Ethics and MoralityMarch 17, 2014Part C

“The real cycle you’re working on isa cycle called yourself” ZAMM

“A man not at peace with himself willnot be at peace with others.”

“Assembly of Japanese bicycle takesgreat peace of mind” ZAMM

Engineering Character

“On doing the right thing”

“Be a role model and expect role models”

“If you tell the truth you will not have to remember what you said”

“Character is destiny”

“All good teachers of ethics cometo remind more than to instruct”

Roadmap to this sequence of classes:

1. Why, examples of bad ethical behavior2. Truth and -Isms3. On going astray4. Definition of ethics and morals5. Moral conscience6. Aristotle’s ethics & happiness7. Virtue8. Human actions9. On ignorance10.Morality of human actions (object, intention, circumstances)11. situation ethics, utilitarianism, consequentialism, proportionalism12.Principles for evaluating human actions13.Wrap-up & NSPE quiz14. Gilbane gold video15.Dilbert ethics game16.Two Ethics essays

I hardly had to pad my resume at allto land that job as ethics officer.

Virtue Ethics

The recognition that our actions are not isolated decisions that we make,but arise from our character.

Virtues are good habits of character. Out of these good habits we tend to do morally right actions and becomebetter people overall since virtue alone makes us a moral person.

Human actions are voluntary, and we are responsible for them. All human actions are of moral significance; good, bad, neutral.

Responsibility for our actions requires that we knowingly and freely perform them. And such actions include negligence regarding something we should have done or known.

Imputability means to assign authorship to a person who has done a particular action. Imputability and responsibility for our actions can be diminished or eliminated by ignorance, inadvertence, compulsion,duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological problems.

Invincible ignorance – ignorance that is not the fault of the ignorant person

Human Actions

She who holds the ladder forthe burglar is also guilty

Some definitions regarding the structure of human actions

Final cause – the why, the goal, or the aim of an action

Efficient cause – the thing which causes something to be

Human action – an action involving the intellect (mind) and the will; a voluntary action of moral significance (i.e. good, neutral, or bad)

Formation of Human action

Order of Intention – that portion of the human action in which one thinksabout and chooses the end and the means to the end, plotting and

premeditation

Order of Execution – that portion of the human action in which one carries out themeans to the end, the act

All human actions are of moral significance, that is good, neutral, or bad

Understanding these concepts will enable us to understand when, how, and why we are not responsible for the actions that weperform and how we are to evaluate the goodness or badness of human actions.

Possible impediments to the human will

Elicited acts of the will – in the order of intention by which one chooses theend and the means to the end of one’s human action

Commanded acts of the will – in which the will moves other parts or powersof the person, example walking, writing, speaking. These are alwaysvisible and can even be made involuntary by compulsion throughexternal force or restraint

An Example:

On his way to taking a biotransport test Felix had decided to sit next to Lucy (an A+ student) in order to cheat. But when he arrived at the classroom he learned that Lucy was sick and unable to take the test at that time. Thus Felix ended up takingthe test without cheating. Is Felix responsible for doing anything wrong?

Note that Felix had already decided to cheat before he arrived at the classroom. That decision was an elicited act of the will. Elicited acts of thewill, which take place in the order of intention, are always invisible actions known only to the person willing to perform the act.

As a matter of fact most human actions take place in the order of intention. This means that the greater portion of the moral life is in fact invisible !

Because elicited acts of the will proceed directly from our wills, we are always responsible for them. Our elicited acts of the will are the expression of who we are most deeply.

Thus, even though he did not actually cheat on his test, Felix is responsible for having already decided to cheat and he may actually cheat at another time.

Possible impediments to the intellect or the mindInvincible ignorance – ignorance that is not the fault of the ignorant person

Other forms of ignorance include:

Concomitant ignorance – by which one does not know what one is actually doingor that what one is actually doing is wrong, yet enjoys what one did or enjoys the fact that what one did is wrong

An example:

Suppose you and I are neighbors who lived next door to each other. However, it isalso the case that I despise you! I have even considered ways of harming you. One day, you decided to go hunting. I did not know this; nor did you know that I alsodecided to go hunting, even in the same place. As I go about my hunting, I noticesome movement behind a bush. I aim my rifle and shoot. I run to lay claim to myprey and discover that I killed you!

When I discovered that I killed you, my reaction was: “Yes!” An elicited act of mywill enjoyed what I initially unknowingly did, this was not repugnant to my will. Thisis concomitant ignorance and makes my act of shooting you an involuntary act.I am not responsible for the commanded act of shooting you, but I am responsiblefor the elicited act of enjoying the fact that I did so.

Occurring with something else

Suppose that rather than despising you I love you dearly. It remains true thatI unknowingly shot you. However, when I discover that I did so, I am repulsedby what I actually did. My elicited act of the will is an act of repugnance andremorse. In this case we have what is called antecedent ignorance. Thisform of ignorance is the only kind of ignorance that renders my actionabsolutely involuntary and, therefore, an action for which I am not at allresponsible.

Antecedent ignorance – involuntary ignorance according to which one does notknow what one is actually doing or that what one is actually doing iswrong. Antecedent ignorance is the only kind of ignorance that rendersa human action absolutely involuntary.

Preceding, goingbefore

There is also another kind of ignorance:

Consequent ignorance – the generic name of two kinds of ignorance thatare freely chosen and that leaves one responsible for the actions consequent (a result of) to the ignorance

1. Affected ignorance – an ignorance voluntarily chosen so as to have an excuse for one’s actions (commission or omission)

2. Ignorance of evil choice – a form of consequent ignorance by which oneneglects to learn what one should have known

The morality of human actions is either good, bad, or neutral. Its goodness orbadness arises from consideration of the following three dimensions or sourcesof a particular human act, all of which must be good:

1. the object – the whatness of an act, that is What am I doing ? May need more info than what is available by just being a witness to the

act; for example the act of killing could be murder or an actof self-defense, which would be morally justifiable. However,there are some acts whose object is just plain wrong for examplelying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder

Neither a good intention, a good set of circumstances, nor a good consequence,can make a bad what or bad object good. The end does not justify themeans. So a bad “what am I doing?” is bad no matter what. [example, robbing someone (the object) to feed the hungry (intention)but without use of deadly force (circumstances)]

If the object of the human action is good, then must consider the intention andthe circumstances of the human action.

Object, Intention, Circumstances

2. the intention – is Why am I doing this act ? A bad intention is sufficient to make a human action bad, even if the object of the act is good. [an example would be bragging (intention) about giving money to the

poor (object)]

A good intention cannot make a bad human action good, but a bad intention can make an otherwise good human action bad (previous 2 examples)

A bad intention is sufficient to make a human action bad, even if the object ofthe action is good.

3. the circumstances – the how, when, and where of a human action. Thecircumstances can make a good action bad, but cannot make a badaction good. (example, being drunk is not an excuse for bad

behavior.)

We also must consider the consequences of our human actions:

the consequence – is the What if I do it ? We are responsible for the foreseen consequences of our actions. If we can foresee that something bad will result from an action, then we should not do it.

foreseen –in fact foreseen by the person doing the actforeseeable – consequences of an action should be foreseen by the

person doing the act

1. Situation ethics – as long as you have a good intention you may do anythingto fulfill it. For example, lying in order not to hurt someone’s feelings. Cheating to get a good grade.This approach excludes the object or the whatness of the human action.

Accommodates human actions to the circumstances and rejects anyconsideration of foreseen consequences. Foreseeable consequences are left as the unforeseen. Danger is making ethics fit the situation such that in the end anything can be justified.

Issues regarding human actionsIn order for a human action to be good it must be good in all of its dimensions

or sources, that is in its object, intention, circumstances and its foreseen consequences. 4 competing ways of approaching ethics are:

2. Utilitarianism – the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on what is useful and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of thegreatest number of people. Seeking the greatest good for the greatestnumber of people.

Basically the end justifies the means leaving the object or the whatness of the human action out of consideration. Totally preoccupied with pragmatic goals or consequences and usually unconcerned with the circumstances of a human action. Example, should we be bothered with old people?

Who decides? The powerful or the weak?

3. Consequentialism – concept of the greatest good for the greatest number ofpeople, leaves the object and circumstances out of consideration,similar to utilitarianism

4. Proportionalism – based on the denial that there is any such thing as anintrinsically evil human action, “BNW, old people cost society too much

money so they should die at 60,” good (saving money) always outweighs the bad (people die at 60) in a proportionate sense.

Principles for evaluating the goodness or badness of

human actions1. Principle of double effect

2. Principle of cooperation

3. Principle of totality

principle of double effect (good and bad consequence of a human action) assists in determining whether one’s human action is justifiable or not.

Principle of double effect has five criteria that must be satisfied:

1. The act is justifiable only if there is no alternative to the action in question, can only be used in situations of real dilemmas

2. The action in question must be good in its object or at least neutral

3. The bad consequences must not be intended. Here one is considering the intentions of the action. The person in the moral dilemma would prefer that there was no risk of a bad result at all, but can do nothing about the fact that there is such a risk.

4. The good consequence of the action in question must not be the effect of a bad consequence, in other words the end cannot justify the means.Here one is considering the circumstances of the action.

5. The good consequence must be proportionate to the bad consequence. For example the bad consequence could not be someone else’s death.Here one is considering the moral proportion between the good and bad consequences of the action.

As an example of the application of the principle of double effect is the casein which a physician considers the possibility of relieving a terminally ill patient’spain. In order to do so she would have to administer painkillers that could harmthe patient or even shorten the patient’s life. Hence there is a moral dilemmaof relieving pain (good object) or causing harm (bad object). In light of the Principle of Double effect the physician:

1. Recognizes there is no alternative for relieving the patient’s pain other thanby giving drugs. (+)

2. Administering the drugs to relieve pain is a good object and at least a neutral action. She would prefer that there was no risk to these drugs, risk is known. (+)

3. She does not intend the risk and does not want the risk to become a reality. Sothe bad consequence if any is not intended. (+)

4. By prescribing the painkillers the physician anticipates and intends a goodconsequence of relieving her patient’s pain and this good effect is notcaused by the possible harmful effects of the painkiller. (+)

5. The doctor discerns with prudence that there is a proportion between thegood consequence of giving the painkiller which will relieve thepatient’s pain and the bad consequences of any side effects. (+)

Suppose you need a kidney transplant or you will die. You have been on a transplant donor list for quite some time with no luck. Without a transplant you will die very soon. An international donor agency says they have a match for you but the cost for the donor’s kidney is $100,000. In light of the Principle of Double effect are you morally justified to buy this person’s kidney?

1.Recognizes there is no alternative for the patient other than to buy the kidney. Without the kidney the person dies so there is no alternative. (+)

2. Transplant of the donor kidney is a good object and at least a neutral action. There is risk to the donor and to the recipient but these are

known. (+)

3. Risk is inherent in any surgery so the bad consequences if any are not intended. (+)

4. By transplanting the kidney from the donor there is intended a goodconsequence of saving a life and this good effect is notcaused by purposefully harming the donor. (+)

5. The donor and recipient discerns with prudence that there is a proportion between the good consequence of donating a kidney which will save thepatient’s life and making some money for the donor and these bothsignificantly outweigh the bad consequences or the risks of surgery. (+)

Suppose you need a kidney transplant or you will die. You have been on a transplant donor list for quite some time with no luck. Without a transplant you will die very soon. An international donor agency says they have a match for you but the cost for the donor’s kidney is $100,000. But you also learnthat this kidney results from someone’s execution. In light of the Principle of Double effect are you morally justified to buy this person’s kidney?

1. Recognizes there is no alternative for the patient other than to have atransplant. Without the kidney the person dies but other alternatives may yet be possible. (-)

2. Transplant of the donor kidney to save a life is a good object and at least a neutral action. (+)

3. Risk is inherent in any surgery so the bad consequences for the recipient if any are not intended. There is a problem since a 3rd party stands to profit and the donor is killed in order to provide the kidney. (-)

4. By transplanting the kidney from the donor there is intended a goodconsequence of saving a life but this good effect is caused by purposefully causing the death of the donor. (-)

5. In this case the end does not justify the means, although the recipient’s life may besaved this is due to the killing of another human being. The good consequencesdo not justify the bad consequences. (-)

Kill in Self - Defense1. The act is justifiable only if there is

no alternative but to save one’s own life (+)

2. The action in question is good in its object since it saves the victim’s life . (+)

3. The bad consequence of killing the attacker is not intended. (+)

4. Although killing in self defense proceeds from the good intention of saving one’s own life this act can be considered immoral if it is out of proportion to the end, that is uses more than necessary violence (+)

Just War Doctrine

1. Damage inflicted by the aggressor onthe nation or community of nationsmust be lasting, grave, and certain

2. All other means of putting an end toit must have been shown to beimpractical or ineffective

3. There must be serious prospectsof success

4. The use of arms must not produceevils and disorders graver than theevil to be eliminated. The power aswell as the precision of modernmeans of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Principle of Cooperation – the participation of more than one person in the same immoral or bad human action

Such an associate may be equally guilty with the wrongdoer, or less guilty, ornot guilty at all.

This comes in a variety of flavors:

1. Formal cooperation – exists whenever one takes part in an immoral actionof another while at the same time adopting the evil intention of theassociate (being an accomplice in the bank at a robbery)

2. Immediate material cooperation – when one person actually performs an immoral action in cooperation with another person. This usuallybecomes formal cooperation. ( knowingly driving the get away car at a bank robbery)

3. Mediate (not direct, dependent on) material cooperation – concurrence in the immoral action of another but without actually doing the action with the other or concurring in the evil intention of the other, the other person is using the good or indifferent action of the cooperator as an occasion of, or assistance to the immoral action (knowingly lending your car to someone who wants to rob a bank)

Principle of Cooperation (continued)

4. Proximate cooperation – an action or set of actions that participate inand/or assist more immediately the immoral action of another, acloseness or intimacy to the bad action (driving the getaway car)

5. Remote cooperation – an action or set of actions that participate in and/orassist less immediately and from a distance the immoral or badaction of another (lending your car for a bank robbery)

6. Necessary cooperation – cooperation in the bad action of another withoutwhich the other would not be able to carry out the bad action

7. Unnecessary cooperation – cooperation in the immoral action of anotherwithout which the other would still be able to carry out the immoralaction.

Mediate-remote-material cooperation usually unnecessary cooperation and morally permissible when with the given circumstances one is not able to change the situation. If the person supports the cause then their cooperation is formal cooperation. (a pro-life pharmacist handing out a morning after pill)

Mediate-proximate-material cooperation in a serious bad action is permitted only to escape another proportionately serious bad consequence. In cases of such cooperation that is also necessary and in which there is the bad consequence of harm done to a third party, cooperation is morally permissible only if one is faced with suffering harm that is proportionate to the harm done to the third party. (bank teller handing over the money to the robber who has a gun in order to preventinjury to themselves or others)

Principle of Totality

According to which all the parts of the human body are meant to exist andfunction for the good of the whole body, and are thus naturally subordinated to the good of the whole body.

When a body part fails it is morally acceptable to have it removed, forexample an inflamed appendix.

We are not morally justified indestroying or mutilating or selling (?) our body parts or demanding the parts of someone else’s body.

Challenges the idea That I have the right to do whatever I want with my own body.

Making an Ethical Decision• Easy when the facts are clear and the choices

are well defined• Much more difficult when the situation is clouded

by ambiguity, incomplete information, multiple viewpoints, conflicting objectives

• Ethical judgments depend on good decision making processes, experience, intelligence, and INTEGRITY

• Character developed by virtues is destiny

Factors that Mold Ethics in the Workplace

• Development of the professional as a moral person through the virtues

• The influence of the work environment on the professional, principles displayed by managers and other role models, be a rolemodel and expect role models

• Standards developed by professional organizations

Qualities Needed• The ability and prudence to recognize

ethical issues and to think through the various consequences of alternative solutions

• Need the self-confidence to seek out different points of view and decide the best course of action given the circumstances

• Need the strength or fortitude to make decisions in the realm of not having all the answers

NSPE Code of Ethics – Written Standards

• Help the engineer chart a path of ethical conduct

• Laws related to professional registration as an engineer

• NSPE Code of Ethics are posted on the class blog

• Read the Code and then take the test and give it back to me.