nolan heard an upsetting response: Permission Denied. The Denver controller explained that weather conditions were worsening, making a landing unadvisable and unsafe for Nolan's crew and passengers. With extreme regret, the Denver tower told Nolan to provide what medical care he could—but to continue his flight as prescribed.

Mike, Maggie, and the rest of the cockpit crew looked at each other, pained expressions on their faces. After talking quietly for a few minutes, Mike concretized their options. They could follow Denver's orders and stay aloft, or they could demand a landing for a medical evacuation.

The weather WAS a problem, Mike admitted, but not one he wasn't ready to meet. Nolan felt sure he could land the plane—a confidence borne of his 27-year experience at the controls of military and civilian aircraft. But he wasn't prepared to risk the lives of his crew and passengers—breaking the conservative standards of airline safety regulations—without their full and informed consent.

At Mike's request, Maggie returned to the cabin for a status check. In less than three minutes, she was back with the bad news of the patient's worsening condition. News of the crisis, she said, had spread remarkably slowly, running through only a small portion of the passenger cabin. The rest of the flight crew, however, had been told of the emergency and had—with only one fleeting hold out—signaled their wish to land the plane immediately. Now, the choice was Nolan's.

A Love Triangle
Tamara's best friend, Janine, who had been having bad luck the past couple of years developing good relationships, finally meets the "man of her dreams." There was only one problem: this man is married. To further an already complicated situation, this married man’s wife is Tamara’s other friend, Susannah.

One day, Susannah tells Tamara that she suspects her husband of having an affair. Because Tamara knows her husband, and she and the couple have many mutual friends, Susannah asks Tamara if she has heard the rumor and, if so, if she has any information. Susannah is shocked and distraught about the news, but is hoping to work with her husband to save their marriage.

What should Tamara say?

The Bribe
George simply isn't paying attention. It has been a long drive back home from the family's winter vacation, and he is on the Interstate coming through the downtown area of the city. His wife is with him up front. In the backseat are his young daughter and her younger brother, who is feeling sick and needs to get home. On the radio are the riveting final minutes of the playoff game with his favorite basketball team.

So when the familiar blue lights begin flashing in his rea rview mirror, George's heart sinks. As he pulls over to the side of the highway, he knows he's been speeding—partly to get his son home and partly with the excitement of the game. Because it is cold, the officer suggests he bring his papers and come sit in the front seat of the police cruiser, while the other officer in the car takes the backseat.They exchange papers and the arresting officer writes up the speeding ticket. And then begins a conversation George finds increasingly troubling. The officers tell him he will need to come down to the police station to settle this ticket. Unfortunately, the station is quite a ways away. What's more, as it is Sunday evening, there are few people on duty, and processing the ticket could take several hours.

If, however, George simply wants to pay the officers right then in cash, they would be happy to do the necessary paperwork when they get to the station, letting George go on his way with no delay.

The more George listens, the more his blood begins to seethe. This is the United States, he reminds himself, not some backwater nation with a corrupt police force. Yet here he is, being asked (he felt sure) for a bribe. Yet there is his young son, feeling sick and increasingly desperate to get home to his own bed.

What should George do?

Honor The Cost of Philanthropy
As chief legal officer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, Alistair has been asked by his board of directors to look into rumors of price-fixing in the firm's European offices. His board has a very strong ethics policy, and is especially wary of price-fixing, bribery, kick-backs, and other unethical activities that can plague overseas operations.

After several months of detailed interviews in Europe, Alistair satisfies himself that the rumors are groundless. "There's no issue here," he heard several managers say. “But,” added one such manager, "if you really want something to investigate, look into the Bosnia contract."

Over the months, Alistair keeps hearing about "the Bosnia contract." So when he finishes his report on the price-fixing rumors, he decides to satisfy his curiosity on this matter. The contract, he discovers, is ordinary in almost every respect: A major relief organization has contracted with his company to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-torn regions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts with charitable organizations, it contains hardly any profit for his firm.

What he finds strange, however, is the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Romanian distributor to deliver the kits deep into Bosnia. Seeking out the executive in his own firm who negotiated the contract, he has one question in mind: Is this a bribe?

“Yes and no,” says the executive. According to the Romanian distributor, the backs of the delivery trucks are loaded with the kits—and the glove compartments are stuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers are stopped at roadblocks set up by local militia units operating all across Bosnia, they can pay whatever is demanded and continue their journey. “In the past,” he notes, “drivers without cash have been taken from their trucks and shot. If the kits are to be delivered, this is the cost of doing business.”

Alistair feels sure that none of the money has flowed back to the executive, whose only motive is to get the kits delivered. And by this time, the deliveries have already been made. Yet Alistair still faces a dilemma. Should he draft a separate report to the board on this most unorthodox contract—possibly causing great harm to the executive who negotiated it or embarrassment to the relief organization, which is aware of the commission? Or should he keep silent?

What should Alistair do?

A Camera in the Classroom
Ms. Brown is a first-year teacher at a mid-sized suburban high school. As a way to review and improve her teaching skills, the administration has approved placement in her classroom of a video camera that is recording constantly throughout the school day. All of her students and their guardians have been made aware of the camera and have signed an agreement stating that: "the footage obtained will be used by the classroom teacher to observe, reflect, and improve on her pedagogical methodology."

Brown has lunchroom monitor duty during her free period each day. After one such period, she returned to classroom to find the door ajar and several student projects damaged, and derogatory language on her chalkboards. The administration was notified of the issue and, upon a brief inquiry, found that none of the surrounding classroom teachers or the hall monitors saw anyone enter or leave her room. An announcement asking for anonymous information from the student body also turned up no leads.

The administration is asking for access to Brown's videotaped footage in the hopes of identifying the perpetrator(s).

Should Brown accede?