Ethics: Handout 2

Ethics: Examples of moral principles and arguments (Handout 2)

0. Review Handout 1 - Ethics: Basic Concepts for what moral reasoning is.

1. An ethical issue is a subject of controversy that affects human flourishing - it is one which has serious implications for human interests.

Whether humans actually cause global climate change is a scientific issue not an ethical one, however, whether humans should do anything about global climate change is an ethical issue, since action or inaction has consequences for human thriving. When we discuss any issues we need to get clear on which we are interested in and then stay focused on one at a time before we produce any judgments. So first we want to clarify an issue and second we need to evaluate reasons for and against accepting rival positions about it.

For instance, abortion is not an issue, it is a topic. That topic encompasses a tangle of scientific and legal and ethical issues. Focus your attention on whatever it is about abortion that concerns (or should concern) the people involved in the controversy. One scientific issue might be whether a first-trimester embryo feels pain. One legal issue is whether any third-trimester abortion is allowed in the state of California. An ethical issue is whether abortion is justified killing. Another ethical issue is whether abortion is ever permissible.

So we always preface any discussion by specifiying which issues interest us and then selecting one to argue about before proceeding to any other. Begin any analysis of an ethical issue by clarifying issues. For instance, start by saying: "There are at least two important ethical issues here," and then state them. Choose one: "I focus on whether any third-trimester abortion is ever morally permissible." And then one proceeds: "I don't think it is morally permissible and here is why based on the following morally relevant facts, values and principles ... "

2. Principles are standards or rules from which other rules and conclusions about issues draw support.

Principles are (1) general, (2) conditional, (3) authoritative, (4) rules that (5) connect reasons to conclusions - memorize this - you will be asked to produce examples of these throughout the course. Disputes about what we should or should not do or disagreements about what promotes human values e.g., life, liberty, property, happiness, justice, compassion, etc. come from not agreeing about moral principles.

Moral principles are a subset of rules that refer to humans and their vital interests. Such principles may be expressed as hypothetical imperatives - e.g. "If one seeks to treat people fairly, then one treats persons equitably," or categorical imperatives - e.g. "Treat equals equitably."

Exercise: From the list under section 11 (below) distinguish categorical from hypothetical imperatives . . .

3. Moral principles justify accepting moral conclusions via arguments.

Since moral conclusions are judgments about moral issues and based upon moral principles, the principles themselves need justifying. When stated clearly and tested thoroughly, relevant facts, values and principles help us resolve issues. We resolve issues whenever we get clear on what is at stake and produce or defend judgments about the issue in question. Facts are alleged truths, values are alleged ideals motivating our concern, but principles are the public expressions of general reasons for accepting or rejecting what logically follows from the facts and the values.

Moral arguments use moral principles to support conclusions, but the principles themselves need justifying too whenever they are not widely accepted.

Consider the no-laptop or phone use during class policy and its justification:

Distractions in the classroom are disruptions that inhibit learning and discussion which instructors should take steps to minimize.
Students don't need laptops and brains cannot respond to two complex stimuli at once.*
Student laptop-use in the classroom is an unnecessary, preventable distraction that enables more harm overall than good.
If an activity in the classroom is unnecessary and a preventable distraction that enables more harm overall than good, then it should not be permitted by instructors.
Therefore, student laptop-use in the classroom should not be permitted by instructors.

see CSUS disruptive student policies and this NS report and this NYT story

4. To justify a moral principle, one may argue from above using more general and acceptable principles or one may argue from below by examining settled cases as precedents.

i. Case-based reasoning: Justification from below requires that one argue from clear instances or exemplary cases.

One way this works is to start from individual cases and draw a general conclusion.

It does not matter so much what murder is precisely, call it "killing with malicious intent," the issue is whether it is wrong (unacceptable).
Judges and the community agree that cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 are clear examples of killing with malicious intent and in each case it is wrong.
Therefore, whatever is sufficiently like these cases is also murder and thus also wrong.
Therefore, murder is wrong.

ii. Principle-based reasoning: Justification from above requires that one argue from generally acceptable definitions and moral principles.

One way this works is to start from general rules and draw particular conclusions.

From above, one argues from broader principles given a moral theory, such as a fundamental moral principle from which more specific principles and judgments can be drawn. So, murder is wrong, because it is an instance of a more general rule, that is, "Never do to another what you would not want done to you." Murder is not something you want done to you, so never murder.

Most of us already know how to cite precedents or authoritative judgments as reasons for accepting judgments about similar cases. The problem with this apporach is that people may not agree that the circumstances in other cases are similar to the current case or people may just reject the judgments in previous cases, so no obvious conclusions about new cases can be drawn. Also, corrupt authorities simply apply unjust principles. So that method is severely limited. In this course, I expect students to develop the ability to justify judgments based on principle-based reasoning. By arguing from common valus and principles, disagreeing people may converge on acceptael moral conclusions. Here is an example.

issue: whether to permit same-sex marriage

value: equality

broad principle: "Treat equals equally."

less broad principle: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws." (from the CA State Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 3 and 7)

If the state allows opposite-sex couples to marry, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. (more specific principle)

CA permits opposite-sex marriages. (fact)

Therefore, CA must permit same-sex marriages.

judgment: "The state should allow Adam and Steve to marry."

5. In this course we focus on stating and evaluating arguments supporting moral judgments about controversial issues.

An argument is not a dispute, it is a formal vehicle for attempting to justify publicly a reasonable belief. An argument justifies accepting a conclusion about an issue by providing reasons that support it. We present an argument by placing its major and minor supporting claims in an analyzable or formal outline I refer to as standard form.

There are four basic standard forms I expect students to use when reconstructing their own or others' arguments: modus ponens, hypothetical syllogism, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism (follow each link for more discussion and examples).

For my examples of ethical arguments and policies, see this handout.

We need to put whatever argument we are examining in an analyzable or standard argument form. Below are some examples. This is how it works: somebody makes a conclusive statement and we then reconstruct it in the form of an argument exposing its reasoning for our analysis; we then accept or reject the statement given our consideration of their reasons.

Valid arguments are good standard form arguments. E.g., "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C," is a valid form or argument, but "Some A are B; some B are C; therefore some A are C" is not a valid form. Watch out for invalid forms, they are illogical, which is to say, we cannot trust that their conclusions are true even if their presumptions are true.

6. Always present moral arguments in standard form - this makes the reasoning easier to examine.

1. Example of a principle-based argument in standard form (premise, premise, ... conclusion):

If one makes a promise, then one should keep it. (a moral principle)
George promised to pay back the money he borrowed. (alleged fact)
Therefore, George should pay back the money he borrowed. (moral judgment)

2. Example of another principle-based argument in standard form

Protect the lives of innocent people. (a moral principle)
Either never permit murder or sometimes permit murder. (a moral principle)
Permitting murder jeopardizes the lives of innocent people. (alleged fact)
Therefore, murder is never morally permissible. (moral judgment)

3. Another principle-based argument (notice its form and stipulated definition)

Any competing private interests or duties, and one's official or professional obligations is a conflict of interest. (definition)
When physicians profit personally from investments in companies making pharmaceuticals or medical devices, this conflicts with their obligations to objectively evaluate and prescribe such products for the good of their patients. (alleged fact)
If physicians' interests and obligations to patients conflict, then accepting profits that produce such conflicts of interest are immoral. (moral principle)
Therefore, accepting profits that produce conflicts of interest are immoral. (moral judgment)

4. Example of a definition and principle-based argument

Every intentional act of killing a person is morally wrong. (definition)
Execution is an intentional act of killing a person. (alleged fact)
Therefore, execution is morally wrong. (moral judgment)

5. Example of a definition and principle-based argument

If an action appeals to prurient interests and depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, then it is obscene. (legal definition)
If an action is obscene, then one should refrain from doing it in public. (a moral principle)
Public sex acts are obscene. (alleged fact)
Therefore, one should refrain from public sex acts. (moral judgment)

6. Example of a definition and principle-based argument

Informed consent is an agreement to do something or to allow something to happen made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as understanding the risks involved or being made aware of any available alternatives.
Either one should get informed consent permission before one shares someone's personal data or one should ask the person for forgiveness after one shares it.
You should not ask her forgiveness after you share her personal data.
Therefore, you should get her informed consent permission before you share her personal data.

7. Example of a definition and principle-based argument

One is negligent when one fails to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation.
If George is negligent, then George fails to protect people from foreseeable injuries.
George protects people from foreseeable injuries.
Thus, George is not negligent.

7. Principles are not the same as judgments.

Moral principles justify but judgments evaluate. In the arguments above, the final claims assert what one should or should not do or are concluding that a particular sort of action is (or is not) morally permissible, or morally good. In Ethics, we use the terms 'principle' and 'judgment' more precisely than people do in ordinary language, so I will require you to do the same. Sloppy speaking and writing will be unacceptable in ethical analysis.

Judgments are specific conclusions (or evaluations) about moral issues that depend for their support upon more general moral principles and presumptions about facts. One should be prepared to justify one's judgments whenever one gives one. (That's a judgment.)
Principles are general rules from which particular actions may be derived. Judge all opinions about difficult moral cases by examining supporting reasons, definitions and factual claims. (That's a principle.)

8. Always express principles as general, conditional or universal claims; always express judgments as instances of more general principles following from presumptions of fact and reasonable definitions.

"If action X causes harm Y, then action X is wrong" is a principle. "Action X is wrong" is a judgment. "Whenever the consequences of doing X are more beneficial than harmful, then doing X is morally righteous" is a principle. "Doing X is righteous" is a judgment. "Anytime one interacts with others one should be charitable" is a principle. "One should be charitable towards others" is a judgment.

Examine the list of sample principles below; practice stating at least one judgment which might follow from each.

9. Exercises

Consider some current moral issues, e.g., those concerning human happiness and well-being. Describe three.
State some moral values and principles that you accept.
Given any moral principle, derive at least one associated moral judgment and one implicit moral value.
Given any moral principle, describe a realistic exception or counter-example to it.
State a moral judgment and describe at least one moral principle which supports it.
Produce a standard form argument for a moral judgment based on at least one moral principle.

10. Evaluate any moral principle for relevant applications and exceptions before following it.

It would be nice if a simple, master list of principles could resolve ethical issues, but every such attempt fails, so we must turn to ethical theory (see handout 1) rather than popular convention to generate case-relevant answers. For instance: "Cause no harm, prevent harm, and do good" sounds like a fine policy for one to follow but sometimes some harm must be done, or is not preventable, or it is sometimes one's professional obligation do good by doing harm. Think of the CHP who fines you for speeding when everybody else is doing it too. How does one resolve the pain and suffering he causes? Answer: People stress the importance of rules when it serves their interests, and then, when the rules don't support a desired outcome, people switch and view rules as nothing more than suggestive guidelines. But double-standards like this only make matters worse. See this article for yet another over-simplified attempt at making life easier and better by simple rule-following.

An action is not wrong simply because it violates a rule or a law: Wrongness or righteousness flows from whatever values, intentions or goals one has, and these will always be more context-specific than a one-size-fits-all list of rules.

11. Check out these moral principles - are they any good?

First, do no harm.
If doing X does not bother me, then we should permit people to do X.
If most students lie, cheat or steal, then these actions are acceptable.
Always preserve and protect human life.
Treat all persons equitably, impartially.
Consider how your actions affect others, then act compassionately.
Do no more harm than is necessary to benefit any patient.
Don't limit the freedom of oneself or others unnecessarily.
Grant no privileges to anyone that are not fair to everyone.
Never mix business and pleasure.
If you can't show that doing X is more harmful than beneficial, then you ought to be free to do X.
If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.
If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him.
Respect other's property.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.
Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress.
Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Always tell the truth.
Sometimes do not tell the truth.
Never murder.
Honor your parents.
Enslave the weak, rape the vanquished and plunder their wealth when you can and it benefits your tribe.
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal.
Abstain from sex outside of marriage.
Avoid illicit drug use.
Bribery is acceptable and ought to be encouraged.
Stab someone only if it is for fun or porofit.
Prevent the killing of innocent, defenseless beings.
Do to others what you would want done to you.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Love your enemies.
If someone strikes you in the face, then turn the other cheek.
If someone hurts you, then you may hurt them.
Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
Treat others only in ways that you are willing to be treated in exactly the same situation.
Be content with what you have.
Kill your enemies and plunder their riches wherever and whenever you can.
Never take what does not belong to you without permission of the owner.
If you make a promise, then you ought to keep it.
Tell someone a lie if it makes that someone feel better.
If you don't have anything good to say, then say nothing at all.
Take whatever you want, from whomever has it, however you can manage to get it.
Never do anything that hurts other people’s feelings if you can avoid it.
Sometimes overcharge customers for goods or services.
Sell dangerous products to people if they accept the danger.
Exaggerate your earnings if no one will ever know.
Always be loyal to family and friends.
Never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you.
Never do or say anything that you would be unwilling to acknowledge publicly in the newspaper.
Honest people should not tell lies.
Customers should never be treated with disrespect.
Never answer a hypothetical question.
Lie, cheat and steal if it gets you what you want.
Steal only to feed yourself or your starving family.
Use people if they give you permission to do so.
Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
Always act in your own best interests.
Pay people of equal ability the same salary.
Give to each according to their needs and take from each according to their abilities.
Sell to people what they cannot afford if they really want it.
You should disclose personal information about any other if they give permission.
Whatever another person reveals to you, even in confidence, you may reveal to others.
You may not copy for your own use any intellectual efforts, in any form.
If you can't do the time then don't do the crime.
Whatever is not necessary and produces suffering should be diminished.
Whatever occurs naturally is morally permissible,
If I can't know everything, then I am not responsible for anything.
Leaders of organizations should not be accountable for any misinformation they convey to the public.
Take the blame for the mistakes of another.
Eat meat only when necessary to sustain life.
No pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats.
Attack another in self-defense only when danger is clear and present.
Might makes right.
If you love your dog/children/wife then you should beat them.
If at first you don't succeed, then quit.
No Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture.