Introduction To Ethics: Ethics For The Information Age

Chapter 2:
Introduction to Ethics
Ethics for the Information Age
by
Ing. Dr. Nsor-Anabiah Solomon

Tel: 0206495677
Email: nsoranabiah@gmail.com
Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley

Chapter Overview
• Introduction
• Subjective relativism
• Cultural relativism
• Divine command theory
• Kantianism
• Act utilitarianism
• Rule utilitarianism
• Social contract theory
• Comparing workable ethical theories
• Morality of breaking the law 1-2
2-2
The Ethical Point of View
• Virtually everybody shares “core values”

– Life
– Happiness
– Ability to accomplish goals
• Two ways to view world
– Selfish point of view: consider only own self and its
core values
– Ethical point of view: respect other people and their
core values
1-3
2-3
Defining Terms
• Society:
– Association of people organized under a system of rules
– Rules: designed to advance the good of members over time
• Morality
– A society’s rules of conduct
– What people ought / ought not to do in various situations
(road network- good or bad)
• Ethics (philosophical study of morality- guidelines)
– Rational examination of morality
– Evaluation of people’s behavior.
– Ethics is broader than morality in that it includes the higher-
level activities evaluating moral systems and the creation of
new ways of evaluating moral problems.
– Ex: Observers on Balloons – people driving on road- or in 1-4
shortcut.
2-4
Why Study Ethics?
• Not everyone can do what they want
• Ethics: A way to decide the best thing to do
• New problems accompany new technologies
– Emial and spams
– www and pop-up ads for pornographic web
sites
• “Common wisdom” not always adequate.
“Common wisdom” may not exist for novel
situations brought about by new technologies
1-5
2-5
More on Ethics
• Ethics: rational, systematic analysis – may cause
benefit or harm to people.
– “Doing ethics”: answers need explanations
– Explanations: facts, shared values, logic
• Ethics: voluntary, moral choices - reasoned choice
– Ex: choosing a color for a car – outside moral realm
– Ex: Trying to avoid a car on a road and killing another
person – non-voluntary (reflex action not reasoned choice)
– Ex: Driving while intoxicated – you enter moral realm
• Workable ethical theory: produces explanations that
might be persuasive to a skeptical, yet open-minded
audience
1-6
2-6
Subjective Relativism
• Relativism
– No universal norms of right and wrong
– One person can say “X is right,” another
can say “X is wrong,” and both can be right
• Subjective relativism
– Each person decides right and wrong for
himself or herself
– “What’s right for you may not be right for
me”
1-7
2-7
Case for Subjective Relativism
• Well-meaning and intelligent people may have

opposite opinions about moral issues (Ex:
Abortion in Ghana)
• Ethical debates are disagreeable and
pointless – and we don’t have to try to
reconcile opposing views.
– Takes time on debates (more than 30 years)
1-8
2-8
Case Against Subjective Relativism
• Blurs distinction between doing what you think is
right and doing what you want to do (Who are you to
tell me what is right?)
• Makes no moral distinction between the actions of
different people (Hitler vs Mother Teresa)
• SR and tolerance are two different things
– (choosing to act only with your race is not tolerant but it
goes with SR)
• Decisions may not be based on reason (Selfish)
• Not a workable ethical theory ( behave on your own.
It is not based on universal moral norms)
1-9
2-9
Cultural Relativism
• What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a

society’s actual moral guidelines
• These guidelines vary from place to place
and from time to time
• A particular action may be right in one
society at one time and wrong in other
society or at another time
– Ex (driving with a friend and killing a pedestrian)
• (90% in Norway, 10% in Serbia, 50% in Mexico will
not testify)
1-10
2-10
Case for Cultural Relativism
• Different social contexts demand different

moral guidelines (Ex Survival among
centuries has shifted from people to nature)
• It is arrogant for one society to judge another
– (It is arrogant to people in US nowadays to
judge nations in the past)
1-11
2-11
Case Against Cultural Relativism
• Sometimes societies have bad or wrong guidelines.
– (Ex: severe drought)
• Doesn’t explain how guidelines evolve overtime.
– (Ex: segregation of students in US)
• Provides no way out for cultures in conflict
– (Ex: Gaza poverty and the armed struggle vs. larger
Israel and expansion in settlements)
• Because many practices are acceptable does not mean
any cultural practice is acceptable (many/any fallacy)
– (Ex: there are too many ways to document
programs - Which is good and which is bad?)
• Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
– Ex: (no murder, care for babies)
• Not a workable ethical theory 1-12
2-12
Divine Command Theory
• Good actions: those aligned with God’s

will
• Bad actions: those contrary to God’s will
• Holy books reveal God’s will.
• We should consider holy books as moral
decision-making guides.
1-13
2-13
Case for Divine Command Theory
• We owe obedience to our Creator.

• God is all-good and all-knowing.
• God is the ultimate authority.
1-14
2-14
Case Against Divine Command Theory
• Different holy books disagree
• Society is multicultural, secular
• Some moral problems not addressed in
holy books.
– Ex: problems related to internet practices
• “The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence fallacy)
related things but they are distinct.
• Based on obedience, not reason
• Not a workable ethical theory
1-15
2-15
Kantianism
• Focuses on the critical importance of Good will-
the desire to do the right thing.
• Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world good
without qualification is a good will.
– Ex: courage and intelligence may be used to harm
people. Robbing a bank – no good will
– Ex: a best effort to help people my fall short – good
will
• Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing.
(Dutifulness – respect some moral rules –
universal moral rules)
– What we ought to do NOT what we want to do 1-16
2-16
Categorical Imperative (1st Formulation)
Act only from moral rules that you can at the

same time will to be universal moral laws.
EX: Make promises to break them?!! If

universalized, there is no mean for making
promises.
1-17
2-17
Illustration of 1st Formulation
• Question: Can a person in dire straits make a promise
with the intention of breaking it later?
• Proposed rule: “I may make promises with the intention
of later breaking them.”
• The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed
so he can get what he needs.
• Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break
promises
• Everyone breaking promises would make promises
unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise
believed
• The rule is flawed. The answer is “No.”
1-18
2-18
Categorical Imperative (2nd Formulation)
Act so that you treat both yourself

and other people as ends in themselves
and never only as a means to an end.
Don’t “Use” people. “respect” them
This is usually an easier formulation to work

with than the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative.
1-19
2-19
Plagiarism Scenario
• Carla
– Single mother
– Works full time
– Takes two evening courses/semester
– She has a child and need some time to care about
• History class
– Requires more work than normal
– Carla earning an “A” on all work so far
– Carla doesn’t have time to write final report
• Carla purchases report and submits it as her own
work
1-20
2-20
Kantian Evaluation (1st Formulation)
• Carla wants credit for plagiarized report

• Rule: “You may claim credit for work performed
by someone else”
• If rule universalized, reports would no longer be
credible indicator’s of student’s knowledge, and
professors would not give credit for reports
• Proposal moral rule is self-defeating
• It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report
1-21
2-21
Kantian Evaluation (2nd Formulation)
• 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
1-22
2-22
Case for Kantianism
• Rational
• Produces universal moral guidelines
– Could be applied to all people for all history
• Treats all persons as moral equals
– No discrimination
• Workable ethical theory
1-23
2-23
Case Against Kantianism
• Sometimes no single rule adequately characterizes
an action.
– Ex: stealing to feed starving babies
• Am I stealing (perfect duty)? Am I protecting lives (imperfect duty)?
• Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict
between rules
– In a conflict between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty,
perfect duty prevails
– In a conflict between two perfect duties, no solution
• Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.
– Your mother’s hair-cut
– She asks if you like this hair-cut/
– Rule: don’t lie should be bent??!! 1-24
2-24
Utilitarianism (contrast to Kantianism)
• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

• An action is good if it benefits someone
• An action is bad if it harms someone
• Utility: tendency of an object to produce
happiness or prevent unhappiness for an
individual or a community
• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good =
pleasure
• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil =
pain
1-25
2-25
Principle of Utility
(Greatest Happiness Principle)
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent

that it increases (or decreases) the
total happiness of the affected parties.
Total sum of pleasure = Negative or Positive
1-26
2-26
Act Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism
– Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent
– Focuses on the consequences
– A consequentialist theory
• Act utilitarianism
– Add up change in happiness of all affected beings
– Sum > 0, action is good
– Sum < 0, action is bad
1-27
2-27
Highway Routing Scenario
• State may replace a curvy stretch of

highway
• New highway segment 1 mile shorter
• 150 houses would have to be removed
• Some wildlife habitat would be destroyed
1-28
2-28
Evaluation
• Costs
– $20 million to compensate homeowners
– $10 million to construct new highway
– Lost wildlife habitat worth $1 million
• Benefits
– $39 million savings in automobile driving costs
• Conclusion
– Benefits exceed costs
– Building highway a good action
1-29
2-29
Case for Act Utilitarianism
• Focuses on happiness
• Down-to-earth (practical)
• Comprehensive
1-30
2-30
Case Against Act Utilitarianism
• Unclear whom to include in calculations
– In the highway example children in one side
might find it difficult to cross the highway
• Too much work
• Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
– Ex: Sending flowers to a patient and causing
an allergy for him. This cost him much. Then
your act is BAD.
1-31
2-31
Rule Utilitarianism
• We ought to adopt moral rules which, if

followed by everyone, will lead to the
greatest increase in total happiness
• Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility
to individual actions
• Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of
Utility to moral rules
1-32
2-32
Anti-Worm Scenario
• August 2003: Blaster worm infected thousands of

Windows computers
• Soon after, Nachi worm appeared
– Took control of vulnerable computer
– Located and destroyed copies of Blaster
– Downloaded software patch to fix security problem
– Used computer as launching pad to try to “infect” other
vulnerable PCs
1-33
2-33
Evaluation using Rule Utilitarianism
• Proposed rule: If I can write a helpful worm that
removes a harmful worm from infected computers
and shields them from future attacks, I should do so
• Who would benefit
– People who do not keep their systems updated
• Who would be harmed
– People who use networks
– People who’s computers are invaded by buggy anti-
worms (may make bugs to data or programs)
– System administrators (detect and respond)
• Conclusion: Harm outweighs benefits. Releasing anti-
worm is wrong.
1-34
2-34
Case for Rule Utilitarianism
• Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier

to perform the utilitarian calculus.
• Avoids the problem of moral luck
1-35
2-35
Social Contract Theory
• Thomas Hobbes
– “State of nature”
– We implicitly accept a social contract
• Establishment of moral rules to govern
relations among citizens
• Government capable of enforcing these
rules
– Ex: residents of Baghdad after Iraq Invasion – no social
contract with the state.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
– In ideal society, no one above rules
– That prevents society from enacting bad rules 1-36
2-36
James Rachels’s Definition
“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.”
Similar to Kantianism but rules are not to be universalized,

but specific society should agreed upon.
1-37
2-37
Kinds of Rights
• Negative right: A right that another can guarantee by leaving
you alone
– Free Expression
• Positive right: A right obligating others to do something on
your behalf
– Free education --- other must do something for you
• Absolute right: A right guaranteed without exception
– Free expression and right for life
• Limited right: A right that may be restricted based on the
circumstances
– Free education limited to 12th grade because of under
budgeting.
Correlation between Kinds of Rights
• Positive rights tend to be more limited
• Negative rights tends to be more absolute 1-38
2-38
John Rawls’s Principles of Justice
• To avoid unequal distribution of wealth and power:
– 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.
– Ex: People with same intelligence, talent, …etc, should have the right
to achieve the same position regardless of their social position.
• Be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of
society (the difference principle)
– Ex: differences in Taxes according to income
1-39
2-39
DVD Rental Scenario (using Social Contract Theory)
• Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores

• Collects information about rentals from
customers
• Constructs profiles of customers
• Sells profiles to direct marketing firms
• Some customers happy to receive more
mail order catalogs; others unhappy at
increase in “junk mail”
1-40
2-40
Evaluation (Social Contract Theory)
• Consider rights of Bill, customers, and mail order
companies.
• Does customer have right to expect name, address to
be kept confidential? Privacy right.
• If customer rents DVD from bill, who owns information
about transaction?
• If Bill and customer have equal rights to information,
Bill did nothing wrong to sell information.
• If customers have right to expect name and address
or transaction to be confidential without giving
permission, then Bill was wrong to sell information
without asking for permission.
1-41
2-41
Case for Social Contract Theory
• Framed in language of rights

• Provides clear analysis of certain
citizen/government problems
– Why to punish criminals? To protect lives….
• They have the right to liberty if they follow the rules
1-42
2-42
Case Against Social Contract Theory
• No one signed contract
• Some actions have multiple characterizations
- Ex: Don’t steal.
• Conflicting rights problem
– Ex: Abortion - the privacy right of mother, against
the fetus’s right to live.
• May unjustly treat people who cannot uphold
contract
– Ex: Drug addicts – some countries put in prisons
Other countries put in hospitals
1-43
2-43
Comparing Workable Ethical Theories
Theory Motivation Criteria Focus
Kantianism Dutifulness Rules Individual
Act
Consequence Actions Group
Utilitarianism
Rule Consequence /
Rules Group
Utilitarianism Duty
Social Contract Rights Rules Individual
1-44
2-44

Introduction To Ethics: Ethics For The Information Age

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Ethics: Ethics For The Information Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2:

Ethics for the Information Age

Ing. Dr. Nsor-Anabiah Solomon

Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley

• Virtually everybody shares “core values”

• Well-meaning and intelligent people may have

• What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a

• Different social contexts demand different

• Good actions: those aligned with God’s

• We owe obedience to our Creator.

Act only from moral rules that you can at the

EX: Make promises to break them?!! If

Act so that you treat both yourself

This is usually an easier formulation to work

• Carla wants credit for plagiarized report

• Carla submitted another person’s work as

• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

An action is right (or wrong) to the extent

Total sum of pleasure = Negative or Positive

• State may replace a curvy stretch of

• We ought to adopt moral rules which, if

• August 2003: Blaster worm infected thousands of

• Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier

Similar to Kantianism but rules are not to be universalized,

• Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores

• Framed in language of rights

Theory Motivation Criteria Focus

Kantianism Dutifulness Rules Individual

Social Contract Rights Rules Individual

You might also like