Moral Reasoning

Defining Morality
Moral Problems and Dilemmas
Self-interest and Ethical Egoism
Relating and Contrasting values
Four types of Theories
 Introduction
• Sometimes it becomes unclear to the individuals involved which, if any,
moral considerations or principles apply to their situations.
• An engineer starting a new job, for example , may have doubts whether it is
morally permissible to accept an expensive desk set as a gift from a
salesperson with whom her company does business.
• Would this become a bribe ?
• Would it create a conflict of interest ?
• There will always be troublesome cases where there is considerable
vagueness about whether the gift is an innocent amenity or an unacceptable
bribe.
• On the other hand, it may be perfectly clear which moral principles apply to
one’s situation.
• The difficulty instead might be that two different moral principles, both of
which apply to one’s situation, come into conflict or that one principle seems
to point simultaneously in two different directions.
• These kinds of moral problems are called Moral Dilemmas….PG 25.
 Defining Moral Dilemma and
Morality
• Moral Dilemmas are situations in which two or more moral
obligations , duties, rights, goods, or ideals come into conflict with
one another, and at least on the surface it appears that not all of
them can be fulfilled or respected.
• Dilemmas are not always so easily dealt with like an apology.
Resolving some of them can require searching, even agonizing,
reflection.
• Contemporary engineering practice makes it virtually inevitable that
nearly all engineers will be confronted with some moral dilemmas
during their careers. Indeed this is true of all professionals ,
including physicians, lawyers, and teachers.
 Morality ( Cont.)
• Morality normally concerns what ought or ought not to be done in a
given situation, what is right and wrong about the handling of it or
what is good or bad about the actions of the people involved in it.
• But for two reasons this definition is not sufficient.
• First, Morality concerns not just actions, but also good and bad
character, relationships and ideals.
• Second, mere references to words like ‘ought’, ‘right’, and ‘good’
does not suffice to define even the dimension of morality concerned
with conduct. There are many non moral usage of these terms.
• Thus to define morality is not that easy. We will discuss some
theories on it to offer precise characterization of morality, but even
they may remain controversial.
• We will make three contrasts before discussing the theories
regarding moral value and other values.
Relating and Contrasting values
• Self-Interest and Ethical Egoism
• Laws and Ethical Conventionalism
• Religion and Divine Command Ethics

Self-interest and Ethical Egoism : Self interest is what is good for

oneself in the long run. In general, people should always and only
pursue their self-interest but in doing so they should be careful to
assess that interest rationally in light of the facts.
This view is called Ethical Egoism.
Ethical, because it is a theory about morality and egoism because it
says that the sole duty of each of us is to maximize our own good.
According to this proponents, moral values are reduced to concern for
oneself, but always a rational concern requiring consideration of
one’s long term interest.
 Cont.
Laws and ethical Conventionalism: A different challenge to the
distinctiveness of moral values is the idea that morality reduces to
law or to the customs and conventions of a society.
According to this view, which is called Ethical Conventionalism, an act
is morally right when it is approved by law or convention, it is wrong
when it violates laws or customs.
Because laws seem so tangible or visible and clear-cut.
They provide a public way of cutting through seemingly endless
disputes about right and wrong.
Laws seem to be an ‘objective’ way to approach values.
Religion and Divine Command Ethics: It is the view that to say an
act is right means it is commanded by the God and to say it is wrong
means it is forbidden by God. Accordingly, if there were no god to
issue command , then there would be no morality. Though there are
disputes regarding the religious beliefs and practices.
 D.C.E ( Cont.)
• From the definition of religion it is known that the social and
personal function that religion provides motivational affect upon
morality.
• The personal function of religion is very important because it has
sustained many people in trying to follow their convictions, and it
can promote tolerance and moral concern for others when those
motivated by it are confronted with the wide variety of beliefs and
individual needs to be found in the world.
• Many engineers are certainly among those so motivated, which is
why these paragraphs on religion are an appropriate part of our
larger topic, Engineering Ethics.
 Moral reasons
• Moral reason is a reason which requires us to respect other people,
to care for their good as well as our own. In addition, moral reasons
are such that they set limits to the legitimate pursuit of self-interest.
• They can be used to evaluate laws, to praise some and criticize
others.
• They are not reducible to religious matters, although religious beliefs
may provide an additional motivation for responding to them.
 Four theories of Morality
• More than two millennia of philosophical reflection since Socretes have not led to a consensus
about how to answer questions regarding morality. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement
that there are four main types of theories about morality.
• These theories differ according to what they treat as the most fundamental moral concept:
 Good consequences for all or utility ( Two types of utilitarianisms.)
 Duties
 Human Rights
 Virtue
Why it was wrong for the engineers to make secret payments can now be illustrated through these
theories.
Though , some answers are as that
1. more bad than good resulted.
2.Other engineering farms were harmed by not having a chance to obtain the contracts
they may have been best qualified to receive.
3. The system also removed the potential benefits of healthy competition among a wider
range of firms, benefits such as lower costs and better products for the public.
Besides it led to a loss of trust in public officials, a trust important for the well-functioning of
government.
•
 Cont.
• Good consequences for all or Utility: The overall balance of
good over bad is called Utility.
• High utility will usually mean much good and little bad.
• Utilitarianism holds that e ought always to produce the most utility,
taking into equal account every one affected by our actions.
• Good and bad consequences are the only relevant moral
considerations and hence all moral principles reduce to one- we
ought to maximize utility.
• Duties: A different answer to what was wrong with engaging in the
kickback scheme focused directly on the actions involved, rather
than their consequences
• The actions violated at least two basic principles of duty
• A. Avoiding deceiving others
• B. Be Fair
• Duty ethics asserts there are duties like these which ought to be
performed even though doing so may not always produce the most
good.
• Human Rights Another answer to why it was wrong to participate
in the kick back scheme is that it violated the rights of other people.
• A shared understanding exists that there will be equality of
opportunity in seeking public contracts and that elected officials will
grant contracts based on merits not bribes.
• Against this background, qualified persons or farms acquire a right
to unbiased consideration of their contract proposals and these
rights were violated by the scheme.
Virtue A very different answer to why it was wrong to enter into the
kickback scheme makes reference to virtues and vices, that is too
good and bad traits of character.
Sometimes the authority at power may display unfairness, dishonesty
and greed.
And the engineers may display moral weakness, dishonesty,
deceptiveness.
Virtue ethics regards actions as wrong in so far as they menifest bad
character traits , and right in so far as they display or support good
character traits.
Here, the fundamental concept is a morally good person, rather than
right action.
Now we will discuss the theories in sequence.
 Mill: Act Utilitarianism and
happiness
• It is the view that we ought to produce the best for the most people,
given equal consideration to everyone affected.
• The standard of right conduct is the maximization of goodness.
• But what is the goodness that is to be maximized and how is the
‘production’ of goodness related to everyday moral rules.
• Act-utilitarinism says that we should focus on individual actions,
rather than general rules.
• An act Is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most
people involved in particular situation.
• Everyday maxims like ‘keep your promises’, ‘do not deceive’, and
‘do not bribe’ are rough guide lines.
• According to Jhon Stuart Mill, these maxims are useful rules of
thumb that summarize past human experience about the types of
actions which usually maximize utility.
 Cont.
• But the rules should be broken whenever doing so will produce the
most good in a specific situation.
• If the standard of right action is maximizing goodness, what
goodness itself is .
• Mill believed that happiness is the only intrinsic good that is,
something good in and of itself or desirable for its own sake.
• All other good things are instrumental goods in that they provide
means for happiness.
• A trip to the dentist is an instrumental good that promotes the
happiness by avoiding or removing the pain of the tooth ache.
 Brandt: Rule-utilitarianism and
Rational Desires
• It is the second main version of utilitarianism, regards moral rules as
primary.
• According to it we ought to always to act on those rules which if generally
followed would produce the most good for the most people.
• Individual actions are right when they conform to the rules.
• Thus we ought to keep promises and avoid bribes, even when those acts do
not have the best consequences in a particular situation, because the
general practices of promising and not bribing produce the most overall
good.
• He believes that the rules should be considered in sets which he calls moral
codes.
• The moral code is justified when it is an optimal code which would maximize
the public good more than alternative codes would.
• The codes may be society- wide standards or specific codes for a
profession like engineering
 Kant: Duties and respect for
persons
• Immanuel Kant regards duties, rather than good consequences, as
fundamental.
• Right actions are those required by a list of duties : Be honest, keep
promises, be fair etc..
• There are duties to ourselves: improve ones own intelligence,
develop ones talents etc..
• These are our duties because they meet three conditions …
• 1. Each expresses respect for persons
• 2. Each expresses an unqualified command for the next step.
• Each is a universal principle.
• Kant valued Good will in accordance with respect.
• Duties are categorical imperatives- be fair, be honest etc.
• It will be clear if it is compared with the non-moral commands which
Kant called Hypothetical Imperatives.
 Cont.
• H.I. command on the basis of the condition such as : If you deserve
to be healthier, than stop overeating.
• But categorical command : We have to keep promise as it is our
duty.
• Moral reasons are those which we are willing to have everyone act
upon and which we can conceive of all people heeding.
 Rawls’s Duty Ethics
• According to Rawls valid principles of duty are those which would be
voluntarily agreed upon by all rational people.
• The person in this hypothetical situation are categorized by several features
:
• 1. They lack all specific knowledge about themselves.
• 2. They do have general knowledge about human psychology.
• 3. They have rational concern for promoting their long term interest.
• 4. They seek to agree with each other about the principles they will
voluntarily and autonomously follow as a group.
• All rational people will agree in this hypothetical situation to abide by two
moral principles applicable to societies and social institutions like
professions;
• 1. Each person is entitled to the most extensive amount of liberty compatible
with an equal amount for others.
• 2. Differences in social power and economic benefits are justified only when
they are likely to benefit everyone,. Including members of the most
disadvantaged groups