Virtue ethics - Weeblymrpronan.weebly.com/.../7/8/3/37835975/tok_ethics.docx  · Web viewConcepts/Language . ... - Because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can

Ethics

Knowledge Framework

Scope/applications Morality is often regarded as concerned with praiseworthy or blameworthy reasons for action

Ethics more generally concerned with answering the question “what should one do?”

Moral values seem to be distinct from other sorts of value in that they produce obligations to action

An ethical viewpoint seems to imply that the individual takes the interests of others into consideration as well as his or her own

Concepts/Language Categories: acts that are prohibited, permitted or required

“What should one do?” might be a different question than “what is one morally obliged to do?”

General requirement for ethical judgments to be universalizable—so they have a public dimension almost by definition

Rights seem to be goods that the group is obliged to provide for the individual—so each right claimed carries a corresponding obligation

Moral language contains a built-in requirement for action

Historical Development The nature of ethical thought might have changed somewhat from that held by Greek thinkers of the fourth century BCE

Perhaps the emphasis now is less on virtues and more on rights

Methodology Taking an ethical framework as a starting point and reasoning from general principles to a specific situation

Extracting morally significant aspects using reason from the perception of the current situation

Ethical principles can be refined by checking them against our moral intuitions

Our moral intuitions can be refined by

1

checking them against ethical principles Consequentialist ethics requires imagining

consequences of an action and evaluating them

Links to Personal Knowledge Moral obligations require action, so morality impacts on the individual

Why should living a moral life matter? Is living a moral life a question of having

the right character? One might be guided by emotion and

intuition, but moral judgments seem to be more than simple expressions of personal preference

2

What is ethics?At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy.

The term is derived from the Greek word ethos, which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. Ethics covers the following dilemmas:• how to live a good life• our rights and responsibilities• the language of right and wrong• moral decisions - what is good and bad?Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and cultures. They infuse debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct.

What use is ethics?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings behave. Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that if a person realizes that it would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it. But human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head suggests a different course of action.

However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

Ethics can provide a moral mapMost moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters. Because these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with the flow. But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in - they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems. So ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our way through difficult issues.

Ethics can pinpoint a disagreementUsing the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they broadly agree on everything else. That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to resolve their problem. But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with the sort of help that they really want.

3

Ethics doesn't give right answersEthics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems. Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer - just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear choices. Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to his/her own conclusions.

Ethics can give several answersMany people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they can't work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right answer. But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least worst answers - and the individual must choose between them. For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml, accessed Saturday, 2nd of April, 2016

Task 1 : Take the Morality Test

Choose Participate - Morality

http://www.moralsensetest.com/

4

Task 2: Third World Blues

The lesson is designed to highlight the logical difference or other relationship between “facts” and “values”. It presents a concrete example to help explore a fundamental philosophical question: can you derive an “ought” from an “is”? In other words, is it possible to gain knowledge about what we ought to do from knowledge about what is the case?

Consider the following moral principles:

1. There is something about human beings of incomparable moral significance, such that all human beings merit equality of treatment, no matter how unequal in talents, achievements or social status.

2. Everyone deserves respect 3. Everyone’s happiness or suffering is of moral importance.

Now consider the following political situation:

The Country

Nowanda is a small country with many economic problems. The poor represent 44% of the population; the unemployment is aropund 30%; corruption is widespread in the government; the country is in debt. A large overseas creditor demands a change in Nowanda’s internal policies in order to meet their debt.

Fact

A study by scientists has shown that the poor are less well-endowed intellectually than others.

The New Policy

The overseas creditor wants the government to remove the poor from the country’s schools because science has shown that the poor benefit little from their education. As a result, the cost of education will decrease, Nowanda’s economic position will improve, and they will be able to pay off their debt.

5

Question

If all the citizens of Nowanda believe in the three moral principles stated earlier, and you are a citizen of Nowanda, how would you determine whether the new policy is right or wrong?

TaskIn groups of 3, discuss the situation above. Designate a leader for your group to present an argument in response to the question.

Furthur Discussion Questions

How does our knowledge of the three moral principles correspond with our knowledge of the needs and interests of the people of Nowanda? Is the policy suggested by the overseas creditor logically consistent with the three moral principles?

Respond to the following statement. “Knowledge of the concrete needs and interests of the people of Nowanda alters our understanding of the three ideal moral principles.”

Is it logically possible to know, with certainty, how to move from facts about Nowanda to what ought to be done about Nowanda?

The new policy is based mainly on Western scientific evidence, which means that it is in principle falsifiable. In other words, more research could prove it to be false in the future. Should the people of Nowanda accept the findings of Western science? Justify your answer.

6

Task 3: To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

‘There is no good or evil; there is only power and those with the will to use it’ Lord Voldemort

Task 4: The Ones who walk away from Omelas

Read the short story by Ursula Leguin and answer the following questions in your Evernote workbook:

What is the ethical dilemma in Omelas? What moral/ethical values are involved in this society? Would you walk away? Why? Which WOKs did you use in making your decision?

Why should we act ethically?

“I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness: gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and babies shot by high school and college graduates. So, I am suspicious of education.

My request is:Help your children become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths or educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our children more human.”

– An excerpt of a letter written by a Holocaust survivor to educators, published in “Teacher and Child” by Dr. Haim Ginott, child psychologist and author

7

What makes something right or wrong?

Types of Ethics

Types of Ethics DescriptionMeta-ethics What is the nature of ethical

knowledge itself?

Deals with the very broad, general questions associated with ethics, like whether there are universal ethical values that exist independent of humanity or if specific people & cultures invent moral values dependent on specific contexts

Normative ethics How do we know whether we are doing the right thing or not?

Attempts to provide answers using general approaches that act as guides to thoughts and action. These approaches are called ethical theories and provide answers to the question: ‘What should I do?’

Applied Ethics How does ethical thinking apply to specific circumstances?

Is the most specific in the types of ethics and tries to answer specific questions in areas of bioethics, business ethics, sexual ethics, medical ethics etc.

8

Meta-Ethics

Are ethical statements objectively true?Do ethical statements provide information about anything other than human opinions and attitudes?

• Ethical realists think that human beings discover ethical truths that already have an independent existence.

• Ethical non-realists think that human beings invent ethical truths.The problem for ethical realists is that people follow many different ethical codes and moral beliefs. So if there are real ethical truths out there (wherever!) then human beings don't seem to be very good at discovering them.One form of ethical realism teaches that ethical properties exist independently of human beings, and that ethical statements give knowledge about the objective world.To put it another way; the ethical properties of the world and the things in it exist and remain the same, regardless of what people think or feel - or whether people think or feel about them at all.

On the face of it, it [ethical realism] means the view that moral qualities such as wrongness, and likewise moral facts such as the fact that an act was wrong, exist in rerum natura, so that, if one says that a certain act was wrong, one is saying that there existed, somehow, somewhere, this quality of wrongness, and that it had to exist there if that act were to be wrong.R. M Hare, Essays in Ethical Theory, 1989

9

Debate between Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism

Are there universal moral rules?One of the big questions in moral philosophy is whether or not there are unchanging moral rules that apply in all cultures and at all times.

Moral absolutismSome people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.

• Immoral acts - acts that break these moral rules - are wrong in themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of those acts.

• Absolutism takes a universal view of humanity - there is one set of rules for everyone - which enables the drafting of universal rules - such as the Declaration of Human Rights.

Religious views of ethics tend to be absolutist.Why people disagree with moral absolutism:

• Many of us feel that the consequences of an act or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant to whether that act is good or bad

• Absolutism doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition

Moral relativismMoral relativists say that if you look at different cultures or different periods in history you'll find that they have different moral rules.Therefore it makes sense to say that "good" refers to the things that particular groups of people approve of.

Moral relativists think that that's just fine, and dispute the idea that there are some objective and discoverable 'super-rules' that all cultures ought to obey. They believe that relativism respects the diversity of human societies and responds to the different circumstances surrounding human acts.

Why people disagree with moral relativism:• Many of us feel that moral rules have more to them than the general

agreement of a group of people - that morality is more than a super-charged form of etiquette

• Many of us think we can be good without conforming to all the rules of society

• Moral relativism has a problem with arguing against the majority view: if most people in a society agree with particular a rule, that’s the end of the matter. Many of the improvements in the world have come about because

10

people opposed the prevailing ethical view - moral relativists are forced to regard such people as behaving "badly"

• Any choice of social grouping as the foundation of ethics is bound to be arbitrary

• Moral relativism doesn't provide any way to deal with moral differences between societies

Moral somewhere-in-between-ismMost non-philosophers think that both of the above theories have some good points and think that:

• There are a few absolute ethical rules but a lot of ethical rules depend on the culture

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml, accessed Saturday 2nd April 2016

Task 5: Are you an absolutist or relativist?

https://richmond.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dgSm3zr3XgSGRZX

Interpret your result – in what quadrant do you fit?

Task 6: Are your ethical view consistent?

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/quiz-rel.php

11

Task 7: Ethics Questionnaire – Highlight your choice

1: Which is worse?

a) hurting someone´s feelings by telling the truth b) telling a lie and protecting their feelings

2: Which is the worse mistake?

a) to make exceptions too freely b) to apply rules too rigidly

3: Which is it worse to be?

a) Unmerciful b) unfair

4: Which is worse?

a) stealing something valuable from someone for no good reason b) breaking a promise to a friend for no good reason

5: Which is it better to be?

a) just and fair b) sympathetic and feeling

6: Which is worse?

a) not helping someone in trouble b) being unfair to someone by playing favourites

7: In making a decision you rely more on

a) hard facts b) personal feelings and intuition

8: Your colleague orders you to do something that will hurt someone. If you carry out the order, have you actually done anything wrong?

a) Yes b) no

9: Which is more important in determining whether an action is right or wrong?

a) whether anyone actually gets hurt b) whether a rule, law, commandment, or moral principle is broken

12

Answer Key – C or J

(1) (a) C (b) J(2) (a) J (b) C(3) (a) C (b) J(4) (a) J (b) C(5) (a) J (b) C(6) (a) C (b) J(7) (a) J (b) C(8) (a) C (b) J(9) (a) C (b) J

Explanation of Results

The scores on your questionnaire show how strongly you prefer one or another of two major styles for recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas.

The higher your J score, the more you rely on an ethic of justice.

The higher your C score, the more you prefer an ethic of care.

Neither style is better than the other but they are different.

Ethic of Justice

An ethic of justice or rights is based on abstract, impersonal principles like Justice, fairness, equality or authority. People with this style tend to place a good deal of weight on moral principles, laws or policies which they believe should be applied to all equally.

Ethic of Care

An ethic of care or responsibility is founded on a sense of responsibility to reduce actual harm or suffering.

For these people, moral dilemmas generally involve a conflict of duties or responsibilities. Solutions then must be tailored to the special details of individual circumstances.

13

Task 8: Pure Sex Appeal

Task a: Pure Sex Appeal

Form small groups of 3 and read the story of Sinbad the Sailor Rank the characters in the story from the most reprehensible to the least

reprehensible, according to moral values, giving reasons for each choice. Each group will need to put its scale and the criteria for their moral

judgments on the board.

14

Task b: A simple Model

• While discussing a value judgment, we assume a moral principle.• For example; “You were wrong to cheat on that test”, assumes that cheating is wrong

The reasoning process is

• Moral principle > Facts > Value judgment

What moral principle is being assumed in each of the following value judgments?a) Jessamyn shouldn’t give into Sinbad’s offer; she is in a relationship withMandangob) Sinbad shouldn’t make his offer to Jessamyn as she is has not other way to get across the river.c) Arunta shouldn’t take Jessamyn’s side in the argument and be outraged.d) Mandango shouldn’t reject Jessamyn and call her a “slut”.e) Jessamyn shouldn’t try to appease Mandango’s impatience and jealousy

Reflection: Where do these moral principles come from?

Consistency: We expect consistency in moral judgments.

To what extent do you think the following individuals are morally inconsistent?a) Jessamyn loves Mandango and so does anything to cross the riverb) Sinbad is alone since the death of his wife he is entitled to find comfort from a woman wherever he can.c) Arunta is angry with Mandango for trying to control Jessamyn

Reflection: To what extent does consistency support or diminish a moral principle.

Moral Principles.Some arguments come about because of different moral principles.

Give an example where the characters in this story may have different moral principles

Does Sinbad do wrong in taking his opportunity with Jessemyn? Does Jessamyn really do any wrong when we consider that she does it

because she loves Mandango? Does Arunta do any wrong in breaking Mandango’s jaw?

15

Normative ethics (Ethical Theories)

Emphasis is on the moral agent.

Intentions: The intentions of the moral agent are significant: did the person intend good or harm to others?

Or character: Is the person of good character – for instance, a wise, honest, generous person? In Philosophy, this approach is called virtue ethics. (It applies not to specific choices but to overall conduct.)

Emphasis is on features of the choice.

Moral principles: The moral agent recognises duties or obligations, formulated as rules as rules to follow.

They can be based on reason. In Philosophy, this approach is called deontology.

They can also be based on authority such as religious teaching, accepted through faith.

Emphasis is on the people affected by the choice.

Consequences: The moral agent chooses the action that will give the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. This approach is based on observation, imagining consequences, and reasoning to make predictions. In Philosophy it is called utilitarianism.

Emphasis is on the social context.

Conformity/loyalty: The moral agent acts as expected in the social context.

Or caring: The moral agent acts out of concern for the welfare of others within networks of relationships. The personal and emotional are included as well as reason. In Philosophy this is called ethics of care.

16

Task 9: Heart Transplant Committee You will receive information about the possible recipients of a heart transplant. Your task is to form a group of 6-8 people (2 groups in the class) and discuss the six individuals most deserving of the heart transplant in the opinion of the group. You must come to a consensus although please keep note of any dissenters to the group’s final decision.

When you are finished you must write a reflection on the process and choice made. In order to help you complete the reflection, you should keep notes as you discuss each potential recipient

ReflectionTick the appropriate box and add information if necessary

Patient The emphasis was on the moral agent and intentions; Did you look at the intentions of the person or their moral character

The emphasis was on the choice itself and moral rules of right and wrong; Did you look at rules and principles?

The emphasis was on the effect on others, the consequences of the choice; Did you look at what was best for the most number of people?

The emphasis was on the moral code of the surrounding society; Did you consider the way that your society would look at your choice?

Wong, Kah Fai

Peter Lee

Habiebie Al-ShehriKavita Jung

Angela ArmstrongPrabu Kumar

Zhang, Pei Pei

John Rosario

Allan Zen KyriacosDick P Gearon

Arthur B McCartneyAbij Mbuntu

Amitajit Kaur

Where does ethics come from?

17

Philosophers have several answers to this question:• God and religion• Human conscience and intuition• a rational moral cost-benefit analysis of actions and their effects• the example of good human beings• a desire for the best for people in each unique situation• political power

God-based ethics - supernaturalismSupernaturalism makes ethics inseparable from religion. It teaches that the only source of moral rules is God. So, something is good because God says it is, and the way to lead a good life is to do what God wants.

IntuitionismIntuitionists think that good and bad are real objective properties that can't be broken down into component parts. Something is good because it's good; its goodness doesn't need justifying or proving.Intuitionists think that goodness or badness can be detected by adults - they say that human beings have an intuitive moral sense that enables them to detect real moral truths. They think that basic moral truths of what is good and bad are self-evident to a person who directs their mind towards moral issues.So good things are the things that a sensible person realizes are good if they spend some time pondering the subject.Don't get confused. For the intuitionist:

• moral truths are not discovered by rational argument• moral truths are not discovered by having a hunch• moral truths are not discovered by having a feeling

It's more a sort of moral 'aha' moment - a realization of the truth.

ConsequentialismThis is the ethical theory that most non-religious people think they use every day. It bases morality on the consequences of human actions and not on the actions themselves.

Consequentialism teaches that people should do whatever produces the greatest amount of good consequences.One famous way of putting this is 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'. The most common forms of consequentialism are the various versions of utilitarianism, which favour actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness.

18

Despite its obvious common-sense appeal, consequentialism turns out to be a complicated theory, and doesn't provide a complete solution to all ethical problems.

Two problems with consequentialism are:• It can lead to the conclusion that some quite dreadful acts are good• Predicting and evaluating the consequences of actions is often very difficult

Non-consequentialism or deontological ethicsNon-consequentialism is concerned with the actions themselves and not with the consequences. It's the theory that people are using when they refer to "the principle of the thing".It teaches that some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences, and people should act accordingly.

Virtue ethicsVirtue ethics looks at virtue or moral character, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of actions - indeed some philosophers of this school deny that there can be such things as universal ethical rules. Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the way individuals live their lives, and less concerned in assessing particular actions.

It develops the idea of good actions by looking at the way virtuous people express their inner goodness in the things that they do. To put it very simply, virtue ethics teaches that an action is right if and only if it is an action that a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances, and that a virtuous person is someone who has a particularly good character.

Situation ethicsSituation ethics rejects prescriptive rules and argues that individual ethical decisions should be made according to the unique situation.Rather than following rules the decision maker should follow a desire to seek the best for the people involved. There are no moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution.

Ethics and ideologySome philosophers teach that ethics is the codification of political ideology, and that the function of ethics is to state, enforce and preserve particular political beliefs.They usually go on to say that ethics is used by the dominant political elite as a tool to control everyone else.

19

Duty-based or Deontological ethicsDeontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions.

• Do the right thing.• Do it because it's the right thing to do.• Don't do wrong things.• Avoid them because they are wrong.

Under this form of ethics you can't justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences, which is why it's sometimes called 'non-Consequentialist'.The word 'deontological' comes from the Greek word deon, which means 'duty'.Duty-based ethics are usually what people are talking about when they refer to 'the principle of the thing'.Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced.Some kinds of action are wrong or right in themselves, regardless of the consequences.

Deontologists live in a universe of moral rules, such as:• It is wrong to kill innocent people• It is wrong to steal• It is wrong to tell lies• It is right to keep promises

Someone who follows Duty-based ethics should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing:People have a duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result.So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer.If we compare Deontologists with Consequentialists we can see that Consequentialists begin by considering what things are good, and identify 'right' actions as the ones that produce the maximum of those good things.Deontologists appear to do it the other way around; they first consider what actions are 'right' and proceed from there. (Actually this is what they do in practice, but it isn't really the starting point of deontological thinking.)So a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action.

20

Comparatively positive aspects of duty-based ethics

Comparatively negative aspects of Duty-based ethics

1. Emphasizes value of every human being: Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings. This provides a basis for human rights - it forces due regard to be given to the interests of a single person even when those are at odds with the interests of a larger group.

2. Says some acts are always wrong: Kantian duty-based ethics says that some things should never be done; no matter what good consequences they produce. This seems to reflect the way some human beings think.

3. Provides Certainty: Duty-based ethics are concerned with the action itself - if an action is a right action, then a person should do it, if it's a wrong action they shouldn't do it - and providing there is a clear set of moral rules to follow then a person faced with a moral choice should be able to take decisions with reasonable certainty.

4. Deals with Intentions & Motives: Duty-based ethics can include intention in at least 2 ways. If a person didn't intend to do a particular wrong act - it was an accident perhaps - then from a deontological point of view we might think that they hadn't done anything deserving of criticism. This seems to fit with ordinary thinking about ethical issues. Ethical rules can be framed narrowly so as to include intention.

1. Absolutist - Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules. The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to the rule.

2. Allows acts that make the world a less good place - Because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.

3. Hard to reconcile conflicting duties - Duty-based ethics doesn't deal well with the cases where duties are in conflict.

21

Kantian duty-based ethics

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was arguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Kant thought that it was possible to develop a consistent moral system by using reason. If people were to think about this seriously and in a philosophically rigorous manner, Kant taught, they would realize that there were some moral laws that all rational beings had to obey simply because they were rational beings, and this would apply to any rational beings in any universe that might ever exist:

Kant taught (rather optimistically) that every rational human being could work this out for himself or herself and so did not need to depend on God or their community or anything else to discover what was right and what was wrong. Nor did they need to look at the consequences of an act, or who was doing the action.

Although he expressed himself in a philosophical and quite difficult way, Kant believed that he was putting forward something that would help people deal with the moral dilemmas of everyday life, and provide all of us with a useful guide to acting rightly.

What is good?Although Kantian ethics are usually spoken in terms of duty and doing the right thing, Kant himself thought that what was good was an essential part of ethics.

Kant asked if there was anything that everybody could rationally agree was always good. The only thing that he thought satisfied this test was a good will:

The supreme principle of morality would have an extremely wide scope: one that extended not only to all rational human beings but to any other rational beings who might exist - for example, God, angels, and intelligent extraterrestrials.Samuel J. Kerstein, Kant's Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality, 2002

It is impossible to conceive anything in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without limitation, save only a good will.Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

22

All Kant means is that a good will alone must be good in whatever context it may be found.

Other things that we might think of as good are not always good, as it's possible to imagine a context in which they might seem to be morally undesirable.

Kant then pondered what this meant for human conduct. He concluded that only an action done for 'a good will' was a right action, regardless of the consequences.But what sort of action would this be? Kant taught that an action could only count as the action of a good will if it satisfied the test of the Categorical Imperative.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

The Categorical ImperativeKant's version of duty-based ethics was based on something that he called 'the categorical imperative' which he intended to be the basis of all other rules (a 'categorical imperative' is a rule that is true in all circumstances.)

The categorical imperative comes in two versions which each emphasize different aspects of the categorical imperative. Kant is clear that each of these versions is merely a different way of expressing the same rule; they are not different rules.

It is not good in one context and bad in another.It is not good as a means to one end and bad as a means to another.It is not good if somebody happens to want it and bad if he doesn't.Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or to an end or to a desire.H J Paton, The Categorical Imperative, 1948 (layout by BBC)

23

Moral rules must be universalisableThe first one emphasizes the need for moral rules to be universalisable.Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law.

To put this more simply:

This means at least two things:

1. If you aren't willing for the ethical rule you claim to be following to be applied equally to everyone - including you - then that rule is not a valid moral rule. I can't claim that something is a valid moral rule and make an exception to it for myself and my family and friends.

So, for example, if I wonder whether I should break a promise, I can test whether this is right by asking myself whether I would want there to be a universal rule that says 'it's OK to break promises'.

Since I don't want there to be a rule that lets people break promises they make to me, I can conclude that it would be wrong for me to break the promise I have made.

2. If the ethical rule you claim to be following cannot logically be made a universal rule, then it is not a valid moral rule.

So, for example, if I were thinking philosophically I might realize that a universal rule that 'it's OK to break promises in order to get one's own way', would mean that no-one would ever believe another person's promise and so all promises would lose their value. Since the existence of promises in society requires the acceptance of their value, the practice of promising would effectively cease to exist. It would no longer be possible to ‘break’ a promise, let alone get one’s own way by doing so.

Always act in such a way that you would be willing for it to become a general law that everyone else should do the same in the same situation.

24

Moral rules must respect human beingsKant thought that all human beings should be treated as free and equal members of a shared moral community, and the second version of the categorical imperative reflects this by emphasizing the importance of treating people properly. It also acknowledges the relevance of intention in morality.

Kant is saying that people should always be treated as valuable - as an end in themselves - and should not just be used in order to achieve something else. They should not be tricked, manipulated or bullied into doing things. This resonates strongly with disapproving comments such as "he's just using her", and it underpins the idea that "the end can never justify the means".Here are three examples of treating people as means and not ends:

• treating a person as if they were an inanimate object• coercing a person to get what you want• deceiving a person to get what you want

Kant doesn't want to say that people can't be used at all; it may be fine to use a person as long as they are also being treated as an end in themselves.

The importance of duty

Kant thought that the only good reason for doing the right thing was because of duty - if you had some other reason (perhaps you didn't commit murder because you were too scared, not because it was your duty not to) then that you would not have acted in a morally good way.But having another reason as well as duty doesn't stop an action from being right, so long as duty was the ‘operational reason’ for our action.If we do something because we know it's our duty, and if duty is the key element in our decision to act, then we have acted rightly, even if we wanted to do the act or were too scared not to do it, or whatever.

Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.

..man and, in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. In all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, he must always be regarded at the same time as an end...

Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative

Do the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do.

25

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtmlConsequentialism: results-based ethicsThe Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a plain and simple definition of consequentialism:

Consequentialism is based on two principles:1. Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act2. The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that

act

It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma:• A person should choose the action that maximizes good consequences

And it gives this general guidance on how to live:• People should live so as to maximize good consequences

Different forms of consequentialism differ over what the good thing is that should be maximized.

• Utilitarianism states that people should maximize human welfare or well-being (which they used to call 'utility' - hence the name).

• Hedonism states that people should maximize human pleasure.• Other forms of consequentialism take a more subtle approach; for example

stating that people should maximize the satisfaction of their fully informed and rational preferences.

In practice people don't assess the ethical consequences of every single act (that's called 'act consequentialism') because they don't have the time.Instead they use ethical rules that are derived from considering the general consequences of particular types of acts. That is called 'rule consequentialism'.

• So, for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences.

Results-based ethics produces this important conclusion for ethical thinking:• No type of act is inherently wrong - not even murder - it depends on the

result of the act

Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

26

This far-fetched example may make things clearer:• Suppose that by killing X, an entirely innocent person, we can save the lives

of 10 other innocent people• A consequentialist would say that killing X is justified because it would

result in only 1 person dying, rather than 10 people dying• A non-consequentialist would say it is inherently wrong to murder people

and refuse to kill X, even though not killing X leads to the death of 9 more people than killing X

Utilitarianism

The classic form of results-based ethics is called utilitarianism.This says that the ethically right choice in a given situation is the one that produces the most happiness and the least unhappiness for the largest number of people.

The appeal of results-based ethicsResults-based ethics plays a very large part in everyday life because it is simple and appeals to common sense:

• It seems sensible to base ethics on producing happiness and reducing unhappiness

• It seems sensible to base ethics on the consequences of what we do, since we usually take decisions about what to do by considering what results will be produced

It seems easy to understand and to be based on common sense

27

Act consequentialismAct consequentialism looks at every single moral choice anew. It teaches:

• A particular action is morally good only if it produces more overall good than any alternative action.

Good points of act consequentialismA flexible system

• Act consequentialism is flexible and can take account of any set of circumstances, however exceptional.

Bad points of act consequentialismImpractical for real life use

• While it sounds attractive in theory, it’s a very difficult system to apply to real life moral decisions because:

• every moral decision is a completely separate case that must be fully evaluated

• individuals must research the consequences of their acts before they can make an ethically sound choice

• doing such research is often impracticable, and too costly• the time taken by such research leads to slow decision-making which may

itself have bad consequences, and the bad consequences of delay may outweigh the good consequences of making a perfect decision

• but where a very serious moral choice has to be made, or in unusual circumstances, individuals may well think hard about the consequences of particular moral choices in this way

•Bad for society

• some people argue that if everyone adopted act consequentialism it would have bad consequences for society in general

• this is because it would be difficult to predict the moral decisions that other people would make, and this would lead to great uncertainty about how they would behave

• some philosophers also think that it would lead to a collapse of mutual trust in society, as many would fear that prejudice or bias towards family or other groups would more strongly influence moral decisions than if people used general moral rules based on consequentialism

• fortunately the impracticality of act consequentialism as a general moral process means we don't have to worry much about this

28

Rule consequentialismRule consequentialism bases moral rules on their consequences. This removes many of the problems of act consequentialism.

Rule consequentialism teaches:• Whether acts are good or bad depends on moral rules• Moral rules are chosen solely on the basis of their consequences

So when an individual has a moral choice to make they can ask themselves if there's an appropriate rule to apply and then apply it.The rules that should be adopted are the rules that would produce the best results if they were adopted by most people.

Philosophers express this with greater precision:• An act is right if and only if it results from the internalization of a set of

rules that would maximize good if the overwhelming majority of agents internalized this set of rules

And here's another version:

Good points of rule consequentialismPractical and efficient

• Rule consequentialism gets round the practical problems of act consequentialism because the hard work has been done in deriving the rules; individuals don't generally have to carry out difficult research before they can take action

• And because individuals can shortcut their moral decision-making they are much more likely to make decisions in a quick and timely way

Bad points of rule consequentialismLess flexible

• Because rule consequentialism uses general rules it doesn't always produce the best result in individual cases

• However, those in favour of it argue that it produces more good results considered over a long period than act consequentialism

• One way of dealing with this problem - and one that people use all the time in everyday life - is to apply basic rules, together with a set of variations

An action is morally right if and only if it does not violate the set of rules of behaviour whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences--that is, at least as good as any rival set of rules or no rules at all.Internet Encyclopedia of Philisophy: Consequentialism

29

that cover a wide range of situations. These variations are themselves derived in the same way as the general rules

Against consequentialismConsequentialism has both practical and philosophical problems:

Future consequences are difficult to predict - It's hard to predict the future consequences of an act. In almost every case the most we can do is predict the probability of certain consequences following an act. And since my behaviour is based on my assessment of the consequences, should the rightness or wrongness of an act be assessed on what I thought was going to happen or what actually happened?

Measuring and comparing the 'goodness' of consequences is very difficult- people don't agree on what should be assessed in calculating good consequences; is it happiness, pleasure, satisfaction of desire or something else? It's hard to measure and compare the 'goodness' of those consequences

• How, for example, do you measure happiness?• How do you compare a large quantity of happiness that lasts for a few

minutes with a gentle satisfaction that lasts for years?• How do you measure any 'subjective' quality?

It is easy to bias in favour of particular groups - choosing different groups of people may produce different consequences i.e. an act that produces a good result for group X may at the same time produce a bad result for group Y, or for society in general. So the ethical choices people make are likely to be different according to which group they use for their moral calculations. The most common solution to this problem is to look at the consequences for a large group such as 'society in general'. Alternatively, ethicists can try to look at things from the standpoint of an 'ideal', fully informed and totally neutral observer.

It ignores things we regard as ethically relevant - results-based ethics is only interested in the consequences of an act; the intentions of the person doing the act are irrelevant. So an act with good results done by someone who intended harm is as good as if it was done by someone who intended to do good:

• The past actions of the person doing the act are irrelevant• The character of the person doing the act is irrelevant• The fairness of the consequences are not directly relevant

And these are things that many think are relevant to ethical judgements.However, in support of consequentialism it might be argued that many of the things listed above do influence the good or bad consequences of an act,

30

particularly when formulating ethical rules, and so they become incorporated in consequentialist ethical thinking; but only through the back door, not directly.It doesn't take account of the 'fairness' of the result - We cannot predict every outcome of an event. Simple forms of consequentialism say that the best action is the one that produces the largest total of happiness. This ignores the way in which that happiness is shared out and so would seem to approve of acts that make most people happy, and a few people very unhappy, or that make a few people ecstatically happy and leave the majority at best neutral. It also detracts from the value of individuals and their own interests and projects, other than when those are in line with the interests of the group.

It can be inconsistent with human rightsConsider this situation:A billionaire needs an organ transplant. He says that if he is given the next suitable organ he will fund 1000 hip-replacements a year for 10 years. Giving him the next available organ means Mr X, who was top of the list, will die - but it also means that thousands of people will be very happy with their new hips.Consequentialism might be used to argue that Mr X's human rights (and his and his family's happiness) should be ignored, in order to increase the overall amount of human well-being.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml, accessed Saturday 2nd April 2016

Task 10: The Trolley Problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs0E69krO_Q

The Trolley Problem

One of the most well known thought experiments in the field of ethics is the “Trolley Problem,” which goes something like this: a madman has tied five innocent people to a trolley track. An out of control trolley car is careening toward them, and is moments away from running them over. Luckily, you can pull a lever and divert the trolley to another track. The only problem is that the madman has also tied a single person to that track. Considering the circumstances, should you pull the lever?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-thought-experiments.php

31

Questions

What is your immediate intuitive response? What reason would you give for your choice? And what about the

numbers? Do they count? Is it always better to sacrifice one to save five, to kill one to save five or is

that too simple? Are there other values we ought to take into account besides the numbers?

Should you kill the Fat Man?

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/

How did a group of Harvard University students respond to the ethical issues raised above?

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

Emergency Room Case

Imagine a homeless person enters an emergency room of a large city hospital. Imagine that after a quick check, the homeless person is judged to be “fit as a fiddle,” in excellent good health. Now imagine the hospital has five patients on the upper floors in need of a transplant: two in need of a kidney, two in need of a lung and one in need of a heart.

Imagine that the heart, lungs and kidneys of the homeless make a good match for each of the five. Say, too, that unless each of the five receives a transplant of the required organ, he or she will die straightaway. Their only hope for survival are the lungs, kidneys and heart of this homeless person. Why not harvest the organs from the homeless person and transplant his organs, thereby saving the lives of five for the price of one? Imagine you are the doctor on call in the emergency room at this moment. What would you do?

32

Questions

What is your immediate, intuitive response? Would you kill the homeless person, harvest his organs and save the five

patients who are each in need of an organ transplant? If not, what is the difference between the emergency room case and the

trolley problem (above)? What is the right thing to do? In both cases there is the opportunity to save

five lives for the price of one.

33

Task 11: Judgment and Choice

Judgments and decisions surround us in everyday conversations and situations. Several hypothetical situations are presented here. Read each one carefully. You may agree or disagree with any apparent decision or action taken by the individuals in each of the hypothetical situations. It is not the point of this exercise, however, to simply agree or disagree and argue. Reasons must be given for each moral judgment.

Consider the following example as a guide to the exercises that follow. Your goal is to identify the issue at hand, to state the reasons used, and to identify the associated problems of knowledge.

ExampleAnnalies, a second year Diploma Programme student, threw her empty soft drink can on the lawn just outside the cafeteria. I asked her why she did that. She said that she knew about the campus rule of “no littering”, but that she did it because it was just one of many of Mr DeMotto’s (the school principal) rules she had broken that day. She said that she hated Mr DeMotto and had therefore decided not to follow any of his silly rules.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss–French philosopher, 1712–1778) held that people were fundamentally good and equal in the realm of nature but were corrupted with the development of property, agriculture, science and commerce.

Hsun Tzu (Chinese philosopher held the belief that human nature is inherently evil 298–238 BCE) claimed, however, that man could grow to be good by learning how to uphold the law and achieve morality. The practice of learning was essential to man, and a day-by-day process built the totality of his knowledge.

The categorical imperative was used to profess the ethics of Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, 1724–1804). This took the form of an absolute moral law, “Act as if the maxim from which you act were to become through your will a universal law”.

34

Issue: Should Annalies throw litter on the school grounds? She has decided to do it in spite of the known rule.

Reason: Even though she is aware of the rule, she has decided to ignore it, simply because it is one of the rules—she is breaking the rule for spite. This is very similar to someone who decides to follow every rule because “rules should always be followed”.

Problem: “Breaking all rules for spite” is making use of erroneous reasoning. In Annalies’ case, we can call it a problem with “what seems to be reasonable”. One of the primary reasons for having rules must be to make people think. Annalies is clearly not taking time to think about the reason for the no littering rule. Littering to satisfy her ill feelings towards the school principal may not weigh up against well thought out support for the rule. From the standpoint of logical rigour her conclusion to litter is a non sequitur.

Each of us can probably think of several good reasons why we should not litter. Is Annalies simply guilty of not considering all relevant factors? Maybe littering constitutes a health hazard to the community or excessive litter is expensive for the school to clean up. Maybe the fact that older students drop litter sets a bad example for other younger students.When a quantity of factual support surrounds a particular issue, the judgment usually becomes more directed. This process is related to the formation of knowledge in some subject areas. We expect claims of knowledge in history, for example, to be made through the use of sound evidence. The more evidence that a historian can gather should in turn lead to a more confident historical claim. We could argue a similar case for science and other subject areas.

ExercisesYour assignment is to read each situation carefully and to:

Identify the particular issue in question State the reason given or used by the person for making the judgment in

the exercise Determine the problem of knowledge associated with the judgment or

action. Perhaps the term “factors related to the judgment” is more appropriate in some instances.

1 According to the poll taken by the math class, 65% of the student body decided to adopt a healthier life style (for example, quit smoking, exercise regularly) after listening to Arnold Schwarzenegger speak on health and fitness. Before the speech, only 15% had shown a desire to live a healthier life.

35

2 Jorge gave $50 to those kids who were begging down at Central Station. He said later that he thought the little one was so cute and that she did look pathetic.

3 When Mr Waddel (dean of students) asked Marie Louise why she had started to smoke cigarettes, she simply said, “Because I like to smoke—it helps me relax.” Then Mr Waddel asked, “Aren’t you concerned about the cost? Do you know that, during their lifetime, smokers will spend $35,000 on average for cigarettes?” Marie Louise replied, “I really don’t mind spending the money, since most of the tax on cigarettes goes to support higher education in the country.”

4 The girls on the varsity team were not at all surprised when Hiroko did not show up for the conference championship game. Even though she was the second leading scorer on the team, they all knew how much she values her music. The opportunity for her to play solo with the city symphonic orchestra was just too good to pass up.

5 Henri just loves Amy, but could not believe that she got a tattoo on her neck last week. When she came and asked Henri what he thought about it, he told her that he thought it was beautiful. He just didn’t have the heart to hurt her feelings.

6 Yesterday Nicole was given a ticket by the traffic police for driving too fast. I was with her when it happened. There was no reason to drive fast—we were just cruisin’ through town. The policeman told her that driving over the speed limit was one of the major causes of highway fatalities. Nicole retorted, “When you gotta go, you gotta go!”

7 Most students in our school felt that the new administration’s discipline policy was too tough. Yoo Ri was the only student who voted in favour of the policy. He told me later that the discipline at our school was much more lax than that back home in South Korea.

8 Festus (student council president) told me that he was going to end his friendship with Nanda (class representative). They have been arguing quite a bit about the way things have been handled by the student government. Festus told me that no matter how he perceives the feelings of his fellow students, Nanda always sees it differently.

36

Exemplar

1 Issue: Should members of the student body adopt a healthier lifestyle? Solution: The majority (65%) decides that they should.

Reason: They heard the famous bodybuilder & movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, speak; he is a well-known ambassador for fitness.

Problem: The student body is obviously influenced by Schwarzenegger. One could argue, however, that he is a positive influence for people who have not taken their health seriously. Nonetheless, doing something because someone famous tells you to is an “escape from thinking”.

How often do we see well-known people trying to influence our thinking? Consider the astronaut or Olympic athlete or Hollywood star trying to get us to use a certain product or to vote a certain way in an election.

37

Situation ethics (Contextualism)

The right thing to do depends on the situation. In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics reject 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'. It teaches that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and be taken on a case-by-case basis.

So a person who practices situation ethics approaches ethical problems with some general moral principles rather than a rigorous set of ethical laws and is prepared to give up even those principles if doing so will lead to a greater good.

Situation ethics was originally devised in a Christian context, but it can easily be applied in a non-religious way.

Elements of situation ethicsThe elements of situation ethics were described by Joseph Fletcher, its leading modern proponent, like this:

1. Moral judgments are decisions, not conclusions- • Decisions ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively. • We should seek the well-being of people, rather than love principles.

2. Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love: nothing else – • Love, in this context, means desiring and acting to promote the wellbeing of

people.

...reflective morality demands observation of particular situations, rather than fixed adherence to a priori principlesJohn Dewey and James H. Tufts, Ethics, 1922

Since 'circumstances alter cases', situationism holds that in practice what in some times and places we call right is in other times and places wrong...For example, lying is ordinarily not in the best interest of interpersonal communication and social integrity, but is justifiable nevertheless in certain situations.Joseph Fletcher, Naturalism, situation ethics and value theory, in Ethics at the Crossroads, 1995

38

• Nothing is inherently good or evil, except love (personal concern) and its opposite, indifference or actual malice.

• Nothing is good or bad except as it helps or hurts persons• The highest good is human welfare and happiness (but not, necessarily,

pleasure)• Whatever is most loving in a situation is right and good--not merely

something to be excused as a lesser evil• Moral theology seeks to work out love's strategy, and applied ethics devises

love's tactics.

3. Love "wills the neighbour's good" [desires the best for our neighbour] whether we like them or not

• The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is love: nothing else• The radical obligation of the Christian ethic to love even the enemy implies

unmistakably that every neighbour is not a friend and that some are just the opposite.

4. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed• Love and justice both require acts of will• Love and justice are not properties of actions, they are things that people

either do or don't do• Love and justice are essentially the same• Justice is Christian love using its head--calculating its duties. The Christian

love ethic, searching seriously for a social policy, forms a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the 'greatest good of the greatest number.'

5. The rightness depends on many factors• The rightness of an action does not reside in the act itself but in the loving

configuration of the factors in the situation--in the 'elements of a human act' --i.e., its totality of end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences.

[The text above is based on material in Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, by Joseph Fletcher; Westminster Press, 1967]

39

Good points of situation ethics

Situation ethics is a personal approach 1. It's personal

Situation ethics is sensitive to circumstances, context, particularity, and cultural traditions. Every moral decision is required to demonstrate respect for individuals and communities and the things that they regard as valuable. This avoids the logical, detached, impersonal ways of thinking that some people think are overemphasized in some other forms of ethics.

2. It's particularBecause moral decisions are treated on a case-by-case basis, the decision is always tailored to particular situations.

3. It's based on doing goodSituation ethics teaches that right acts are those motivated by the wish to promote the wellbeing of people.

Bad points of situation ethics

1. It excludes most universal moral truthsBy doing this it seems to remove any possibility of guaranteeing universal human rights, and satisfying human needs for a useful ethical framework for human behaviour.

2. It's not clear what 'love' meansAlthough the notion of love used in situation ethics seems attractive, it's pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

3. It's difficult to implementSituation ethics seems to be little more than a form of act consequentialism, in that a person can only choose the right thing to do if they consider all the consequences of their possible action, and all the people who may be affected.

4. It can't produce consistent resultsSituation ethics produce a lack of consistency from one situation to the next. It may be both easier, and more just and loving, to treat similar situations similarly - thus situation ethics should not be treated as a free-

By the 1970s, situation ethics had been roundly rejected as no ethics at all...Daniel Callahan, Universalism & Particularism, The Hastings Center Report, 2000

40

for-all, but should look for precedents while continuing to reject rigid ethical rules.

5. It may approve of 'evil' actsSituation ethics teach that particular types of action don't have an inherent moral value - whether they are good or bad depends on the eventual result.So it seems that situation ethics permits a person to carry out acts that are generally regarded as bad, such as killing and lying, if those acts lead to a sufficiently good result.

This is an uncomfortable conclusion, but one that affects other ethical theories as well. Moreover, it does seem to be accepted in certain situations. As an obvious example, killing people is generally regarded as bad, but is viewed as acceptable in some cases of self defence.

The popular TV drama 24 regularly brought up this issue with regards to torture. The characters in the drama claimed they were justified in the (sometimes brutal) torture of suspects because the information gained in doing so saved thousands of lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/situation_1.shtml

Ethics of Torture

John Oliver Last Week Tonight on the subject of Torture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmeF2rzsZSU

Is 24’s Jack Bauer teaching torture to US soldiers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdxV6G19R8o

Normalizing torture on 24 - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/arts/television/normalizing-torture-on-24.html?_r=0

41

24 and the ethics of torture

‘Ethics is concerned with how we treat one another. One approach called deontology says we should never act in ways that treat people as merely means towards our ends or goals. Utilitarianism focuses on results. Something is ethically justified if it leads to good outcomes for lots of people: the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. One utilitarian argument is that torture can be justified if it saves large numbers of people, or avoids much harm. A third approach to ethics, virtue ethics, looks at the impact of actions on people’s characters, their virtues.

According to the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”1

Military tradition supports the prohibition of torture. The nineteenth-century Devising a Military Code of Conduct states, “The modern law of war permits no longer the use of violence against prisoners in order to extort the desired information or to punish them for having given false information.2

The world of 24 suggests that views about torture may have changed. Allegations arise regularly that the US and its allies permit the use of torture in the war on terror. Photographs of hooded detainees, naked prisoners cowering in the face of snarling dogs, and men standing with electrical wires dangling from their bodies, speak loudly of the reality of torture. Mike Novick, President Palmer’s Chief of Staff, claims death during torture is akin to accepting civilian casualties with bombings: “A few people may have to die to save millions”.

Torture in 24 both reflects the way the world has become, but also makes it easier to accept torture in practice. A 2006 BBC News survey found that almost one-third of 27000 people surveyed in 25 countries agreed that “terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.3 In the US, 36% held this view, as did 43% in Israel, 42% in Iraq, 24% in Great Britain, and 14% in Italy. However, an overall majority in the world (59%) still favours an absolute ban, viewing torture as an inherently immoral activity that weakens respect for human rights.

1 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” December 10, 1984. 2 The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Gregory M Reichberg, Henrik Syse and Endre Begby (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), p.5713 “One-third support ‘Some Torture’,” BBC News, October 19, 2006.

42

What is torture?

Torture usually involves some combination of the following: intentional infliction of extreme physical or psychological suffering; restriction of the person into a defenceless position; substantial curtailment of the exercise of a person’s autonomy; manipulation of the person’s sense of time and place; and an attack on the person’s will with a goal of breaking the person. On 24, we primarily see forward-looking interrogational torture, used to get information from detainees about a future event.

Arguments for Torture

The torture scenes on 24 are an extended commentary on the main argument used to ethically justify torture: Henry Shue’s classic “ticking bomb argument”4

The innovative style of 24, with its frenetic pace and action in real time, contributes to the continuous reminder that the clock is ticking. Time is always running out, and this has constant implications for what must be done.

The ticking bomb argument is basically a utilitarian argument. The good consequences of discovering the sought-after information outweigh the bad consequences of torture. Finding and diffusing the bomb prevents many deaths and injuries; the harm of inflicting pain on the bomber, of denying his dignity, of violating his rights, is a small price to pay in comparison. The Utilitarian approach holds that human dignity is something earned, conferred by others, and therefore something that can be taken away. According to this view, the dignity of some people may be violated for the good of society.

Arguments against Torture

The main argument against torture is that it treats human beings in undignified ways. Torture is not just painful; it is humiliating, degrading and terrorising. The person is treated as an object. 24 does not portray the horrific side of torture, though it is in the background, as when we glimpse Jack’s scarred hand throughout Season Six.

Torture not only devastates the one tortured, it ruins torturers’ lives. Studies of torturers show they have a variety of psychological and social problems, often resorting to alcohol and drug abuse.5

4 Henry Shue, “Torture”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (1978): 124-143

43

The ticking bomb argument is based on having the actual bomber in custody. But once torture is accepted it spreads to other suspects. In Season 4, Paul Raines is tortured because his name is on the lease of a building used by terrorists. According to past history, “a torture interrogation program can anticipate that at least half to three-quarters of terrorist suspects may be arrested mistakenly”6

In reality, the committed terrorist is unlikely to break, especially knowing he must endure torture for a short time before the bomb goes off. Some terrorists are unafraid of death. Syed Ali is defiant in the face of Jack’s threats, saying he woke up knowing he would die that day. Jack says he’ll make him die in more pain than he ever imagined. Syed replies that will only bring him more pleasure in paradise’.

The following information is taken from the book 24 and Philosophy: The World According to Jack edited by William Irwin unless otherwise stated.

Task 12: Ticking Time Bomb Scenario

The ticking bomb scenario is a hypothetical “thought experiment” that is used to question the absolute prohibition of torture. It can be formulated as follows:

5 Jean Maria Arrigo, “A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists,” Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2004): 5536 Jean Maria Arrigo, “A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists,” Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2004): 557

44

“Suppose that a perpetrator of an imminent terrorist attack, that will kill many people, is in the hands of the authorities and that he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured. Should he be tortured?”

In public discussions, the scenario is often posed as a personal question to someone who is before an audience and says they are against torture. In this context it is often personalized:

“But suppose that you know of an imminent attack that will kill thousands of people and you have the perpetrator. The only way to prevent the attack is to torture him. Would you do it, yes or no?”

Assumptions

1. A specific planned attack is known to exist.2. The attack will happen within a very short time (it is “imminent”).3. The attack will kill a large number of people.4. The person in custody is a perpetrator of the attack.5. The person has information that will prevent the attack.6. Torturing the person will obtain the information in time to prevent the attack.7. No other means exist that might get the information in time.8. No other action could be taken to avoid the harm.9. The motive of the torturer is to get information, with the genuine intention of saving lives, and nothing more.10. It is an isolated situation, not often to be repeated.

Using your knowledge of ethics, can you challenge or even debunk some or all of the assumptions mentioned above?

Virtue ethics

Character-based ethics

A right act is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances.

45

Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions.

Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviours a good person will seek to achieve.

In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than particular episodes or actions.

A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives the virtues.

It's a useful theory since human beings are often more interested in assessing the character of another person than they are in assessing the goodness or badness of a particular action. This suggests that the way to build a good society is to help its members to be good people, rather than to use laws and punishments to prevent or deter bad actions. But it wouldn't be helpful if a person had to be a saint to count as virtuous. For virtue theory to be really useful it needs to suggest only a minimum set of characteristics that a person needs to possess in order to be regarded as virtuous.

Principles

Virtue ethics teaches:

...being virtuous is more than having a particular habit of acting, e.g. generosity. Rather, it means having a fundamental set of related virtues that enable a person to live and act morally well.

James F Keenan, Proposing Cardinal Virtues, Theological Studies, 1995

46

An action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the same circumstances.

A virtuous person is a person who acts virtuously

A person acts virtuously if they "possess and live the virtues"

A virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs to live well.Most virtue theorists would also insist that the virtuous person is one who acts in a virtuous way as the result of rational thought (rather than, say, instinct).

The three questions

The modern philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre proposed three questions as being at the heart of moral thinking:

1. Who am I?

2. Who ought I to become?

3. How ought I to get there?

Lists of the virtues

Most virtue theorists say that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would benefit from, rather than different sets for different sorts of people, and that these virtues are natural to mature human beings - even if they are hard to acquire. This poses a problem, since lists of virtues from different times in history and different societies show significant differences.

The traditional list of cardinal virtues was:

Prudence

Justice

Fortitude / Bravery

Temperance

The modern theologian James F Keenan suggests:

Justice - Justice requires us to treat all human beings equally and impartially.

Fidelity- Fidelity requires that we treat people closer to us with special care.

Self-care - We each have a unique responsibility to care for ourselves, affectively, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

47

Prudence - The prudent person must always consider Justice, Fidelity and Self-care. The prudent person must always look for opportunities to acquire more of the other three virtues.

Comparatively positive aspects of virtue ethics

1. It centres ethics on the person and what it means to be human

2. It includes the whole of a person's life

Comparatively negative aspects of virtue ethics

1. it doesn't provide clear guidance on what to do in moral dilemmas

a. although it does provide general guidance on how to be a good person

b. presumably a totally virtuous person would know what to do and we could consider them a suitable role model to guide us

2. there is no general agreement on what the virtues are

a. and it may be that any list of virtues will be relative to the culture in which it is being drawn up.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/virtue.shtml, accessed Saturday, 2nd April 2016

The Ethics of Care

48

The moral theory known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, "care" involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars. One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Both charged traditional moral approaches with male bias, and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics.

Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, care ethics is found to have affinities with moral perspectives such as African ethics, Confucian ethics, and others. Critics fault care ethics with being a kind of slave morality, and as having serious shortcomings including essentialism, parochialism, and ambiguity. Although care ethics is not synonymous with feminist ethics, much has been written about care ethics as a feminine and feminist ethic, in relation to motherhood, international relations, and political theory. Care ethics is widely applied to a number of moral issues and ethical fields, including caring for animals and the environment, bioethics, and more recently public policy. Originally conceived as most appropriate to the private and intimate spheres of life, care ethics has branched out as a political theory and social movement aimed at broader understanding of, and public support for, care-giving activities in their breadth and variety.

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/ ,

Task 13: How ethical was your CAS trip?

49

Watch the following clip and answer the questions below:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/volunter-tourismwhitevoluntouristsafricaaidsorphans.html?utm_content=buffer28b1a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Questions to consider

What according to the author is the problem with her friend jack? What are the examples she uses as costs of voluntourism? What does the author mean when she says ‘In simple terms, the lack of

knowledge of other cultures makes it easier to help them?’ According to the author, how can voluntourism be saved? What matters to the author: Motivations? The act itself? Consequences? How does this article relate to the ways of knowing?

Task 14: Read the following article from The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/world/asia/cambodian-activists-fall-exposes-broad-deception.html?hp&_r=2

Come up with a solid knowledge question about the real life situation mentioned in the article

50

Contemporary moral dilemmas

2015 List of Emerging Ethical Dilemmas and Policy Issues in Science and Technology! John G. Reilly Center University of Notre Dame (http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/)

The ethical dilemmas and policy issues for 2015 (presented in no particular order) are:

Real-time satellite surveillance video What if Google Earth gave you real-time images instead of a snapshot 1-3 years old?Companies such as Planet Labs, Skybox Imaging (recently purchased by Google), and Digital Globe have launched dozens of satellites in the last year with the goal of recording the status of the entire Earth in real time (or near real-time). The satellites themselves are getting cheaper, smaller, and more sophisticated (with resolutions up to 1 foot). Commercial satellite companies make this data available to corporations (or, potentially, private citizens with enough cash), allowing clients to see useful images of areas coping with natural disasters and humanitarian crises, but also data on the comings and goings of private citizens. How do we decide what should be monitored and how often? Should we use this data to solve crimes? What is the potential for abuse by corporations, governments, police departments, private citizens, or terrorists and other “bad actors”?

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/real-time-satellite-surveillance-video/

Astronaut bioethics (of colonizing Mars) Plans for long-term space missions to and the colonization of Mars are already underway. On December 5, NASA launched the Orion spacecraft and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden declared it "Day One of the Mars era." The company Mars One (along with Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology) is planning to launch a robotic mission to Mars in 2018, with humans following in 2025. 418 men and 287 women from around the world are currently vying for four spots on the first one-way human settlement mission. But as we watch with interest as this unfolds, we might ask ourselves the following: Is it ethical to expose people to unknown levels of human isolation and physical danger (including exposure to radiation) for such a purpose? Will these pioneers lack privacy for the rest of their lives so that we might watch what happens? Is it

51

ethical to conceive or birth a child in space or on Mars? And, if so, who protects the rights of a child not born on Earth and who did not consent to the risks? If we say no to children in space, does that mean we sterilize all astronauts who volunteer for the mission? Given the potential dangers of setting up a new colony severely lacking in resources, how would sick colonists be cared for? And beyond bioethics, we might ask how an off-Earth colony would be governed.

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/astronaut-bioethics/

Wearable technology We are currently attached to (literally and figuratively) multiple technologies that monitor our behaviors. The fitness tracking craze has led to the development of dozens of bracelets and clip-on devices that monitor steps taken, activity levels, heart rate, etc, not to mention the advent of organic electronics that can be layered, printed, painted, or grown on human skin. Google is teaming up with Novartis to create a contact lens that monitors blood sugar levels in diabetics and sends the information to healthcare providers. Combine that with Google Glass and the ability to search the Internet for people while you look straight at them and you see that we’re already encountering social issues that need to be addressed. The new wave of wearable technology will allow users to photograph or record everything they see. It could even allow parents to view what their children are seeing in real time. Employers are experimenting with devices that track (volunteer) employees' movements, tone of voice, and even posture. For now, only the aggregate data is being collected and analyzed to help employers understand the average workday and how employees relate to each other. But could an employer require their workers to wear devices that monitor how they speak, what they eat, when they take a break, how stressed they get during a task, and then punish or reward them for good or bad data? Wearables have the potential to educate us, protect our health, as well as violate our privacy in any number of ways.

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/wearable-technology/

State-sponsored hacktivism and “soft war”

52

 "Soft war" is a concept used to explain rights and duties of insurgents (and even terrorists) during armed conflict.  Soft war encompasses tactics other than armed force to achieve political ends. Cyber war and hacktivism could be tools of soft war, if used in certain ways by states in inter-state conflict, as opposed to alienated individuals or groups (like "Anonymous"). We already live in a state of low-intensity cyber conflict. But as these actions become more aggressive, damaging infrastructure, how do we fight back? Does a nation have a right to defend itself against, or retaliate for, a cyber attack, and if so, under what circumstances? What if the aggressors are non-state actors? If a group of Chinese hackers launched an attack on the US, does that give the US government the right to retaliate against the Chinese government? In a soft war, what are the conditions of self-defense? May that self-defense be preemptive? Who can be attacked in a cyber war? We’ve already seen operations that hack into corporations and steal private citizens’ data. What's to stop attackers from hacking into our personal wearable devices? Are private citizens attacked by cyberwarriors just another form of collateral damage?

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/state-sponsored-hacktivism-and-soft-war/

Enhanced pathogens On October 17, the White House suspended research that would enhance the pathogenicity of viruses such as influenza, SARS, and MERS (often referred to as gain-of-function (GOF) research). Gain-of-function research, in itself, is not harmful; in fact, it is used to provide vital insights into viruses and how to treat them. But when it is used to increase mammalian transmissibility and virulence, the altered viruses pose serious security and biosafety risks. Those fighting to resume research claim that GOF research on viruses is both safe and important to science, insisting that no other form of research would be as productive. Those who argue against this type of research note that the biosafety risks far outweigh the benefits. They point to hard evidence of human fallibility and the history of laboratory accidents and warn that the release of such a virus into the general population would have devastating effects.

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/enhanced-pathogens/

Non-lethal weapons

53

At first it may seem absurd that types of weapons that have been around since WWI and not designed to kill could be an emerging ethical or policy dilemma. But consider the recent development and proliferation of non-lethal weapons such as laser missiles, blinding weapons, pain rays, sonic weapons, electric weapons, heat rays, disabling malodorants, as well as the use of gases and sprays in both the military and domestic police forces (which are often the beneficiaries of older military equipment). These weapons may not kill (then again, there have been fatalities from non-lethal weapons), but they can cause serious pain, physical injuries, and long-term health consequences (the latter has not been fully investigated). We must also consider that non-lethal weapons may be used more liberally in situations that could be diffused by peaceful means (since there is technically no intent to kill), used indiscriminately (without regard for collateral damage), or be used as a means of torture (since the harm they cause may be undetectable after a period of time). These weapons can also be misused as a lethal force multiplier - a means of effectively incapacitating the enemy before employing lethal weapons. Non-lethal weapons are certainly preferable to lethal ones, given the choice, but should we continue to pour billions of dollars into weapons that increase the use of violence altogether?

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/non-lethal-weapons/

Robot swarms Researchers at Harvard University recently created a swarm of over 1000 robots, capable of communicating with each other to perform simple tasks such as arranging themselves into shapes and patterns. These "kilobots" require no human intervention beyond the original set of instructions and work together to complete tasks. These tiny bots are based on the swarm behavior of insects and can be used to perform environmental cleanups or respond to disasters where humans fear to tread. The concept of driverless cars also relies on this system, where the cars themselves (without human intervention, ideally) would communicate with each other to obey traffic laws and deliver people safely to their destinations. But should we be worried about the ethical and policy implications of letting robots work together without humans running interference? What happens if a bot malfunctions and causes harm? Who would be blamed for such an accident? What if tiny swarms of robots could be set up to spy or sabotage? 

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/robot-swarms/Artificial life forms

54

Research on artificial life forms is an area of synthetic biology focused on custom-building life forms to address specific purposes. Craig Venter and colleagues announced the first synthetic life form in 2010, created from an existing organism by introducing synthetic DNA.Synthetic life allows scientists to study the origins of life by building it rather than breaking it down, but this technique blurs the line between life and machines and scientists foresee the ability to program organisms. The ethical and policy issues surrounding innovations in synthetic biology renew concerns raised previously with other biological breakthroughs and include safety issues and risk factors connected with releasing artificial life forms into the environment. Making artificial life forms has been deemed “playing God” because it allows individuals to create life that does not exist naturally. Gene patents have been a concern for several years now and synthetic organisms suggest a new dimension of this policy issue.  While customized organisms may one-day cure cancer, they may also be used as biological weapons.

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/artificial-life-forms/

Resilient social-ecological systems We need to build resilient social and ecological systems that can tolerate being pushed to an extreme while maintaining their functionality either by returning to the previous state or by operating in a new state. Resilient systems endure external pressures such as those caused by climate change, natural disasters, and economic globalization. For example, a resilient electrical system is able to withstand extreme weather events or regain functionality quickly afterwards. A resilient ecosystem can maintain a complex web of life when one or more organism is overexploited and the system is stressed by climate change.Who is responsible for devising and maintaining resilient systems? Both private and public companies are responsible for supporting and enhancing infrastructure that benefits the community. To what degree is it the responsibility of the federal government to assure that civil infrastructure is resilient to environmental changes? When individuals act in their own self-interest, there is the distinct possibility that their individual actions fail to maintain infrastructure and processes that are essential for all of society. This can lead to what Garrett Hardin in 1968 called the “tragedy of the commons,” in which many individuals making rational decisions based on their own interest undermine the collective’s best and long-term interests. To what extent is it the responsibility of the federal government to enact regulations that can prevent a “tragedy of the commons”?

55

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/resilient-social-ecological-systems/

Brain-to-brain interfaces It’s no Vulcan mind meld, but brain-to-brain interfaces (BBI) have been achieved, allowing for direct communication from one brain to another without speech. The interactions can be between humans or between humans and animals.In 2014, University of Washington researchers performed a BBI experiment that allowed a person command over another person about half a mile away, the goal being the simple task of moving their hand (communication so far has been one-way in that one person sends the commands and the other receives them). Using an electroencephalography (EEG) machine that detects brain activity in the sender and a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil that controls movement in the receiver we’ve achieved a BBI twice – this year scientists also transmitted words from brain-to-brain across 5,000 miles. In 2013, Harvard researchers led by Seung-Schik Yoo developed the first interspecies brain-to-brain interface, retrieving a signal from a human’s brain (generated by staring at a flashing light) and transmitting it into the motor cortex of a sleeping rat, causing the rodent to move its tail.The ethical issues are myriad. What kind of neurosecurity can we put in place to protect individuals from having accidental information shared or removed from their brains (especially by hackers)? If two individuals share an idea, who is entitled to claim ownership? Who is responsible for the actions committed by the recipient of a thought if a separate thinker is dictating the actions?

Resources: http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology-2015/brain-to-brain-interfaces/

Human Scientists behaving badly

Monkey Day Care - http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/20/8625933/child-development-study-risks-little-albert-ethics

Top 10 unethical psychological experiments - http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/

The Story of Human Rights - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3BbLk5UIQ

56

Applied Ethics: The Ethics of Drone Warfare

In the last six years alone, at least two and a half thousand people have been killed by US drone strikes.[1] That’s nine times more drone attacks under Obama than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The justification for this increase in attacks is that drones are precise, effective weapons that reduce unintended casualties. Some might find the idea of a killing machine that can be operated from thousands of miles away deeply chilling. But the defenders of drones say that cold and detached is good in war. It means soldiers can be calm and dispassionate, and not act out of fear. They can take the time to hit the target, making sure there are no civilians around who could get killed.

That all sounds fine and dandy—until, that is, you look at how drones are actually used. While there’s an argument to be made that using a weapon with the potential to reduce unintended casualties in a war is morally preferable to using another kind of weapon, we should be more concerned with what actually happens in drone attacks, rather than what could potentially happen in some alternate universe.

First, to say that drones reduce unintended casualties is misleading, at best. While US soldiers may not be in direct danger when we drone attack Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever it is we’re terrorizing these days, hundreds upon hundreds of civilians have been killed by drones since Obama took office. It’s hard to see how that’s “morally preferable.”

Sure, if we used less precise technology to bomb those places, there would probably be even more civilians deaths. But that’s assuming we’d bomb these targets at all, which brings me to the second point.

A big part of the moral problem with drones is that they make it too easy for the powers-that-be to bomb whomever they want without much political fallout. Sending troops in on the ground and putting them in direct danger comes with political consequences, but if we attack our so-called “enemies” remotely, and don’t have soldiers coming back in body bags, then there’s not going to be nearly as much backlash. And so, politically speaking, it’s easy for commanders to order strikes, which then leads to a lot of civilian casualties on the other side.

Of course, the number of civilian casualties from drone attacks has more to do with foreign policy and intelligence gathering practices than the technology of drones per se. If avoiding civilian casualties is not a priority for the commander in

57

charge of a strike, we’re going to see lots of civilian casualties, regardless of the kind of weapons used. We’re told that drone attacks target high value terrorists, when, in reality, it’s also farmers, low level drug dealers, and men exercising in “suspicious looking” compounds who are targeted.[2]

It could be argued that using drones in war is still morally preferable to using other weapons, if you remove the problems that stem from poor intelligence and dubious policies. The question of whether a war is just or a target legitimate is not a question about drone technology. It’s a moral question that must be settled independently.

But if a war is just or a target legitimate, then isn’t using drones the best way to go because it will potentially have the lowest number of unintended casualties?That’s a very big “if” when the technology itself makes going to war far too politically easy, which leads to us fighting all sorts of unjust wars. Of course, the reverse point could also be true—maybe there are wars we should be fighting but don’t when the possibility that we might incur high casualties means there’s a lack of political will to fight that war. Drones allow us to fight more wars for just causes. Because, you know, that’s definitely what we need more of in the world—war.

Any defense of drones, it seems to me, has to be based on some fantasy world, where politicians never lie, wars are always just, intelligence reliably identifies terrorists and only terrorists, and innocent civilians are never just “collateral damage.”

But we can’t talk about the ethics of drones without talking about how they are actually used in the real world.

By Laura Maguire Laura Maguire is Philosophy Talk's Director of Research and editor-in-chief of Philosophers' Corner. - See more at: http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/laura-maguire/2015/09/ethics-drone-warfare#sthash.8gZxWXls.dpuf

[1] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/02/02/almost-2500-killed-covert-us-drone-strikes-obama-inauguration/[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-has-killed-more-people-with-drones-than-died-on-911/5423282

Source: http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/laura-maguire/2015/09/ethics-drone-warfare, accessed Saturday April 2nd 2016

58

Task 15: Choose the real life situation of drone strikes. Research the topic paying particular attention to the who, what, where, when and how. Analyse the arguments for and against the practice. Consider the ethical theories we have discussed in class and come to a conclusion as to whether the practice is acceptable or not.

Prepare a presentation with two other colleagues.

Resources:

John Oliver Last Week Tonight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

Good Kill (film) – The Wrong Target - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqWIbG7_xn0

Brandon Bryant Confessions of a Drone Warrior - http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination

The Ethics of Drones - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/02/august-26-2011-the-ethics-of-drones/9350/

Drones and the ethics of war - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mockaitis/drones-and-the-ethics-of_b_8961510.html

The moral case for drones - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html

Grey-area strikes - http://theconversation.com/leaked-drone-files-reveal-ethical-questions-hang-over-grey-area-strikes-49321

Drone strikes never kill ‘humans’ - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/how-newspapers-should-report-on-lethal-drone-strikes/382927/

Drones: Legal, ethical and wise? - https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0078.html

59

60