Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Professional Practice (Ethics (Utilitarianism (Act utilitarianism is the…

- - - - The Case for Subjective Relativism
        
        Well-meaning and intelligent people can have totally opposite opinions about moral issues.
        
        Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless.
      - The Case against Subjective Relativism
        
        With subjective relativism the line between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do is not sharply drawn.
        
        By allowing each person to decide right and wrong for himself or herself, subjective relativism makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people.
        
        Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different things.
        
        We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that allows people to make decisions based on something other than reason.
    - - The Case for Cultural Relativism
        
        Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines.
        
        It is arrogant for one society to judge another.
      - The Case against Cultural Relativism
        
        Just because two societies do have different views about right and wrong doesn’t imply that they ought to have different views.
        
        Cultural relativism does not explain how an individual determines the moral guidelines of a particular society.
        
        Cultural relativism does not explain how to determine right from wrong when there are no cultural norms.
        
        Cultural relativism does not do a good job of characterizing actions when moral guidelines evolve.
        
        Cultural relativism provides no framework for reconciliation between cultures in conﬂict.
        
        The existence of many acceptable cultural practices does not imply that any cultural practice would be acceptable
        
        Societies do, in fact, share certain core values.
        
        Cultural relativism is only indirectly based on reason
  - - - We owe obedience to our Creator.
      - God is all-good and all-knowing
      - God is the ultimate authority.
    - - There are many holy books, and some of their teachings disagree with each other.
      - It is unrealistic to assume a multicultural society will adopt a religion-based morality.
      - Some moral problems are not addressed directly in scripture.
      - It is fallacious to equate “the good” with “God.”
      - The divine command theory is based on obedience, not reason.
  - - - Ethical egoism is a practical moral philosophy.
      - It’s better to let other people take care of themselves.
      - The community can beneﬁt when individuals put their well-being ﬁrst.
      - Other moral principles are rooted in the principle of self-interest.
    - - An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral philosophy.
      - We do, in fact, know a lot about what is good for someone else.
      - A self-interested focus can lead to blatantly immoral behavior.
      - Other moral principles are superior to the principle of self-interest.
      - People who take the good of others into account live happier lives.
  - - - Categorical Imperative (First Formulation) Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.
        
        The translation of this moral rule could be as follows: “A person may make a false promise when that is the only way to escape a difﬁcult situation.” To evaluate this moral rule, we universalize it. What would happen if everybody in extreme circumstances made false promises? If that were the case, nobody would believe promises, and it would be impossible for our individual in distress to make a promise that anyone believed. The moral rule self-destructs when we try to make it a universal law. Therefore, it is wrong for a person in distress to make a promise with the intention of breaking it.
      - Categorical Imperative (Second Formulation) Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end.
        
        The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for one person to use himself or another person solely as a means to an end.
    - - Senario
        
        Carla is a single mother who is working hard to complete her college education while taking care of her daughter. Carla has a full-time job and is taking two evening courses per semester. If she can pass both courses this semester, she will graduate. She knows her child will beneﬁt if she can spend more time at home. One of her required classes is modern European history. In addition to the midterm and ﬁnal examinations, the professor assigns four lengthy reports, which is far more than the usual amount of work required for a single class. Students must submit all four reports in order to pass the class. Carla earns an A on each of her ﬁrst three reports. At the end of the term, she is required to put in a lot of overtime where she works. She simply does not have time to research and write the ﬁnal report. Carla uses the Web to identify a company that sells term papers. She purchases a report from the company and submits it as her own work. Was Carla’s action morally justiﬁable?
      - Analysis
        
        Many times it is easier to use the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view, so that’s where we begin. By submitting another person’s work as her own, Carla treated her professor as a means to an end. She deceived her professor with the goal of getting credit for someone else’s work. It was wrong for Carla to treat the professor as a grade-generating machine rather than a rational agent with whom she could have communicated her unusual circumstances.
        
        We can also look at this problem using the ﬁrst formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Carla wants to be able to get credit for turning in a report
        she has purchased. A proposed moral rule might be, “I may claim academic credit for a report written by someone else.” However, if everyone followed this rule, reports would cease to be credible indicators of the students’ knowledge, and professors would not give academic credit for reports. Her proposed moral rule is self-defeating. Therefore, it is wrong for Carla to purchase a report and turn it in as her own work.
      - Commentary
        
        Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral problem focuses on the will behind the action. It asks
        the question,“What was Carla trying to do when she submitted under her own name a term paper written by someone else?” The analysis ignores extenuating circumstances that non-Kantians may cite to justify her action
    - - The Categorical Imperative aligns with the common moral concern, “What if everybody acted that way?”
      - Kantianism produces universal moral guidelines.
      - All persons are treated as moral equals.
    - - Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes an action.
      - Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conﬂict between rules.
      - Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect duties
  - - - 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.
      - Utility is the tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community. Depending on the circumstances, you may think of “happiness” as advantage, beneﬁt, good, or pleasure, and “unhappiness” as disadvantage, cost, evil, or pain.
    - - Suppose we measure pleasureasapositivenumberandpainasanegativenumber.Tomakeamoralevaluation of an action, we simply add up, over all affected beings, the change in their happiness. If the sum is positive, the action is good. If the sum is negative, the action is bad.
        
        seven attributes that can be used to increase or decrease the weight of a particular pleasure or pain:
        
        1.Intensity: magnitude of the experience .
        
        2.Duration: how long the experience lasts .
        
        3. Certainty: probability it will actually happen
        
        4. Propinquity: how close the experience is in space and time .
        
        5.Fecundity: its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind .
        
        6.Purity: extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain or vice versa .
        
        7. Extent: number of people affected
      - The case for act Utilitarianism
        
        It focuses on happiness
        
        It is practical.
        
        It is comprehensive.
      - The case against act Utilitarianism
        
        When performing the utilitarian calculus, it is not clear where to draw the line, yet where we draw the line can change the outcome of our evaluation.
        
        It is not practical to put so much energy into every moral decision.
        
        Act utilitarianism ignores our innate sense of duty.
        
        We cannot predict with certainty the consequences of an action.
        
        Act utilitarianism is susceptible to the problem of moral luck.
      - Evaluating a Scenario Using Act Utilitarianism
        
        Scenario A state is considering replacing a curvy stretch of highway that passes along the outskirts of a large city. Would building the highway be a good action?
    - - Both rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are focused on rules, and the rules these two ethical theories derive may have signiﬁcant overlap
        
        the rule utilitarian is looking at the consequences of the action, while the Kantian is looking at the will motivating the action.
        
        However, the two ethical theories derive moral rules in completely different ways. A rule utilitarian chooses to follow a moral rule because its universal adoption would result in the greatest net increase in happiness.AKantianfollowsamoralrulebecauseitisinaccordwiththeCategoricalImperative:allhumanbeingsaretobetreatedasendsinthemselves,not merely as means to an end.
      - Evaluating a Scenario Using Rule Utilitarianism
      - The Case for Rule Utilitarianism
        
        Not every moral decision requires performing the utilitarian calculus.
        
        Exceptional situations do not overthrow moral rules.
        
        Rule utilitarianism solves the problem of moral luck.
        
        Rule utilitarianism reduces the problem of bias.
        
        It appeals to a wide cross section of society.
    - - Utilitarianism forces us to use a single scale or measure to evaluate completely different kinds of consequences.
      - Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences.
  - - - Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, such as freedom of thought and speech, freedom of association, the right to be safe from harm, and the right to own property, 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 satisfy two conditions: ﬁrst, they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume; and second, they are “to be to the greatest beneﬁt of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).”
    - - It is framed in the language of rights.
      - It explains why rational people act out of self-interest in the absence of a common agreement.
      - It explains why under certain circumstances the government may deprive some people of some rights
      - It explains why under certain circumstances civil disobedience can be the morally right decision.
    - - None of us signed the social contract.
      - Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways.
      - Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a moral problem when the analysis reveals conﬂicting rights
      - Social contract theory may be unjust to those people who are incapable of upholding their side of the contract.