Ethics #6 - Ethical approaches and dilemmas

[samvara]

In to university early after picking up my car from the panel beaters, spent the time reading the monster article on philosophical approaches for today's test with variable success. 24/36 versus 32/36 for team score. Also got journal back and with feedback! \o/ will work on tying entry more closely to course material.

We had a bonus lecturer tonight to talk about philosophical approaches and we worked through some case studies:

Learning outcomes:

• Recognise four approaches to ethical theory (Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Deontological and Virtue Ethics)
• Establish a theoretical foundation for the study and application of ethics to issues in business organisations and management
• Enable students to identify the ethical theories implicit in their opinions arguments and decisions
• Enable students to employ ethical theories to defend and justify their responses to ethical issues

Ethical theories and how to use them

• What is ethical theory anyway? Attempt to formalise an approach to thinking about good and bad
• Why would we want to use ethical theories? Why wouldn't we!
• Why would we need to know anything about ethical theory to behave ethically? Able to articulate them to others! Need to have a vocabulary.

Case Study - The Mignonette (warning for murder and cannibalism)

• Be like Dudley and Stephens - kill and eat (saved three lives - utilitarianism)
• Be like Brookes - just eat (cannibal but not a murderer, oh Brookes, I feel for you)
• Be Parker - murdered and eaten (part of maritime culture, was known to sailors as a possible outcome)
• Be samvara and choose to die as the kind of person who doesn't kill and or eat people. I am actually not that opposed to the cannibalism, but I don't think human life is so sacred that it justifies immoral acts. Alas, this aligns me with the Deontological position: thou shalt not kill, plus 'all human life is equal' (Kants other imperative) which I think is profoundly limiting as well.

In summary: I think it was a ghastly situation and they were ghastly acts.

Case Study - Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 (warning for accidental death and cannibalism)

This was made into a movie called Alive. There was no murder and the choice seemed to be a much more rational, discussed / negotiated process. The class was much calmer about the cannibalism - although really it hadn't been the main issue of contention in the first case study either.

Case Study - Trolley Dilemma (warning for dodgy ethics)

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who will die. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person in it's path who will die. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

The class was pretty keen on flipping the switch on the Utilitarian assumption that saving five people while choosing to kill one person is obviously the best solution. I am not keen on this at all but was unable to articulate how I feel about the ethical difference between acting to kill one person versus not acting to stop five people dying in a way that made sense to anyone. chaosmanor raised the point the next morning about the inappropriately extremely high value we place on human life. People die.

Case Study - Organ Transplant (warning for exactly what you think)

You are a surgeon and you are aware of a lonely, isolated person with no friends and family who you happen to know (through means best not investigated) is a perfect match for organ transplants for five people who will die today if they don't get the transplants. Do you usher this person into surgery, take their life and save the five people?

Heh, if you don't act,FIVE PEOPLE WILL DIE! The class were pretty clear on murdering lonely person being a bad idea and then got excited about context, apparently it's OK to kill one person to save five in train yards but not in hospitals. I am not keen on this context thingie but feel this has less to do with any belief that some acts are fundamentally wrong and more that some acts will shrivel my soul, I don't want to be someone who values people as numbers or someone with a set of rules they follow blindly.

Summary:

• Utilitarianism: the right thing to do is the greatest good for the greatest number
• Consequentialism: weighing the consequences of an ethical act (cost benefit analysis) - some things don't have an obvious price such as quality of life, happiness, hard to measure, 'a' good, not 'The' good, subjective not objective
• Deontology: it's not about the consequences, it's the act itself. Some acts are right and some are wrong. U.N. Declaration of Human Rights
• Virtue Ethics: good people will do good things - teach people to make decisions and trust them to do the right thing - and defend their decisions

Comments

[leecetheartist]

I just don't find the organ theft one believable, it's a very artificial situation.

You can't be sure that the organ will take, for one thing. You might have killed someone for nothing. How would you feel about that?

It's rare enough to damn well get an organ donor that matches, that any organ is tracked rigorously through the system. This is not something you can get away with. And then you've got 5 people who will find out that someone was murdered to save them.

I'm SURE that they're not going to be happy about THAT. I know doctors think they are god, but really.

I'm sorry, I would be terrible at this class, I think.

As for the other one - what the bloody hell are all these stupid people doing on the tracks anyway?

[samvara]

Yes, you have to make a lot of assumptions. I think it's more designed to show off ethical theories and how they don't work in remarkably similar situations then any attempt to mimic a RL dilemma.

I suspect you'd be very good at this class!

Loitering! They all deserve to die :p Nah, I think the assumption is that they are all innocent rail workers going about their jobs.

I read a fascinating account of pre-British invasion Irish law which seemed to be a complex balance of measuring impact and intent and then fining proportionally. So if you killed someone accidentally while doing your job at your place of work it was different to killing someone accidentally while arsing about somewhere you shouldn't have been. Then of course the Brits pointed out how barbaric that was and introduced hanging.

[leecetheartist]

Hmm. I am an RPG-er to the core and I don't think I can play it so dryly & hypothetically.

If it comes down to saving more people the surgeon would be better off turning his murderous energies to increasing awareness and consequent number of potential donors out there.

There, look at me go. *shakes head*

Innocent rail workers. Leaving that for a minute...

So do I get sued by the family of the single guy I kill? Sheesh. Am I supposed to value one life over another? Yuck, what a horrible situation.

[samvara]

*g* yeah, they did helpfully provide the scenario in such as way as to make it clear that you can't go outside the parameters of the scenario.

Engineer-guy said they get training on this kind of thing at work and they have a very clear message to save the most people should the issue arise.

[sara]

Yeah, I favor the plan where the railway engineer hits the button that turns on the flashing lights and the big emergency siren, myself. E.g. the plan where if the engineer is, you know, engineering, then they have already engineered their way into a reasonably safe system. *sigh*

[samvara]

Point :p

I'm still writing up my first Negotiation Behaviour class but one thing that came out of it for me was the rather masculine values that seem to be underpinning negotiation, business and ethics in general...

[sara]

Yeah, I am really bad at aggressive negotiation. Frank negotiation, I can do. I can lay my cards out and say, look, here's where I (or my client) am. Here are some things we can maybe adjust. Where are you? But this thing where people won't even bring their cards into the room? It's juvenile and nobody prospers that way.

[samvara]

I am far more comfortable with laying out my cards and aiming for a collaborative result - and yes, I regard some 'tactics' as a complete waste of my time and energy.

[leecetheartist]

I think poor Thursday Next finds herself on the ship Moral Dilemma in First Among Sequels. The dilemmas keep piling up, and then, Thursday solves them in a rather interesting way. And attractive way, I'm sure, for most ethics students, but not really practical.

[ironed_orchid]

I heart your summary.

As a deontologist, I like definitions which focus on the value aspect rather than the rule following aspect.

[samvara]

\o/

Do you have a deontolological response to the Trolley dilemma?

I did some reading and could find a response that said the act of choosing to kill the one person by flipping the switch was worse than not acting and allowing the five to die. I could also see stuff that seemed to be heading to utilitarianism and valuing the 'body, labor, or talents' of the individuals and trying to preserve as much as possible.

[ironed_orchid]

I think the best response is to make the choice that kills the least people.

This could be backed up by a value for life, even though choosing many over one looks more utilitarian from outside, it depends on thee reasoning behind it. For instance, for many people minimizing harm is a value worth holding, and veering away from a group towards a single person would meet that criteria.

On the whole, I hate hypothetical dilemmas like this.