ethics philosophy assignment
ETHICS THEORIES AND APPLICATIONS
Below are the definitions of a “morally/ethically right action” (hence, the proposed meanings of “moral/ethical” and respective criteria) for each of MOST of the world's major ethics theories. Each definition is then applied to the same specific moral dilemma (see paragraph right below) in order to exemplify the application of the respective theory (of the respective definition).
The dilemma: I am car dealer, and a couple with limited financial resources approaches me to buy a used Toyota they particularly like. I know that car has been in an accident but it has been repaired by employees of a the body-shop that I work with regularly, and who are highly reliable (otherwise, why work with them); thus, I know the car is in working condition (although no one can guarantee that nothing could go wrong with a car that has been involved in an accident). Am I morally/ethically required to disclose the accident to the potential buyers? In other words, should I (ought I, must I) disclose the accident? In yet other words, is it morally ethically) right or morally (ethically) wrong to disclose the accident?
1. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics; ethics of excellence of individual character/behavior
THEORY:
AIM (GOAL) of ethical behavior: a complete life well-lived (eudaimonia)
Definition: An action is morally right if it is performed by (it is the expression of) a virtuous/excellent character. The character is the aggregate of one’s virtues (forms of excellence): knowledge, reasoning power, generosity, courage, friendliness, truthfulness, trustworthiness, self-esteem, fairness, temperance. Each of these virtues (forms of excellence) are traits of one’s character, revealed interactions when choosing a middle ground between extremes, based on specific circumstances and one’s own abilities.
Corollary: not every act of giving is a reflection of generosity, hence not necessarily a morally right action. Generosity means giving not more than the situation requires, not less than one can afford, and doing so competently based on a rational calculation not based on a natural inclinations, an emotional outburst or as a result of one’s upbringing. Giving more than one can afford is wastefulness not generosity; giving less than one can afford is stinginess; giving more than the situation requires - although I can afford it - is wastefulness; etc. Telling the whole truth is not always a form of excellence (it is not honesty proper), since sometimes there is truth that can overwhelm an audience an impede solving the problem rather than enable a solution. There is truth that can also muddy the water or create a crisis. Truthfulness (honesty) means sharing enough correct information that solve a problem without boring, embarrassing or confusing the audience with unnecessary sharing of truth – no matter how true that may be. This is the case with every virtue/form of excellence, such as too much facing of danger is rashness not courage, too little is cowardice; only facing danger as one can reasonably remedy a situation without risking their well-being is considered courage, hence a virtue, hence a morally right action, hence something we ought to (should) do. The key in correctly applying Aristotelian ethics (and living with excellence) is competence: (a) understanding what the situation is, (b) what is requires in order to solve it IF anything (sometimes we “solve” non-problems because we misjudge the situation), and (c) having what it takes to solve it – since having excuses instead of solutions makes us forgivable NOT admirable to ourselves and to others.
APPLICATION:
Question: What kind/sort for person am I? What traits of my character would be revealed in this situation (given my decision)?
Answer: Honesty (truthfulness) applies; generosity does; trustworthiness does; friendliness does not (customers are not friends, or we muddy the waters); courage does not (unless we want to stretch the situation); etc.
Thus, the moment I start to speak to them, I must show myself in my true character: an honest, trustworthy and generous individual. Of course, competence is ALWAYS required to accomplish any of the above.
Honesty: telling them everything I know about the car in every detail I know is NOT honesty, it is a vice (too much). The couple is no expert in automobiles, and the consequences of particular accidents. So, telling them all I know is only to get the worried unnecessarily - I am better qualified to assess the dangers of driving a particular car that has been in a particular accident, and that underwent particular repairs. Telling them nothing is also a vice. Thus, I must disclose that the car has undergone some repairs since, like many other cars, collisions are, sadly, part of road-reality. I disclose that competent auto-shops with which the dealership has had a successful long-term business relation has assured me that the car is in as good a condition as any other car its make and age.
Trustworthiness: I do not offer to buy back the car or replace it just in case something goes wrong, just to earn their trust. Neither do I tell them that I would sell that car to my mom if she needed a car, that’s how confident I am that the car will not create any problems. That would be a vice - incredibly foolish, since many things I do not anticipate could go wrong and them I am liable; moreover, since someone even moderately familiar with cars and engines can damage it intentionally (after driving it conveniently for a while), thus return it to my dealership for a full refund, replacement or upgrade - possibly with the threat of a lawsuit. Thus, I tell have driven the car myself (which is true), I have personally spoken with the auto-shop (which is true), I offer to drive them, allow them to drive it themselves, and then show them similar cars in their budget - as an alternative. Moreover, I suggest they bring a mechanic of their choice with whom I will spend additional time explaining more technical details regarding the specific accident, and the specific repairs done. I explain to them that it is well worth it since the car fits their budget and their needs, it is an otherwise a very reliable car, and they must be confident I am not selling them a road hazard but an optimal vehicle given their possibilities and demands.
Generosity: I do not offer to give them a big discount to save them money since the car has had some problems - that would be a vice, an extreme. Any smart customer would see that as a red flag. I choose to offer them some discount which is in line with the dealership’s policy towards all customers. I do not try to make them feel "special", because they are not, and it would be dishonest of me to behave that way. Moreover, sane customers would not believe me one bit, and no dealership (hence my job) cannot survive with fools as customers. Neither do offer to cut my commission in half to make sure they have a car - that would be also a vice, I need money to survive.
Thus, since I am an honest, trustworthy and generous person I choose to behave that way in this an any situation NOT to make a sale, NOT to make the customers happy, NOT to keep my job. I behave that way because that is WHO I AM. If indeed I correctly choose how much to disclose without getting the couple unnecessarily paranoid about the car (truthfulness), how far to endorse the condition of the car without having to swear on my kids’ life that the car is in excellent condition (trustworthiness) but enough to make them comfortable that nothing dramatic should be expected of the car (which is what I truly believe and I have gathered sufficient relevant information to believe that, a.k.a. competence not wishful thinking), and if I work with their budget without being wasteful (generosity) - chances are I will make a sale and a commission, I will build a long term relation with those customers, maybe they’ll be recommending me to others, etc. BUT, the reason I choose to behave honestly, generously and trust-worthily is NOT because of the lure of the commission, future sales, or glory; I choose to behave that way because that is what I am: an honest, generous, trustworthy person who acts that way in the name of honesty, generosity and trustworthiness when circumstances offer me the opportunity to display/test/sharpen my virtues of honesty, generosity and trustworthiness. The RESULT of my actions is that possibly there will be all sorts of immediate and long term monetary and professional benefits, but that is the bonus for my virtuous actions, NOT the motivation for those actions. If they were the motivations, those would NOT be virtuous actions, they would be self-interested actions, consistent with Egoism not Aristotelian Ethics.
2. Kant's Deontological Ethics: the ethics of duty towards rationality
Note: to be irrational is to attempt to reason on a logical contradiction (which is an impossibility, an absurdity, since contradictions render all “reasoning” meaningless noises/symbols); absurdities cannot be rationally thought (while they can irrationally or non-rationally be thought), let alone enacted (implemented) since physical reality makes no room for contradictions (absurdities, impossibilities); thus, in respect for being a member of a rational species, at the minimum, a human should not (even accidentally) allow a contradiction in their reasoning process
THEORY
AIM (GOAL) of ethical behavior: to preserve the mark of humanity: its rationality
Definition (the Categorical Imperative): An action is morally right (or at least morally permissible) iff a rational human CAN (rationally) will to universalize it without logical contradiction.
Notes:
1. one can emotionally or accidentally or stubbornly will to universalize even a self-contradictory action, but no rational human can rationally will to universalize a self-contradictory action (an absurd/impossible action)
2 what a rational human “wills” is what rationality dictates them
3 the “good will” is the will that can be universalized without contradiction; that is, the will that acts under the imperative of rationality (whose results, by the way, will happen to lead to “good” results, but it is never the results that should motivate the will to act)
APPLICATION
Question: Can “not-disclosing-the-truth-about-a-car-condition” be universalized without contradiction?
If yes, the action is at least morally permissible.
If no, the action is morally impermissible (morally/ethically wrong) since it is rationally impermissible (as self-contradictory/irrational).
Attempt to universalize “not-disclosing-the-truth-about-a-car-condition”: suppose that every car dealer would choose to not disclose some truth about some car condition, each possibly for different reasons, at different times; (a) if that car condition is irrelevant to the performance of the car on the road then it should not be a dilemma in the first place; (b) however, if it is relevant, then that truth (whether disclosed or not) will affect the performance; a non-performing car leads its owner to investigate the cause of it; good investigation leads to discovery of the cause of the non-performance; knowing that that flaw existed at the time of the car-buying, renders the car seller either incompetent or deceitful; no one can rationally will to buy cars from incompetent or deceitful sellers; thus, no one can rationally trust a car seller any longer (suspicion becomes universal since any exchange is based on mutual trust, or it cannot sustain itself); hence, customers will stop buying what they perceive (correctly or incorrectly) as potentially defective cars (since they cannot trust sellers they will be suspicious of everything they hear and don't hear), or sellers will have to stop hiding car conditions they are aware of. Thus, since universalizing “not-disclosing-the-truth-about-a-car-condition” logically leads to “disclosing-the-truth-about-a-car-condition”, the attempt to universalize the former is a logical impossibility.
Thus, it is morally impermissible (wrong) to not disclose a car's condition (since it is rationally impermissible to think logical contradictions, and, practically speaking, absurd to enact absurdities). Thus, the opposite of non-disclosure must be morally right: it is morally right to disclose any relevant car condition that a seller is aware of.
In practice: non-disclosure will, sooner or later, lead to highly suspicious buyers who will scrutinize their sellers beyond what's reasonable, and make their life as a seller really miserable to the point in which it will not be worthwhile to hide a known problem. Thus, non-disclosure will stop anyway, but a much heavier price: when buyers and sellers have lost confidence in each other, are suspicious of every information, and the process of selling cars has become a nightmare for both the buyers and the sellers. Kant's preventive recipe: DISCLOSE known car conditions, and trust between buyers and sellers will be universal, and car buying/selling will continue unimpeded. Do so rationally, BEFORE the whole process has become unbearable and must be reset; do so in the name of being a member of a rational species who understands the logical (and, eventually, practical) outcome of non-disclosure.
5 3. Utilitarian Ethics
AIM (GOAL) of ethical behavior: make life pleasant, desirable for the greatest number; at the minimum, reduce the suffering
THEORY
Definition: An action is morally right iff that action maximizes the net (or aggregate) amount of happiness pleasure) minus suffering(misery) for all those affected, directly or indirectly, by that action, given all other reasonable alternatives of action (other choices).
Notes:
1 Doing “more good than bad” is not enough; must do the most
2 Suffering and pleasure can be physical, emotional, intellectual, etc.
3 The same type of pain (broken leg, for example) is assessed equally in all sentient beings with legs; similarly for types of pleasure; different types of pain can reasonably be assessed in a hierarchy, where some pains are less significant than others, such as the pain of a broken finger versus the pain of a broken back, or a broken neck, or of death of a loved one, etc; similarly for types of pleasures
4 all unnecessary suffering must be eliminated
5 doing “nothing” is still a choice, hence an action, so “quietism” is a either being nothing as a being, or is equally responsible for the consequences as if one “took action”
Variation on Utilitarian ethics: Preference/Interest Utilitarian (Peter Singer)
Instead of assessing consequences in terms of pain (suffering) and pleasure (happiness) caused (which might be difficult to assess, or too little too late), we must understand the basic preferences or interests of those affected by our decisions/actions (BASIC ones needed for survival and civilized living, not extravagant ones); thus, the morally right action is the one that promotes the greatest number of preferences/interests of all those affected, directly or indirectly.
APPLICATION (of Preference/Interest Utilitarian):
Question: Who is affected by the selling of a car” What are their basic preferences/interests?
*The seller: has an interest to keep their income hence their job hence to sell, now and later
*The dealership employees: have an interest to not have their reputation (hence their jobs and resulting lifestyles) tarnished by misbehavior of one of them
*The car maker employees: have an interest to not have the car reputation (hence their jobs and resulting lifestyles) tarnished by non-disclosure of an event unique to a car not emblematic of the car make
*The buyer: has an interest to have a car that is not a luxury (in the proposed dilemma) but a reasonably economical mode of reliable transportation; hence, has an interest to keep expenses to a minimum necessary in order to get to destination safely
*The passengers in the car: have an interest to get to destination safely
*The road participants (people in other cars, people on the streets): have an interest to not be at risk from unsafe cars on the road.
Thus, not disclosing the car condition can violate the interests/preference of all the above because if anything goes wrong with what was believed to be a safe repair, not only will repair expenses violate the buyers' interest, but also the seller's (I can end up with a lawsuit, might lose business since future buyers will be warned of deceitful practices); the dealership's reputation can suffer (other employees' interests negatively affected); etc. In fact, the short-term (short-sighted) interest of the seller could be met by non-disclosure (quick sale, and then “come-what-may”)but no one else' interest would; moreover, the short term interest of the seller might negatively affect the long term interest of the seller later on (for reasons discussed above, and more).
Therefore, it is morally right to disclose the car condition but must do so competently, explaining what can be understood without creating panic (foolishly affecting the interest of the seller to sell a car), and, if necessary, offering other car deals in the buyers price range while meeting the buyers needs for transportation – which meets my interest to sell, buyer's interest to buy, the interest of the other employees of the dealership to not have the dealership's reputation (hence, derivatively, their own) tarnished by my misconduct or incompetence, the other road participant' interest to be safe on the road from the car I am selling, etc.