ETCC
Discussion Board 3
In the discussion board, you will choose one of the Inquiries from Ruggiero (pp 96-97) # 11-25, briefly describe the Inquiry and analyze the ethical issue. (Be sure to incorporate this week’s readings Chapter 7)
The Basic criteria
What is really good for us? What criteria and approaches are most effective in examining moral issues? What pitfalls other than relativism and absolutism should we be aware of and strive to avoid?
In previous chapters we noted that religion and law cannot substitute for ethics, although they are related to and compatible with ethics; that the majority view is as apt to be mistaken as to be correct; that feelings are often capricious and therefore unreliable; and that conscience, though in some cases trust- worthy, is susceptible to negative influences and error. We also found that, contrary to popular opinion, moral judgments of other cultures are appropriate when they are based on understanding and thoughtful analysis. Next we observed that despite skepticism’s claim that moral prescriptions ( ought state- ments) are illogical, such prescriptions have been made throughout history and are still made today by respectable individuals and organizations. Most important, we identified a sound basis for making moral prescriptions—the principle of right desire. This principle, together with the principle of contradiction, enables us to approach ethical analysis with confidence. In this chapter we will build on this understanding.
The standard we will need for judging the morality of actions is one that is acceptable to men and women of various moral perspectives and that reflects the principles most ethical systems have in common. Such a standard helps us set aside defensiveness, frees us from the entanglements of prefabricated interpretations, and elevates our dialogue to a more analytic and objective level.
a Fundamental Good: respect for persons One example of something that is “really good for us,” as we noted in the previous chapter, is knowledge. Another significant good is
respect for persons, which, as Errol E. HarriS explains, includes the following three requirements: PAGE
79
PAGE 80
The Basic criteria
First, that each and every person should be regarded as worthy of sympa- thetic consideration, and should be so treated; secondly, that no person should be regarded by another as a mere possession, or used as a mere instrument, or treated as a mere obstacle, to another’s satisfaction; and thirdly, that persons are not and ought never to be treated in any undertaking as mere expendables.1
Respect for persons is an important value in most ethical systems. (The Dobuans are noteworthy exceptions.) This is not to say that respect for persons is always interpreted in the same way or that it is always given precedence over other values. In some cultures person is defined not broadly, as “all members of the species Homo sapiens,” but narrowly, as “a member of our tribe” or “one who enjoys the rights of citizenship.” In some tribal languages, the word used to denote a person is the tribal name; to be outside the tribe is thus, by definition, to be a nonperson. In the Roman Empire, many of the freedoms now associated with personhood were denied to noncitizens, notably slaves. (Roman citizenship could, however, be bestowed on anyone, even a slave.) Yet even in such cultures, where personhood is more narrowly conceived, respect for persons is nevertheless honored.
One reason respect for persons historically has been—and continues to be—universally accepted is that it is affirmed theologically as well as philo- sophically and thus is acceptable to believers and nonbelievers alike. The many variations of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” illustrate this universality. Following is a sampling of those variations:
What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others. (Confucius)
Love your neighbor as yourself. (Moses, Jesus)
No man is a true believer unless he desireth for his brother that which he desires for himself. (Muhammad)
Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. (Mahabharata)
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. (Sunnah)
Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. (Zoroastrianism)
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (Buddhism)
What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others. (Epictetus)
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neigh- bour that which thou choosest for thyself. (Bahá’í faith)
What you dislike for yourself do not like for me. (Spanish proverb)
Three Basic criteria
In the philosophical sense, respect for persons may be considered an extension of the principle of right desire. Just as we should desire only what is really good for ourselves, so should we desire the same thing for other people because they are essentially no different from us. In the theological sense, respect for persons reinforces the idea that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore are, their many differences not- withstanding, children of God.
Three Basic criteria
As the requirements stated by Errol Harris suggest, respect for persons is not merely a theoretical construct but a practical standard for the treatment of others in everyday situations. Over the centuries, three basic criteria have been associated with that standard and have informed ethical discourse. These criteria— consequences, obligations, and moral ideals—will be our principal concern in this chapter and in subsequent chapters. Generally speaking, a moral action is one that demonstrates respect for persons by producing favor- able consequences and honoring the relevant obligations and ideals.
consequences
Consequences are the beneficial or harmful effects that result from an action and affect the people involved, including, of course, the person performing the action. Some consequences are physical; others are emotional. Some occur immediately; others occur only with the passing of time. Some are intended by the person performing the act; others are unintended. Finally, some conse- quences may be obvious, and others may be subtle and even hidden by appear- ances. The ethicist is concerned with all significant consequences of actions occurring in a moral context. Because consequences can be complex and dif- ficult to pinpoint, ethical analysis often requires not merely an examination of indisputable facts but also speculation about possibilities and probabilities.
obligations
Every significant human action occurs, directly or indirectly, in a context of relationships with others. And relationships usually imply obligations, that is, restrictions on our behavior, demands to do something or to avoid doing it. The most obvious kind of obligation is a formal agreement. Whenever a per- son enters into a contract—for example, to sell something or to perform a service—we consider that person ethically (as well as legally) bound to live up to his or her agreement.
There are other kinds of obligations. Obligations of friendship, for example, demand the keeping of confidences. Obligations of citizenship in a democracy
The Basic criteria
demand concern for the conduct of government and responsible participation in the electoral process. There are also business obligations. The employer or supervisor, for example, is morally bound to use fair hiring practices, judge workers impartially, and pay them a reasonable wage that is consistent with the demands of their position and the quality of their work. The employee, in turn, is morally bound to do a job as efficiently and competently as he or she is able to. And both employer and employee have moral obligations to their customers.
In addition, there are professional obligations. Lawyers are obligated to protect the interests of their clients, doctors to promote or restore the health of their patients, teachers to advance the knowledge and wisdom of their stu- dents, and elected officials to serve the interests of their constituents.
It should be noted that there can be no obligation to do something mor- ally wrong. In other words, if one person promises another to tell a lie, steal something, or give inappropriate assistance during an exam, the promise is not binding.
moral ideals
In the general sense, ideals are aspects of excellence, goals that bring greater harmony within one’s self and between self and others. In the moral sense, they are also specific concepts that assist us in achieving respect for persons in our moral judgments. One group of moral ideals that can be traced back to the time of ancient Greece and continue to be relevant to contemporary living is the cardinal virtues—prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. The word cardinal derives from a Latin word for hinge, and it would not be an exagger- ation to say that moral living, in large part, hinges on these ideals. Religious thinkers have added another group of ideals, the theological virtues faith, hope, and charity. Other moral ideals are loving-kindness, honesty, compassion, for- giveness, repentance, reparation, gratitude, and beneficence. We will discuss these ideals and the cardinal virtues further in Chapter 10.
Different cultures interpret the same ideal differently, of course. As we have seen, the way a culture interprets its ideals and relates one to another will affect its judgment of particular actions. The Eskimo accepts the ideal of respect for the aged, but some of the Eskimo’s ways of honoring it—for instance, walling them up in an igloo to die when they are too old to con- tribute to the community and are a drain on its resources—are very different from ours. Furthermore, the same ideal of justice that we honor may impel someone in another culture to do something we would never think of doing: for instance, to cut out the tongue of one who has uttered a taboo word. These variations in the ways of viewing and pursuing ideals can pose exquisite dilemmas for those engaged in cross-cultural studies and those whose occupations involve them directly with other cultures (diplomats, for example, and medical and religious missionaries). They present less difficulty for us in the examination of our own culture.
The distinction between ideals and obligations is not always clear, and, paradoxically, the more we learn about ethics and strive to behave morally, the more blurred the distinction becomes. The reason is simple: Highly ethical people tend to regard ideals as obligations. For them, fairness, compassion, forgiveness, and the other moral ideals are more than lofty notions of excellence—they are also personal standards of conduct that they hold them- selves responsible for meeting in everyday situations.
analyzing ethical issues
As your analyses of the inquiries in previous chapters have undoubtedly revealed, the job of examining issues and making judgments can be a difficult one, even when the cases are relatively simple. The fact that you now have a set of criteria to use can be of considerable help if you apply the criteria thoughtfully and systematically. The following approach will help you accomplish this.
step 1: study The details of The case
Study the details of the case carefully. Look closely at any circumstances that set it apart from otherwise similar cases. Keep in mind that “circumstances alter cases.” Suppose, for example, that a computer operator used her employer’s computer for her own personal project. Is such an action morally acceptable? It is impossible to give a meaningful answer without knowing more of the details of the case. You must identify the important questions that a meaningful answer would depend on. Did she use the computer on her own time or on company time? Was she expressly forbidden to use it? Was her personal project in any way competitive with or harmful to her employer’s business? These are the key questions.
If, as often happens, you have insufficient details about a case to answer one or more of your important questions, speculate about possible answers. For example, if the issue were the firing of a teacher because of his homosexuality and you didn’t know the specific cause of his being fired, you would consider the possibilities that (a) he was propagandizing for homosexuality in his class, (b) he was enticing his own students, and (c) he was merely living with another homosexual. For the first two causes, the firing may be morally defensible, but for the third it would undoubtedly be indefensible.
sTep 2: idenTiFy The relevanT criTeria
Identify specific criteria that are relevant to the case. In other words, ask these questions: What are the consequences of the case? Whom will they affect? In
The Basic criTeria
what way? Are there any obligations? What ideals are involved? After identi- fying the criteria, decide where the emphasis should lie. Sometimes the con- sequences will be most important; at other times, obligations or moral ideals will be. Not infrequently, the force of all three will be very nearly equal.
step 3: determine possible courses of Action
Determine all possible choices of action that are—or, in the case of a past action, were—available. Usually, there will be several alternative choices. By determining what they are, you increase your chances of making a reasonable moral judgment.
step 4: decide which action is most ethical
In light of your findings in steps 1 through 3, decide which action is most ethical.
This four-step approach will help you cut through the confusion that sur- rounds many complex moral issues, overcome indecision, and reach a judg- ment. It will also help you express that judgment to others. Let’s look at three cases and see how the approach works in practice.
The case oF professor woe Be Gone
Midwestern University is a national football power. The alumni association, which exerts considerable influence on the university’s affairs, does not toler- ate losing teams, and no faculty member or administrator who stands in the way of victory is tolerated. This year Professor Woebegone has had the mis- fortune of having Roger Rapid, star halfback, in his mathematics class. Roger is, to put it delicately, mathematically challenged. After spending many extra hours with Roger in hopes of dragging him through the course successfully, the professor has been forced to admit failure. On the final exam, Roger has scored 27. Judged by the grading scale in the course, he has failed miserably. Because he is a borderline student in other courses, an F could put Roger on academic probation and make him ineligible for the last crucial game of the season. Without Roger, the team will surely lose the conference title, and Professor Woebegone, who is untenured, will just as surely lose his job. The deadline for submitting grades is fast approaching, and Professor Woebegone has to make a decision. He is inclined to assign Roger a failing grade.
step 1: The details of The case
You would note the details of the case given and identify any important ques- tions that are not answered in the statement of the case. For example, you might ask the following questions:
Has Professor Woebegone checked with his colleagues who have had Roger in class this semester? Is there any chance that Roger earned pass- ing grades in their classes? (If that were the case, Professor Woe be gone’s grade of F might not cost Roger his eligibility.)
What are Professor Woe be gone’s chances of getting a position at another college or university (perhaps one that is not a national athletic power)?
STep 2: relevant criteria
You would identify the consequences, obligations, and moral ideals involved in the case. One probable consequence of failing Roger Rapid would be his ineligibility for the crucial game; that, in turn, would make the loss of the game likely. (Of course, if Roger’s grades in other courses offset his F in mathematics—a rather unlikely scenario—both these consequences might be avoided.) Another predictable consequence would be the firing of Professor Woebegone, although he could conceivably manage to escape that penalty. However, even if both unfortunate consequences occurred, at least one pos- itive one would occur—Professor Woebegone would have set an example of integrity for his colleagues.
Professor Woebegone has several obligations. His primary one is the obli- gation to be diligent in his efforts to help students meet the course objec- tives; this has already been met. The professor also has the obligation, both to the university and to his profession, to set a reasonable grading standard and apply it impartially and honestly. (Contrary to what many alumni might believe, the professor has no moral obligation to guarantee athletes’ continu- ing eligibility.)
At least three moral ideals are involved: the virtues of justice and courage and the general ideal of fairness. Justice in this case would be giving to each student the grade he or she has earned. Courage would mean doing what the professor determines is the right thing to do regardless of the personal conse- quences. Fairness would mean giving no special consideration to one student that is not offered to all students.
sTep 3: possible courses oF action
You would consider the possible actions open to Professor Woebegone. At first thought, there are only two: to violate his obligations and the relevant moral ideals and give Roger Rapid a higher grade than he deserves, or to fail Roger and risk losing his position. However, there is a third possibility—to fail Roger and let the administration know that if they succumb to alumni pres- sure and fire him, he will file a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal, in which case the university would receive a good deal of most unwelcome publicity.
86 The Basic criteria sTep 4: The most ethical acTion
In light of your analysis, you would no doubt conclude that although the conse- quences are mixed, both the obligations and the moral ideals in this case sug- gest that the most ethical action for Professor Woebegone would be to fail Roger. The professor might also try to preserve his teaching position, but ultimately he should be willing to be dismissed rather than compromise his integrity.
The case of The shirking maneuver
Florida residents enjoy two advantages not available in many other states: They pay no state income tax, and they are granted a homestead exemption of up to $50,000 on their real estate taxes. To be a legal resident, however, a person must live in the state at least six months out of every year. Realizing that enforcement of this requirement is lax, retired California residents Lester and Myra Shirking buy a small condominium in a Florida coastal town and fill out the necessary forms declaring themselves to be Florida residents, even though they have no intention of spending more than a few weeks in the state each year. They are granted a homestead exemption, begin filing their federal tax returns from Florida, and stop filing California state tax returns. Because they are in a high tax bracket, this maneuver saves them tens of thousands of dollars per year.
STep 1: The details oF The case
After a close reading, you would probably decide that the statement of this case leaves no significant questions unanswered.
step 2: relevant criteria
The Shirkings clearly violated the law because they knowingly claimed residence without meeting the requirements. Our focus, however, is on moral rather than legal considerations. The most obvious consequence of the Shirkings’ declaring residence in Florida is that they significantly reduce their tax burden by gain- ing a real estate tax reduction and by eliminating their state income tax obliga- tion. However, the consequences to the states of California and Florida are not so salutary. California loses the tax income that the Shirkings, as residents, are required to pay; Florida loses the real estate tax that people who don’t qualify for a homestead exemption are required to pay. And the citizens of both California and Florida are required to make up the difference between what the Shirkings should have paid and what they did pay.
The most important moral obligation in this case is one of citizenship— specifically, to assist in contributing to the cost of maintaining highways, providing police and fire department services, and supporting public schools and hospitals (in short, all the expenses covered by taxes).
Among the moral ideals that are relevant to this case, the most prominent are fairness and honesty. Fairness requires that the Shirkings refrain from placing their share of the tax burden on their neighbors. (On this point, the obligation of citizenship and the ideal of fairness are mutually reinforcing.) The latter ideal, honesty, requires that the Shirkings make no representation that is at odds with the truth.
STep 3: possible courses oF action
Perhaps the Shirkings believed the tax burden in California was so difficult to bear that the action they chose was the only one open to them. (“I had no choice but to do what I did” is a common lament when defending moral transgressions.) But they did have an alternative—a rather obvious one, in fact. Instead of pretending to move to Florida, they could have actually moved there or to some other no-tax or low-tax state. Many people do so, even when they have to give up their jobs. In the Shirkings’ case, the choice would have been less difficult because they were retired.
step 4: The most ethical action
This case is easier to decide than the other two cases because all three criteria point to the same conclusion: The Shirkings’ maneuver was unethical.
The Financial crisis case
The causes of the financial crisis that began in 2007 were numerous and complex. But one factor is generally acknowledged to have been significant, if not central: government’s effort to pressure financial institutions to relax their standards for lending. (This effort was made by both Democrats and Republicans, specifically in the Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations.) As a result, loans were made to three groups of people at high risk of defaulting—people who had bad credit histories, people whose incomes were low or unstable, and people with stable incomes who requested large loans that strained their budgets. In addition, many loans were written for significantly more than the assessed value of the homes.
To protect themselves, large lending institutions adopted the practice of “bundling,” which consisted of combining high-risk loans with less risky loans and selling the bundle to other institutions. Because it was difficult to distinguish the quality of the loans in the bundles, the financial stability of the receiving institutions was weakened, often without their knowledge.
During this period, the easy availability of loans led the real estate market to flourish and property values to soar. Tempted by quick profits, many people engaged in buying homes for the sole purpose of selling them again, a practice known as “flipping.” When the housing market peaked and began to return to normal, financial institutions were left holding mortgages worth much less than their face value. To make matters worse, many homeowners defaulted on their mortgages, some because they could not afford to pay, oth- ers because they saw no reason to keep paying for a home worth much less than its purchase price and in which they had little or no equity. When many financial institutions were on the verge of bankruptcy, the federal government spent massive amounts of money in “bailouts” and “stimulus packages.”
sTep 1: The deTails oF The case
Because of the complexity of the case, you would narrow your focus and deal with one aspect at a time. Given space limitations, we will address only the government’s effort to pressure financial institutions to relax lending standards. (Separate analyses could be made of the morality of “bundling” mortgages and other factors.) Among the questions you would ask are: What was government officials’ motivation in bringing pressure on the banks? (Answer: They wished to make housing available to all Americans, regardless of their economic sta- tus. This is clearly a noble motive. Some, less altruistically, may have wished to increase support by low-income voters in their reelection campaigns.) Was this kind of pressure significantly different from previous governmental efforts on behalf of low-income Americans? (Answer: Yes. Past efforts had been to pro- vide governmental financial support for low-income housing and to create anti- discrimination laws but not to interfere in banking standards and regulations.)
sTep 2: relevanT criTeria
The immediate consequences of the government’s pressure on the banks to relax their lending standards were the issuing of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of risky loans and the placing in financial jeopardy of all the people who were encouraged to apply for those loans. Eventual consequences included the banking industry crisis, the corresponding decline of the stock market and the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in people’s retirement accounts, and the incurring of monstrous “bailout” debt that rich and poor Americans will bear for generations.
The federal government has a number of moral obligations that are rele- vant to this case: to protect citizens from dishonest practices, to ensure the integrity of financial institutions, and to maintain the health of the economy for the good of the citizens. (However, the government has no moral, or for that matter legal, obligation to use financial institutions as instruments of social change, or to take them over and/or manage them.)
The principal moral ideals that apply to government officials in this case are fairness and prudence. Fairness entails refraining from actions that hinder
rug00275_ch07_079-098.indd 88 11/02/22 12:14 PM
Final PDF to printer
a caution about Generalizing
banking institutions from doing their jobs, as well as refraining from actions that put the financial welfare of citizens at risk. Prudence consists of behaving judiciously in the consideration, framing, and enactment of laws and regula- tions that govern the banking institutions.
step 3: possible courses of action
The government did not have to make the banking industry the instrument of its social agenda. Instead, it could have let the industry continue the lend- ing practices proven over centuries to ensure economic stability—notably, the practice of objectively determining which loan applicants were qualified and which were not. Incidentally, this approach in no way prevented the government from finding other ways to assist people who were rejected for home loans. It could have heightened monitoring of banks to ensure that no one was rejected for a loan simply because of race or ethnicity, expanded educational opportunities for low-income citizens, and given additional support to low-cost housing programs such as Habitat for Humanity.
step 4: decide which action is most ethical
Your analysis would probably lead you to conclude that the government’s pressure on the banks to relax their lending standards both violated their obligations and the ideals of fairness and prudence and resulted in tragic con- sequences and was therefore unethical. (Note that this case involves other moral questions that could be addressed separately, notably the morality of “bundling” loans.)
In all three of the preceding cases, and in all the cases you encounter, the moral action is the action that produces the best consequences and most fully honors the obligations and ideals involved; in other words, the action that best fits the situation. That is the action that ought to be chosen, not just by the person or group in the case in question but by anyone in the same circumstances. As subsequent chapters will reveal, the solutions to moral prob- lems are seldom perfect solutions; they usually are only the best choices from among the imperfect solutions that are available.
a cauTion aBouT GeneralizinG
The temptation to move beyond the criteria we have been discussing and to develop a set of firm generalizations or rules of ethics is a common tempta- tion. Although it arises from a very legitimate desire to simplify and stream- line the process of analysis, it usually causes many more problems than it solves and is best avoided.*
*It is possible to construct ethical rules that are so carefully shaped and qualified as to withstand even the most subtle objections. But that kind of construction is an activity that only the most advanced students of ethics should undertake. The safest and most profitable focus is on individual cases, not on generalizations.
The Basic criteria
Let’s say we are analyzing a situation in which someone has taken some- thing belonging to someone else. If we begin by applying an unqualified gen- eral rule, such as “It is wrong to take what does not belong to us,” we will have already judged the situation in question. After making such a judgment, any analysis we do is likely to be little more than a listing of the reasons to support our predetermined conclusion. Like the juror who makes up his or her mind that the defendant is guilty the moment he or she sees him or her, we may appear to be weighing the evidence and may even believe that we are. Yet, in fact, we will have already made up our minds.
But, someone might object, what is wrong in starting with a rule like “It’s wrong to take something that does not belong to us”? Doesn’t such a gener- alization fit most cases? Certainly, and that is just the problem. The general- ization about the wrongness of taking what doesn’t belong to us would cover numerous situations from bank robbery to embezzlement to stealing hubcaps and even to pocketing the extra change the supermarket cashier gave us by mistake. But it doesn’t cover the exceptions, such as finding some change in a public telephone booth or taking in a stray dog and (after advertising in the local paper and not finding the owner) keeping it. In judging any particular case, we must be concerned with precisely that: whether there is anything about the case that makes it an exception to the rule.
It is tempting to protest that there must be some generalization that applies in all cases. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” comes to mind. What, after all, is more basic to morality than this Golden Rule found in virtually all advanced moral systems? And yet, as Paul A. Freund has pointed out, even this rule has its exception, for a masochist’s application of it would prompt him to torture others.
An interesting illustration of the danger of relying on sweeping ethical gen- eralizations and the importance of inquiring into the circumstances of a case occurred some years ago. In Willowbrook State Hospital, an institution for the mentally disabled, medical doctors intentionally injected entering children with an infectious hepatitis virus. On first consideration, such behavior seems outra- geous. It calls to mind the barbarisms of Nazi concentration camps. In fact, not a few critics regarded the action as precisely such a moral atrocity.
The details of the situation, however, undermine that judgment. It was known that a mild form of hepatitis was rife in the institution. Historical data showed that most of the newly admitted children would be infected by natu- ral means. By deliberately infecting newly admitted patients, the doctors could assure them a milder case of the disease, and they could be given special housing and care while ill. Moreover, the plan had been reviewed and approved by sev- eral agencies, and parental consent was obtained before a child was infected.2
The tendency to respond to issues with unqualified generalizations, though natural enough, should not be indulged. The people we are writing for or speaking with deserve better from us. Every important ethical issue demands our careful attention, not only to its similarity to other issues, but also to its dissimilarity, to its uniqueness. To give less, to merely mouth an overall, ready-made response, is not to use moral rules but to be used by them; not to be guided by our experience but to be controlled by it. It takes wisdom to know when the case at hand fits the rule and when it is the exception to it. Such wisdom does not come easily. And if we substitute generalization for analysis, it does not come at all.
avoiding other errors
In addition to overgeneralization, five other errors are common in the analy- sis of moral issues: “mine-is-better” thinking, double standard, unwarranted assumptions, oversimplification, and hasty conclusions.
“Mine-is-Better” Thinking
This error is rooted in the perspective almost all of us had in early childhood. We thought and even said to others, “My mommy is prettier than yours,” “My dad is stronger,” “My teddy bear is cuddlier,” “My tricycle is faster.” As we grew older, we stopped making such statements and may even have stopped thinking such thoughts, at least about Mom and Dad, teddy, and trike. But some vestiges of the old habit remain evident in the way we regard our opin- ions. And that can be an obstacle to ethical analysis and judgment by closing our minds to perspectives different from our own.
Whenever you find yourself objecting to another viewpoint on an ethical issue, ask yourself, “On what basis am I objecting?” If the answer is “Nothing more than ‘mine-is-better’ thinking,” suppress your objection and give the other viewpoint a fair hearing.
double standard
The error of the double standard consists of using one set of criteria for judging cases that concern us or someone we identify with and another set for judg- ing other cases. It involves viewing evidence selectively or twisting it to serve our own interests. It is especially common in cases where we have a strong commitment to a certain action, often because we have chosen it ourselves in similar cases and wish to avoid self-condemnation.
For example, we may judge most cases of taking what does not belong to one according to the criteria of obligations, ideals, and consequences. However, when we encounter a case that comes close to home—let’s say, taking clothes from a roommate or taking money from a parent without permission—we tend to set aside the criteria and construct irrational arguments or rationalizations to justify the action. Such lapses are understandable but not justifiable. Similar cases should be judged similarly. The fact that a case involves us in some way or causes us to feel shame or regret should make no difference.
To find the error of the double standard in your moral reasoning, be alert for situations in which you have a personal emotional stake. When you encounter such situations, ask yourself whether you have applied the criteria consistently, as you would in any other case. Look for signs that you have slipped into special pleading.
unwarranted assumptions
The error of unwarranted assumptions consists of taking too much for granted. The fact that it usually occurs unconsciously makes it a particularly trouble- some error. We usually make unwarranted assumptions whenever we read a case carelessly and fail to distinguish between what it says and what it does not say—in other words, when we read into the case details that are not known or stated. Does this mean you should never speculate about what is not known or stated? Not at all. It means only that you should do so responsibly, as the following example illustrates.
Inquiry 4 in Chapter 4 concerned the morality of physicians receiving “finders’ fees” for referring patients to researchers who are conducting trials of new drug therapies, the side effects of which are not known. The case did not state whether the physicians informed the patients about their fees and the possible dangers of the experimental therapies. To take for granted that they did or didn’t inform their patients would be an unwarranted assumption. Instead of making that assumption, you should ask, “Would it make a differ- ence if the doctors fully informed their patients?” Then, after considering your answer, you should make your decision and express it in the “If . . . then” for- mat, as shown next. (Your position on the issue, of course, might be different than that expressed here.)
If the doctors told their patients nothing about the fee they receive for refer- rals or about the risks involved, then they would be guilty of a serious ethical offense. If they informed their patients about both the fee and the risks, then the offense would be less serious. Even in the latter case, however, the prac- tice of referring patients for a fee would be unethical because it compromises the physician’s obligation to make the individual patient’s health paramount.
oversimplification
It is natural enough to want to simplify matters. It is often necessary to do so to make sense of cases and to communicate our judgment to others. Simplification is not objectionable; it is oversimplification that is an error. Oversimplification exists whenever our treatment of a case goes beyond reducing it to manageable proportions and distorts it. In moral reasoning, oversimplification is usually caused by omitting consideration of some important criterion—an obligation, for example, or a significant consequence. In the case of Professor Woebegone, if our analysis overlooked his obligation to apply his grading standard impartially and not give special consideration to any student, including a star football player, we would be guilty of over- simplifying the issue.
Unfortunately, oversimplification is fairly common in the discussion of ethical issues. Consider, for example, the discussion of the practice popularly known as whistle-blowing. Some people make it seem that the decision to report wrongdoing at one’s place of work is a simple matter of picking up the phone and dialing the authorities. In reality, the situation is usually much more complicated. The potential whistle-blower must consider whether the wrongdoing is real or only apparent, serious or trivial, and also what the con- sequences of reporting the offense are likely to be to self and family. Loss of one’s position is a likely effect; being blackballed in the job market, sued, and even physically harmed are possibilities. At the very least, these factors affect the level of obligation.
The continuing debate over the morality of affirmative action programs also provides numerous illustrations of oversimplification. Many who oppose such programs ignore the reality of past and present discrimination against women and minorities. On the other hand, many who support the programs ignore the unfairness involved in giving preferential treatment to one race or gender.
To avoid oversimplification, be thorough in your identification of the relevant criteria. Do not be satisfied with acknowledging the most obvious ones; consider all of them. In addition, be prepared for complexity and address it carefully when you find it.
hasty conclusions
Drawing hasty conclusions refers to embracing a judgment before examining the case fully. Sometimes it results from lack of time to do a thorough analysis. More often, however, it results from accepting first impressions uncritically or from approaching the case with a preconceived notion of what the solution will be. Such impressions and preconceived notions are natural enough. Whenever we encounter a case, our mind begins making associations with thousands of experiences. As quickly as a fast computer, it identifies those experiences that are analogous and presents to us the conclusions we have reached for those cases or have decided to apply to all such cases. The prob- lem is that those conclusions may not really fit the case in question.
To avoid making a hasty conclusion, make no conclusion until you have completed your analysis of the issue. Whenever a possibility occurs to you, write it down for later consideration. But resist the temptation to embrace any conclusion immediately, even if, at first thought, it seems unassailable.
Being familiar with the errors discussed here and using the strategies suggested for avoiding them will help you keep your moral reasoning sound. There is, however, one additional approach you can take: Think of yourself as two people, an idea producer and an idea evaluator. Let the producer generate as many varied ideas as it wishes, but before accepting them or presenting them to others in speaking or in writing, submit them to the scrutiny of the evaluator. This approach will help you form the habit of going beyond mere thinking to thinking about thinking. That is the habit of the philosopher inquiries Timely issues revisited
In Chapter 1, you considered the timely issues of Immigration and Home- lessness. Look back at the details of each of those issues and the ethical judg- ments you made. Then consider what you have learned in this chapter about respect for persons and the criteria for moral judgment: consequences, obliga- tions, and moral ideals. Finally, in light of those lessons, decide what changes you should make to your earlier judgments. Explain your thinking.
addiTional inquiries
1. The morning-after pill is a form of emergency contraception used after inter- course rather than before. It can be taken within five days of intercourse and prevents fertilization of the woman’s egg or implantation of an already fertilized egg. In the latter case, its action is abortifacient. In May 2013, a U.S. District Judge ruled that the morning-after pill, key ingredient levonorgestrel, be made available without a prescription to females of any age, including children and teenagers. Some people believe that the judge’s ruling raises ethical issues. Do you agree? Discuss your answer with reference to the criteria presented in this chapter: con- sequences, obligations, and moral ideals.
2. The idea of having the government “redistribute wealth” is not a new one, but it received renewed consideration during President Obama’s terms in office. Supporters of such redistribution argue that the widespread economic inequal- ity that exists in America and around the world is unjust and therefore immoral and that it is the obligation of government to overcome such inequality by cap- ping executive salaries and significantly raising taxes for everyone above a certain income level. With increased tax revenues, the argument goes, the government could create and/or maintain programs that lift the economic status of the poor. Opponents of the idea argue that redistributing wealth not only is unfair but also rewards irresponsibility and encourages indolence. Economist and social histor- ian Thomas Sowell offers a brief explanation of that argument in his essay “The Fallacy of Redistribution.”3 Consult his essay and then do an Internet search the term “pros and cons of redistributing wealth.” Be sure to examine both sup- porting and opposing views. Then make your judgment in light of what you have learned in this chapter.
3. On a Sunday morning in the spring of 2010 in New York City, a homeless man attempted to save a woman from an attacker and was stabbed in the pro- cess. For over an hour, he lay bleeding on the sidewalk in plain view of passersby. Several people stopped to look at him. One man shook him. Another took a photo of him with a cell phone. But no one helped him or called 911. The man died there. Evaluate the morality of the passersby behavior in light of what you learned in this chapter.
4. Mr. Barker is returning to a town he once lived in and a position he once held. He and his wife visit several real estate brokers there in hopes of finding a house. One broker mentions that Horace’s house will soon be for sale. “Oh,” Barker says, “I know Horace; is he leaving the area?” The broker explains that he is not, but he is moving to a larger house she showed him because his family has outgrown their present home. As they are driving to inspect Horace’s property, Barker casually asks the broker which house Horace is buying. The broker tells him. She innocently adds that he is paying $178,000 for it. After leaving the broker, Barker goes directly to the owner of the house Horace is planning to buy, inspects it, is impressed with what he sees, and says to the owner, “Look, I know Horace has offered you $178,000. I’ll pay $179,000, and what’s more, you won’t have to pay any broker’s commission.” The owner agrees, and Barker buys the house. Was Barker’s behavior unethical? Apply the criteria presented in this chapter and decide.
5. Review your responses to the ethical issues in Chapter 6, inquiry 6. Decide which responses should be modified or expanded in light of what you have learned in this chapter. Identify those responses and explain your changes.
6. Futurists are already talking about the use of modern technology for “virtual sex.” The approaches that are being contemplated are more sophisticated than the use of virtual reality headsets. People will be able to have realistic but nonphysical sexual contact with virtual men and women created from real-life models, such as celebrities or acquaintances, or purely from their imagination.4 Will virtual sex be ethical? In deciding, be sure to consider the obligations, moral ideals, and conse- quences that are involved in real sexual relationships and determine which, if any, would apply to virtual sex.
7. Someyearsago, ConsumerReportsmagazineexaminedthethen-growingprac- tice of advertising in and around schools. The school buses were decorated with advertisements, as were hallways and restrooms. School corridors and cafeterias piped in popular music punctuated by commercials. Workbooks, instructional videos, and other classroom materials contained messages from sponsors. For example, the National Live Stock and Meat Board claimed that meat consumption makes people taller, and Procter & Gamble suggested that clear-cut logging (the equivalent of strip mining) is beneficial to the environment. More significantly, Channel One, a daily news broadcast, was mandatory in many school systems. Roughly two students out of every five enrolled in U.S. schools watched Channel One, which consists of ten minutes of news and two minutes of commercials for Snickers, Rold Gold pretzels, Carefree bubble gum, Pepsi, and Reebok shoes, among other products. Advertisers paid the schools substantial fees, which could be used to purchase school supplies and equipment.5 Apply the ethical criteria pre- sented in this chapter, and decide whether such advertising practices are morally defensible.
8. Apply what you have learned in this chapter to the following questions. Explain your answers.
a. While driving a car, is it morally acceptable to talk or text on a cell phone? Is it morally permissible to drive a car after having one drink? Two? Three? After how many drinks would it be wrong to drive a car? After how many drinks would it be wrong for an airline pilot to fly a commercial airplane?
b. Is it ethical to take habit-forming drugs? Is it ethical to use a substance for which the research evidence is not yet conclusive and which might be harmful?
c. Is it wrong for people to starve themselves as a means of political protest? d. Is it ethical for the United States to sell weapons to other countries?
e. Do people who take the lives of others have any moral responsibility to their victims’ families? (For example, are they obligated to provide financial assistance to the families?) Would a case of accidental death be different from a case of murder?
Evaluate the action in each of the following cases, applying what you learned in this chapter and explaining your reasoning carefully.
9. Claude challenges the principle of respect for persons with the following argument: “Past ages were simpler. Our grandparents knew personally the peo- ple they had contact with every day. Yet today the world has grown impersonal. We deal with telephone operators, airline personnel, cab drivers, people at the other end of computer lines. We don’t know them and they don’t know us. So the idea of respect for persons no longer holds.” Construct a reply to Claude’s argument.
10. The science of genetic testing is fast reaching the point where it can be deter- mined whether people carry genes for crippling, often fatal, diseases. Before long, employers may be able to know in advance whether job candidates are likely to need time off for illness; they can reject such candidates in advance. Further, health insurance companies may deny policies to such individuals. They may even refuse to reimburse parents for the delivery of a child known to be disabled before birth.
11. A seventh-grade teacher divides his class into teams to research some history topics and report to the class. Each team consists of four students. One team pres- ents a report that is excellent in substance. However, two members of the team behave childishly while making their contributions, so the overall presentation is flawed. The teacher lowers the team’s mark a full letter grade. Because the grade recorded for each team member is identical to the team grade, each member is penalized.
12. A businessman is waiting for an elevator in his office building. A stranger motions him aside and whispers, “Wanna buy a fur coat for your wife? Two hun- dred dollars. No questions asked. What say?” He opens a large paper bag to reveal the coat. The businessman looks at it, touches it, and realizes that the coat is additional inquiries unquestionably mink and worth at least ten times what the man is asking for it. He takes out his wallet, hands over the $200, and takes the bag.
13. A woman learns that her son-in-law fathered an illegitimate child several years before he met her daughter. (He and his wife have been happily married for ten years. They are childless.) She is sure her daughter is not aware of this and has reason to doubt that she would ever find out about it by herself. The woman feels obliged to tell her, however, and does so.
14. A man and a woman, both college students, have been living together off campus for three years. They have never considered marrying, and it has always been implicit in their relationship that each should be free to leave the other any time he or she wishes. Unexpectedly, the woman becomes pregnant. Because she is opposed to abortion, she resigns herself to having the child. When she is seven months pregnant, the man decides to leave her. One day when she is out shop- ping for groceries, he gathers his belongings, scribbles a hasty note (“Our relation- ship was beautiful while it lasted, but it’s over”), and leaves.
15. A businessman wishes to invest some money in wooded land. He knows that he can sell the trees for lumber, plant more trees, and sell them when they mature. He will be serving the cause of ecology at the same time he makes a mod- est income. After finding a parcel of land that is appropriate for his purposes, he asks the owner the selling price. The price is so ridiculously low that the man real- izes the owner is unaware of the value of the trees as lumber. He ponders whether it is immoral to buy the land at such a price. He decides it is not and buys it.
16. A young woman has a serious kidney disease. She undergoes expensive care while awaiting the availability of a donor’s kidney. One day she receives word that a donor has been found. She looks forward happily to the transplant oper- ation. Then she finds out that the donor is an institutionalized person with a mental disability who is unable to understand the nature of the operation and the remote possible danger to him should his other kidney ever become dam- aged. The surgeon will be removing the organ without his permission. The young woman accepts the kidney anyway.
17. Knowing that after negotiations with management are completed they will get less than they ask for in wages and fringe benefits, some labor unions begin negotiations by demanding more than what is reasonable.
18. Allegedly, the U.S. Army has researched mechanical ways to control human behavior. For example, they conducted experiments with devices that used “flicker- ing light of varying intensity” to render the brain incapable of controlling the body and with devices that emit inaudible sound to confuse the mind and cause pain. (An army spokesman stated that such devices might be useful in controlling crowds.)6
19. A newspaper carrier begins his job with enthusiasm. His supervisor explains that once or twice a week, advertising inserts will be delivered with the papers and must be placed inside them. The job of insertion is a time-consuming chore, the supervisor explains, and paper carriers are easily tempted to discard the inserts. However, the supervisor warns, discarding them is grounds for dismissal, because the advertisers pay for them and have a right to expect them to reach the customers. Not only is each newspaper carrier expected to handle his or her own inserts properly, but the carrier is also expected to report any other paper carrier who does not do so. Two weeks later, the boy notices that all the other delivery people in his town regularly throw the inserts in a trash barrel. He reports them to his supervisor.
20. Abusinesswomanrealizesthatwiththelocalcollegeenrollmentburgeoning, an investment in a trailer court will be profitable. It happens, too, that a perfect site is available. The one complication is that the owner of the land, who lives across the highway, would not sell it if he knew it would be put to such use. The businesswoman therefore pays a young married couple to buy it for her. They approach the owner, explain that they want the land to build a home on, and even show him fake building plans. After he sells the land to them, they turn it over to the businesswoman.
21. Residents of a poor neighborhood are plagued with a drug problem. Five pushers operate openly on their streets and brazenly try to entice neighborhood children to take free samples. A committee of residents has approached the police and begged them to arrest the pushers, but they have done nothing. There is rea- son to believe some of the police are sharing in the proceeds of the drug trade. The residents decide that their only hope for a safe and decent neighborhood for their children is to take the law into their own hands. Accordingly, one calm summer night they unceremoniously execute the five pushers.
22. A nurse in a nursing home dispenses medication to elderly patients. The home is understaffed and, though the existing staff is efficient, there is such a demand on their time that they have difficulty doing a quality job. The nursing supervisor frequently orders the nurse to give patients unprescribed tranquilizers to keep them quiet and docile. This allows the staff to attend to critical needs.
23. A large grocery chain orders its personnel department to screen out all gro- cery clerk applicants who have a prison record, a history of alcohol/drug abuse or mental illness, or a problem with obesity.
noTes
1. Errol E. Harris, “Respect for Persons,” in Ethics and Society: Original Essays on Contemporary Moral Problems, edited by Henry David Aiken (New York: Anchor, 1966), 111–33.
2. Geoffrey Edsall, “A Positive Approach to the Problem of Human Experimentation,” Daedalus, Spring 1969, pp. 470–71.
3. https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/20/the-fallacy-of -redistribution-n829911, accessed April 14, 2018.
4. Yahlin Chang, “Was It Virtually Good for You?” Newsweek, January 1, 2000, p. 71.
5. “Selling to School Kids,” Consumer Reports, May 1995, pp. 327–33.
6. Jack Anderson, “Army Scientists Move Closer to Orwell’s 1984,” Oneonta
Star, August 5, 1972, p. 5.