PHL

How to evaluate a case with the ethical theories? (Part I)

Being knowledgeable of a theory is not the same as being skillful in evaluating a case with that theory. Here are some general suggestions for you.

1. Understanding the Case

1.1 Gather as many facts about the case as possible.

1.2 Make reasonable inference from those facts that you know.

1.3 Do not make hasty judgment about things that don't have a lot of factual support.

1.3.1 For example, sometimes it is hard to determine the real motive of someone performing an action. If there is not enough information, it's perfectly fine to say "that person's motive probably is…. If that is the case, according to theory X, the action is morally justified."

1.4 You may have strong views on politics or religion or whatever. Do not mix up facts with judgments.

1.5 After evaluating the case with the ethical theories, you may still have room for creative solutions. Motto: Try to stay in the kitchen with the heat!

1.5.1 For example, a certain practice is now evaluated as morally unjustified. Instead of merely issuing an injunction that people ought not to follow that practice, can you suggest a different, and ethical, practice to help the business?

2. Utilitarianism

2.1 The object of evaluation is an action or a decision (I'll just say action hereafter). Make sure you are always clear about what action you are discussing. Make sure you would not shift the focus to another action in the process of your evaluation.

2.2 Your final evaluation may have three possible results: (a) The action is morally right. (b) The action is not morally right. (c) There is not enough information to tell whether the action is morally right.

2.3 Here is the most important question: Is the action endorsed by the greatest happiness principle, or, does it increase overall happiness? Make sure you discuss the following:

(a) Whose happiness is increased? By how much?

(b) Whose happiness is decreased? By how much?

(c) If applicable, take into consideration different levels of happiness.

(d) If applicable, take into consideration the difference between money and happiness.

2.4 The following may or may not be relevant in a certain case.

2.4.1 Does act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism give the same result? If not, explain. Altruism, virtues, justice usually come in here.

2.4.2 Do the happiness studies shed any light here? If so, explain.

2.4.3 Does the comparison between socialism and capitalism shed any light here? If so, explain.

3. Deontology

3.1 The object of evaluation is a rule of actions. Make sure you are always clear about what rule of actions you are discussing. Make sure you would not shift the focus to another rule of actions in the process of your evaluation. (But also see 3.5 below.)

3.2 There are two important but independent questions to discuss. The first one is about motive and moral worth. Determine whether the person is merely conforming to a moral law or respecting a moral law. Only in the latter case there is moral worth.

3.3 The second question is whether that "moral law" (or rule of actions) is really a moral law that a rational person would legislate for himself/herself. In other words, whether the imperative in that "moral law" is categorical imperative. To determine that, you may

3.3.1 check it with the universalization test, or

3.3.2 check it with the second formula about respecting people not as a mere means but as an end.

3.4 If you do not address both of the above two questions, you haven't completed your evaluation. There are several possible results:

3.4.1 The rule of actions is morally right/permissible and the person is respecting that.

3.4.2 The rule of actions is morally right/permissible but unfortunately the person is just conforming to it.

3.4.3 The rule of actions is morally wrong.

3.5 In the same case sometimes there are more than one rule of actions (or moral duty) involved. Perhaps the person is respecting one duty but violating another one. Identify all the relevant rules of actions and go through 3.2-3.4 for each of them.

3.6 Ideas like autonomy, freedom, good will, moral worth and self-legislation should be part of the above big picture, which may or may not need elaboration, instead of independent points.

4. Virtue Ethics

4.1 Unless utilitarianism and deontology, the object of evaluation is not an action, nor a rule of actions. It is the virtues/vices of a person or a social institution. Note that sometimes it may not be easy to describe it in a sentence or two.

4.2 What personal/corporate moral virtues or vices can be identified in the case? Explain how they assist or impede the pursuit of a good life in the case. (Please do not get confused and tell me that, e.g., those virtues IN GENERAL help people pursue a good life.)

4.3 Regarding the personal/corporate virtues that you identified, can the concept of a virtue being a golden means between two undesirable extremes apply in this case? Elaborate.

4.4 To live a virtuous life, one needs practical wisdom. Explain how practical wisdom is needed in this case to ensure the consequences are what the virtues aim to promote.

4.5 What institutions and its virtues may be relevant in this case? If there are any, explain.

4.6 Are the virtues of the free market, as discussed by Russell, relevant in this case? Does the free market mechanism assist or impede people's pursuit of a good life in this case? If so, explain.

4.7 We learned that people usually do not have consistency in their personal traits. For the virtues in the case, be creative and devise a policy or corporate culture such that the person/company in question, or other people/companies, may behave virtuously more consistently.

4.8 If there are any nudging tactics in the case, discuss whether you approve of them or not. Are there any worries of paternalism in those nudging tactics?