Transcript Human action

Engineering Character
“The real cycle you’re working on is
a cycle called yourself” ZAMM
“A man not at peace with himself will
not be at peace with others.”
“Assembly of Japanese bicycle takes
great peace of mind” ZAMM
“Whatever happened to peace on
earth?” Willie Nelson
“On doing the right thing”
“Be a role model and expect
role models”
“If you tell the truth you will not have to
remember what you said”
“Character is destiny”
“All good teachers of ethics come
to remind more than to instruct”
Roadmap to this sequence of classes:
1. Why, examples of bad ethical behavior
2. Truth and -Isms
3. On going astray
4. Definition of ethics and morals
5. Moral conscience
6. Aristotle’s ethics & happiness
7. Virtue
8. Human actions
9. On ignorance
10. Morality of human actions (object, intention, circumstances)
11. situation ethics, utilitarianism, consequentialism, proportionalism
12. Principles for evaluating human actions
13. Wrap-up & NSPE quiz
14. Gilbane gold video
15. Dilbert ethics game
16. Two Ethics essays
Virtue Ethics
The recognition that our
actions are not isolated
decisions that we make,
but arise from our character.
I hardly had to pad my resume at all
to land that job as ethics officer.
Virtues are good habits of
character. Out of these good
habits we tend to do morally
right actions and become
better people overall since
virtue alone makes us a
moral person.
Human Actions
Human actions are voluntary, and we are
responsible for them. All human actions are
of moral significance; good, bad, neutral.
Responsibility for our actions requires that
we knowingly and freely perform them. And
such actions include negligence regarding
something we should have done or known.
Imputability means to assign authorship to a
person who has done a particular action.
Imputability and responsibility for our actions
can be diminished or eliminated by
ignorance, inadvertance, compulsion,
duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments,
and other psychological problems.
Invincible ignorance – ignorance that is not
the fault of the ignorant person
Some definitions regarding the structure of human actions
Final cause – the why, the goal, or the aim of an action
Efficient cause – the thing which causes something to be
Human action – an action involving the intellect (mind) and the will; a
voluntary action of moral significance (i.e. good, neutral, or bad)
Formation of Human action
Order of Intention – that portion of the human action in which one thinks
about and chooses the end and the means to the end, plotting and
premeditation
Order of Execution – that portion of the human action in which one carries out the
means to the end, the act
All human actions are of moral significance, that is good, neutral, or bad
Understanding these
concepts will enable us to
understand when, how, and
why we are not responsible
for the actions that we
perform and how we are to
evaluate the goodness or
badness of human actions.
Possible impediments to the human will
Elicited acts of the will – in the order of intention by which one chooses the
end and the means to the end of one’s human action
Commanded acts of the will – in which the will moves other parts or powers
of the person, example walking, writing, speaking. These are always
visible and can even be made involuntary by compulsion through
external force or restraint
An Example:
On his way to taking a biotransport test Felix had decided to
sit next to Lucy (an A+ student) in order to cheat. But when he
arrived at the classroom he learned that Lucy was sick and
unable to take the test at that time. Thus Felix ended up taking
the test without cheating. Is Felix responsible for doing
anything wrong?
Note that Felix had already decided to cheat
before he arrived at the classroom. That decision
was an elicited act of the will. Elicited acts of the
will, which take place in the order of intention, are
always invisible actions known only to the person
willing to perform the act.
As a matter of fact most human actions take place
in the order of intention. This means that the
greater portion of the moral life is in fact
invisible !
Because elicited acts of the will proceed directly
from our wills, we are always responsible for
them. Our elicited acts of the will are the
expression of who we are most deeply.
Thus, even though he did not actually cheat on
his test, Felix is responsible for having already
decided to cheat and he may actually cheat at
another time.
Possible impediments to the intellect or the mind
Invincible ignorance – ignorance that is not the fault of the ignorant person
Other forms of ignorance include:
Occurring with something else
Concomitant ignorance – by which one does not know what one is actually doing
or that what one is actually doing is wrong, yet enjoys what one did or
enjoys the fact that what one did is wrong
An example:
Suppose you and I are neighbors who lived next door to each other. However, it is
also the case that I despise you! I have even considered ways of harming you. One
day, you decided to go hunting. I did not know this; nor did you know that I also
decided to go hunting, even in the same place. As I go about my hunting, I notice
some movement behind a bush. I aim my rifle and shoot. I run to lay claim to my
prey and discover that I killed you!
When I discovered that I killed you, my reaction was: “Yes!” An elicited act of my
will enjoyed what I initially unknowingly did, this was not repugnant to my will. This
is concomitant ignorance and makes my act of shooting you an involuntary act.
I am not responsible for the commanded act of shooting you, but I am responsible
for the elicited act of enjoying the fact that I did so.
Suppose that rather than despising you I love you dearly. It remains true that
I unknowingly shot you. However, when I discover that I did so, I am repulsed
by what I actually did. My elicited act of the will is an act of repugnance and
remorse. In this case we have what is called antecedent ignorance. This
form of ignorance is the only kind of ignorance that renders my action
absolutely involuntary and, therefore, an action for which I am not at all
responsible.
Antecedent ignorance – involuntary ignorance according to which one does not
know what one is actually doing or that what one is actually doing is
wrong. Antecedent ignorance is the only kind of ignorance that renders
a human action absolutely involuntary.
Preceding, going
before
There is also another kind of
ignorance:
Consequent ignorance – the generic
name of two kinds of ignorance that
are freely chosen and that leaves one
responsible for the actions consequent
(a result of) to the ignorance
1. Affected ignorance – an ignorance
voluntarily chosen so as to have
an excuse for one’s actions
(commission or omission)
2. Ignorance of evil choice – a form of
consequent ignorance by which one
neglects to learn what one should
have known
The morality of human actions is either good, bad, or neutral. Its goodness or
badness arises from consideration of the following three dimensions or sources
of a particular human act, all of which must be good:
1. the object – the whatness of an act, that is What am I doing ? May need
more info than what is available by just being a witness to the
act; for example the act of killing could be murder or an act
of self-defense, which would be morally justifiable. However,
there are some acts whose object is just plain wrong for example
lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder
Neither a good intention, a good set of circumstances, nor a good consequence,
can make a bad what or bad object good. The end does not justify the
means. So a bad “what am I doing?” is bad no matter what.
[example, robbing someone (the object) to feed the hungry (intention)
but without use of deadly force (circumstances)]
If the object of the human action is good, then must consider the intention and
the circumstances of the human action.
2. the intention – is Why am I doing this act ? A bad intention is sufficient
to make a human act bad, even if the object of the act is good. (an
example would be bragging (intention) about giving money to the
poor (object)
A good intention cannot make a bad human action good, but a bad intention
can make an otherwise good human action bad (previous 2 examples)
A bad intention is sufficient to make a human action bad, even if the object of
the action is good.
3. the circumstances – the how, when, and where of a human action. The
circumstances can make a good action bad, but cannot make a bad
action good. (example, being drunk is not an excuse for bad
behavior.)
We also must consider the consequences of our human actions:
the consequence – is the What if I do it ? We are responsible for the
foreseen consequences of our actions. If we can foresee that something
bad will result from an action, then we should not do it.
foreseen –in fact foreseen by the person doing the act
foreseeable – consequences of an action should be foreseen by the
person doing the act
Issues regarding human actions
In order for a human action to be good it must be good in all of its dimensions
or sources, that is in its object, intention, circumstances and its foreseen
consequences. 4 competing ways of approaching ethics are:
1. Situation ethics – as long as you have
a good intention you may do anything
to fulfill it. For example, lying in order
not to hurt someone’s feelings.
Cheating to get a good grade.
This approach excludes the object or
the whatness of the human action.
Accommodates human actions to the
circumstances and rejects any
consideration of foreseen
consequences. Foreseeable
consequences are left as the
unforeseen. Danger is making ethics fit
the situation such that in the end
anything can be justified.
2. Utilitarianism – the ethical doctrine that
virtue is based on what is useful and that
conduct should be directed toward
promoting the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people. Seeking the
greatest good for the greatest
number of people.
Basically the end justifies the means leaving
the object or the whatness of the human
action out of consideration. Totally
preoccupied with pragmatic goals or
consequences and usually unconcerned
with the circumstances of a human action.
Example, should we be bothered with old
people?
3. Consequentialism – concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of
people, leaves the object and circumstances out of consideration,
similar to utilitarianism
4. Proportionalism – based on the denial that there is any such thing as an
intrinsically evil human action, good always outweighs the bad in
a proportionate sense.
Principles for evaluating the
goodness or badness of
human actions
1. Principle of double effect
2. Principle of cooperation
3. Principle of totality
principle of double effect (good and bad consequence of a
human action) assists in determining whether one’s human action is
justifiable or not.
Principle of double effect has five criteria that must be satisfied:
1. The act is justifiable only if there is no alternative to the action in
question, can only be used in situations of real dilemmas
2. The action in question must be good in its object or at least neutral
3. The bad consequences must not be intended. Here one is considering
the intentions of the action. The person in the moral dilemma would
prefer that there was no risk of a bad result at all, but can do nothing
about the fact that there is such a risk.
4. The good consequence of the action in question must not be the effect
of a bad consequence, in other words the end cannot justify the means.
Here one is considering the circumstances of the action.
5. The good consequence must be proportionate to the bad consequence.
For example the bad consequence could not be someone else’s death.
Here one is considering the moral proportion between the good and
bad consequences of the action.
As an example of the application of the principle of double effect is the case
in which a physician considers the possibility of relieving a terminally ill patient’s
pain. In order to do so she would have to administer painkillers that could harm
the patient or even shorten the patient’s life. Hence there is a moral dilemma
of relieving pain (good object) or causing harm (bad object). In light of the Principle
of Double effect the physician:
1. Recognizes there is no alternative for relieving the patient’s pain other than
by giving drugs. (+)
2. Administering the drugs to relieve pain is a good object and at least a neutral
action. She would prefer that there was no risk to these drugs, risk is known. (+)
3. She does not intend the risk and does not want the risk to become a reality. So
the bad consequence if any is not intended. (+)
4. By prescribing the painkillers the physician anticipates and intends a good
consequence of relieving her patient’s pain and this good effect is not
caused by the possible harmful effects of the painkiller. (+)
5. The doctor discerns with prudence that there is a proportion between the
good consequence of giving the painkiller which will relieve the
patient’s pain and the bad consequences of any side effects. (+)
Suppose you need a kidney transplant or you will die. You have been on a
transplant donor list for quite some time with no luck. Without a transplant
you will die very soon. An international donor agency says they have a match
for you but the cost for the donor’s kidney is $100,000. In light of the Principle
of Double effect are you morally justified to buy this person’s kidney?
1. Recognizes there is no alternative for the patient other than to buy the
kidney. Without the kidney the person dies so there is no alternative. (+)
2. Transplant of the donor kidney is a good object and at least a neutral
action. There is risk to the donor and to the recipient but these are known. (+)
3. Risk is inherent in any surgery so the bad consequences if any are not
intended. (+)
4. By transplanting the kidney from the donor there is intended a good
consequence of saving a life and this good effect is not
caused by purposefully harming the donor. (+)
5. The donor and recipient discerns with prudence that there is a proportion
between the good consequence of donating a kidney which will save the
patient’s life and making some money for the donor and these both
significantly outweigh the bad consequences or the risks of surgery. (+)
Suppose you need a kidney transplant or you will die. You have been on a
transplant donor list for quite some time with no luck. Without a transplant
you will die very soon. An international donor agency says they have a match
for you but the cost for the donor’s kidney is $100,000. But you also learn
that this kidney results from someone’s execution. In light of the Principle
of Double effect are you morally justified to buy this person’s kidney?
1. Recognizes there is no alternative for the patient other than to have a
transplant. Without the kidney the person dies but other alternatives may
yet be possible. (-)
2. Transplant of the donor kidney to save a life is a good object and at least a neutral
action. (+)
3. Risk is inherent in any surgery so the bad consequences for the recipient
if any are not intended. There is a problem since a 3rd party stands to profit and
the donor is killed in order to provide the kidney. (-)
4. By transplanting the kidney from the donor there is intended a good
consequence of saving a life but this good effect is caused by purposefully
causing the death of the donor. (-)
5. In this case the end does not justify the means, although the recipient’s life may be
saved this is due to the killing of another human being. The good consequences
do not justify the bad consequences. (-)
Kill in Self - Defense
1. The act is justifiable only if there is
no alternative but to save one’s own
life (+)
2. The action in question is good in its
object since it saves the victim’s
life . (+)
3. The bad consequence of killing the
attacker is not intended. (+)
4. Although killing in self defense
proceeds from the good intention of
saving one’s own life this act can
be considered immoral if it is out of
proportion to the end, that is uses
more than necessary violence (+)
Principle of Cooperation – the participation of more than one
person in the same immoral or bad human action
Such an associate may be equally guilty with the wrongdoer, or less guilty, or
not guilty at all.
This comes in a variety of flavors:
1. Formal cooperation – exists whenever one takes part in an immoral action
of another while at the same time adopting the evil intention of the
associate (being an accomplice in the bank at a robbery)
2. Immediate material cooperation – when one person actually performs an
immoral action in cooperation with another person. This usually
becomes formal cooperation. ( knowingly driving the get away car
at a bank robbery)
3. Mediate material cooperation – concurrence in the immoral action of
another but without actually doing the action with the other or
concurring in the evil intention of the other, the other person is using
the good or indifferent action of the cooperator as an occasion of,
or assistance to the immoral action (knowingly lending your car to
someone who may be a bank robber)
Principle of Cooperation (continued)
4. Proximate cooperation – an action or set of actions that participate in
and/or assist more immediately the immoral action of another, a
closeness or intimacy to the bad action (driving the getaway car)
5. Remote cooperation – an action or set of actions that participate in and/or
assist less immediately and from a distance the immoral or bad
action of another (lending your car for a bank robbery)
6. Necessary cooperation – cooperation in the bad action of another without
which the other would not be able to carry out the bad action
7. Unnecessary cooperation – cooperation in the immoral action of another
without which the other would still be able to carry out the immoral
action.
Mediate-remote-material cooperation
usually unnecessary cooperation and morally
permissible when with the given
circumstances one is not able to change the
situation. If the person supports the cause
then their cooperation is formal cooperation.
(a pro-life pharmacist handing out a morning
after pill)
Mediate-proximate-material cooperation in
a serious bad action is permitted only to
escape another proportionately serious bad
consequence. In cases of such cooperation
that is also necessary and in which there is
the bad consequence of harm done to a third
party, cooperation is morally permissible only
if one is faced with suffering harm that is
proportionate to the harm done to the third
party. (bank teller handing over the money to
the robber who has a gun in order to prevent
injury to themselves or others)
Principle of Totality
According to which all the parts of the
human body are meant to exist and
function for the good of the whole
body, and are thus naturally
subordinated to the good of the whole
body.
When a body part fails it is morally
acceptable to have it removed, for
example an inflamed appendix. Hence
we are not morally justified in
destroying or mutilating or selling (?)
our parts or demanding the parts of
someone else’s body.
Challenges the idea That I have the
right to do whatever I want with my
own body.
Making an Ethical Decision
• Easy when the facts are clear and the choices
are well defined
• Much more difficult when the situation is clouded
by ambiguity, incomplete information, multiple
viewpoints, conflicting objectives
• Ethical judgments depend on good decision
making processes, experience, intelligence, and
INTEGRITY
• Character developed by virtues is destiny
Factors that Mold Ethics in the
Workplace
• Development of the professional as a
moral person through the virtues
• The influence of the work environment on
the professional, principles displayed by
managers and other role models, be a role
model and expect role models
• Standards developed by professional
organizations
Qualities Needed
• The ability and prudence to recognize
ethical issues and to think through the
various consequences of alternative
solutions
• Need the self-confidence to seek out
different points of view and decide the best
course of action given the circumstances
• Need the strength or fortitude to make
decisions in the realm of not having all the
answers
NSPE Code of Ethics – Written
Standards
• Help the engineer chart a path of ethical
conduct
• Laws related to professional registration
as an engineer
• NSPE Code of Ethics are posted on the
class blog
• Read the Code and then take the test and
give it back to me.