Week 11 Ethical Decision Making (1).pdf
- 1. Minimum Requirements of Morality and Ethical Decision Making Framework Minimum Requirements of Morality and Ethical Decision Making Framework Compiled by Dr. Ocon
- 2. The Problem of Definition • There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’ simple formulation (“how we ought to live”) is bound to offend at least one of them. • James and Stuart Rachels proposes a ‘minimum conception’ of morality: a core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point. • First, a moral controversy. . . .
- 3. • Anencephalic infants: ‘babies without brains’ • Cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull are missing • Have a brain stem, thus autonomic functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.) are possible • Usually aborted in the US; otherwise, half are stillborn and usually die within days Baby Theresa’s Case
- 4. Baby Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for transplant. BUT. . . Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor is dead. Baby Theresa died after nine days. Her organs were too deteriorated to be harvested or transplanted. Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been used to save other children? Thousands of infants need transplants each year. Surprisingly few ethicists sided with the parents and physicians. “It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends.” “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.” “What the parents are really asking for is, ‘Kill this dying baby so that its organs may be used for someone else.’ Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”
- 5. The Benefits Argument If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs. What about Baby Theresa’s life? Isn’t being alive better than being dead? Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a life’: to carry on activities and have thoughts, feelings, and relations with other people. In the absence of such things, ‘mere biological life’ is worthless.
- 6. The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means It is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends. Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit other children. Therefore, it should not be done. Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean? Violating Baby Theresa’s autonomy? Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She has no preferences about anything, nor has she ever had any. How is Baby Theresa being ‘used’?
- 7. The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing It is wrong to kill one person to save another. Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others. So, taking the organs would be wrong. However. . . Shouldn’t there be an exception to the rule? Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never ‘have a life’; she is going to die soon anyway; and taking her organs would help other babies. Should we regard Baby Theresa as already ‘dead’? Perhaps we should revise our definitions of ‘death.’ .
- 8. Reason and Impartiality Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.
- 9. Moral Reasoning We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be. Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments.
- 10. How can we tell if an argument is really good? Get the facts straight. Bring moral principles into play. Are they justified, and are they being correctly applied?
- 11. The Requirement of Impartiality Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one should get special treatment. If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary
- 12. The Minimum Conception of Morality Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. The Conscientious Moral Agent. . . Is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does. Carefully sifts facts and examines their implications. Accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified. Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions. Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.
- 13. A Framework for Ethical Decision Making A. Recognize an Ethical Issue 1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"? 2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?
- 14. B. Get the Facts 3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision? 4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why? 5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?
- 15. C. Evaluate Alternative Actions 6. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions: Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach) Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach) Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach) Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? (The Common Good Approach) Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)
- 16. Five Sources of Ethical Standards The Utilitarian Approach Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected ‐‐ customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done. The Rights Approach Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights ‐‐ including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on ‐‐ is widely debated; some now argue that non‐humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties ‐‐ in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
- 17. The Fairness or Justice Approach Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally‐or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair. The Common Good Approach The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others ‐‐ especially the vulnerable ‐‐ are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.
- 18. The Virtue Approach A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self‐ control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" Putting the Approaches Together Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however. The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm. The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.
- 19. D. Make a Decision and Test It 7. Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation? 8. If I told someone I respect ‐‐ or told a television audience ‐‐ which option I have chosen, what would they say?
- 20. E. Act and Reflect on the Outcome 9. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders? 10. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?
- 21. Sources Rachels ch. 1 what is morality. (2017, 20). Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/SarahCruz2/rachels‐ ch‐1‐what‐is‐morality‐77090436 Santa Clara University. (n.d.). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics‐resources/ethical‐decision‐making/a‐framework‐for‐ethical‐decision‐ making/