Ethical Theories

Ethical Theories provide foundational principles that explain why certain actions are
considered right or wrong (e.g., Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Justice Ethics).

1. Utilitarianism
Principle:
An action is morally right if it results in the greatest good (happiness or pleasure) for the
greatest number of people.
Key Thinkers:
 Jeremy Bentham
 John Stuart Mill
Focus: Consequences of actions.
Example:
A hospital has one liver donor and five patients needing different organs. The doctor
considers sacrificing one healthy person to save five lives.
 Utilitarian view: Saving five lives creates more overall happiness, so it might be
justified—even if it feels morally troubling.
Strengths:
 Prioritizes overall well-being.
 Practical in policy-making and public decisions.
Criticism:
 Can justify harmful acts if they benefit the majority.
 Disregards individual rights.

2. Deontology
Principle:
Morality is about following duties or rules, regardless of the outcomes.
Key Thinker:
 Immanuel Kant
Focus: Intentions and duties behind actions.
Example:
You’re hiding a friend from someone who wants to harm them. The pursuer asks you
directly, ―Are they here?‖
 Deontological view: Lying is always wrong, so you should not lie—even if telling the
truth could harm your friend.

1|Page
Strengths:
 Respects individual rights and moral integrity.
 Clear rules offer moral certainty.
Criticism:
 Too rigid—ignores context or consequences.
 Can result in moral conflicts between duties.

3. Virtue Ethics
Principle:
Morality is about becoming a virtuous person—someone who acts with moral character and
develops good habits.
Key Thinker:
 Aristotle
Focus: Character and moral development, not specific rules or outcomes.
Example:
A whistleblower exposes corporate fraud even though it costs them their job.
 Virtue ethics view: The whistleblower shows courage and integrity, acting in line
with good character.
Strengths:
 Emphasizes moral growth and intention.
 Flexible and context-sensitive.
Criticism:
 Vague on what to do in specific situations.
 Different cultures may define virtues differently.

4. Justice Ethics (Ethics of Justice)

Principle:
Moral actions are those that uphold fairness, equality, and justice, especially for the least
advantaged.
Key Thinkers:
 John Rawls
 Robert Nozick (as a critic)
Focus: Fair distribution of rights, resources, and opportunities.

2|Page
Example:
In school admissions, a university implements affirmative action to give marginalized
students better opportunities.
 Justice ethics view: This policy helps create fairness by addressing past
disadvantages.
Strengths:
 Promotes fairness, equality, and protection of rights.
 Important in social, political, and legal systems.
Criticism:
 Complex and abstract.
 Disagreements about what counts as ―just‖ or ―fair.‖

5. Rights-Based Ethics
Rights-Based Ethics holds that actions are morally right if they respect the fundamental
rights of individuals. These rights are moral entitlements that every person has simply
because they are human beings.
This theory emphasizes dignity, autonomy, and respect, and often serves as a foundation
for legal and human rights frameworks.
Core Principle
―Every individual has inherent rights that must be respected and protected.‖
Key Concepts
1. Natural Rights
 Rights we have by virtue of being human.
 Examples: right to life, liberty, and personal security.
 Associated with John Locke.
2. Legal Rights
 Rights given and protected by legal systems.
 Example: right to vote, right to a fair trial.
Key Thinkers
 John Locke – Natural rights (life, liberty, property)
 Thomas Jefferson – ―Unalienable Rights‖ in the U.S. Declaration of Independence
 Ronald Dworkin – Rights as trumps over majority rule
Strengths of Rights-Based Ethics
 Protects individual dignity and freedom.

3|Page
  Offers a moral foundation for justice, law, and equality.
 Clear and powerful in defending against oppression or harm.
Criticisms
 Conflict of rights – What if one person’s rights clash with another’s?
 Doesn’t always offer clear guidance in complex situations.
 Can become too individualistic, neglecting the common good.

Ethical decision-making models

Ethical decision-making models provide frameworks to guide individuals and organizations
in determining what is right or wrong in a particular situation. Two widely discussed models
in ethics are Consequentialism and Duty-Based Ethics.
Here's an overview of these models:
1. Consequentialism
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that emphasizes the outcomes or consequences of
actions. According to this model, the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its
consequences, specifically focusing on the greatest benefit or the least harm for the most
people.
Key Concepts:
 Utilitarianism is a prominent form of consequentialism, which asserts that the best
action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being.
 The idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is central to consequentialist
thinking.
 The theory is outcome-driven; actions are judged based on their results, not on the
inherent qualities of the action itself.
Strengths:
 Flexible: Adaptable to various situations, where the context and outcomes are the
primary consideration.
 Practical: Often used in public policy, economics, and medicine where balancing
various outcomes is crucial.
 Focus on well-being: Aims to promote overall happiness and minimize suffering.
Weaknesses:
 Moral Dilemmas: In some cases, focusing only on outcomes can justify harmful
actions if they lead to a better overall result (e.g., sacrificing one to save many).
 Unpredictability of consequences: It can be difficult to accurately predict all
consequences, especially long-term effects.

4|Page
  Individual Rights: Consequentialism can sometimes overlook the importance of
individual rights or fairness, as the end result may justify unethical means.
Example:
If a hospital has limited resources (e.g., one ventilator) and must decide between saving a
young patient or an elderly patient, a consequentialist approach would advocate for saving the
person who is likely to live longer or contribute more to society in the future.

2. Duty-Based Ethics (Deontology)

Duty-based ethics, or Deontology, focuses on the morality of actions themselves, rather than
their consequences. This ethical model asserts that there are moral duties, rules, or principles
that must be followed regardless of the outcomes. Deontologists believe that some actions are
intrinsically right or wrong, and individuals have a duty to follow these moral rules.
Key Concepts:
 Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: One of the most well-known duty-based
ethical theories. Kant proposed that we should act in ways that respect the dignity of
others and that our actions should be guided by principles that could be universally
applied.
 Moral Absolutism: There are absolute duties (e.g., do not lie, do not steal), and these
duties apply in all situations.
 Intrinsic Value: Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the
consequences.
Strengths:
 Clear guidelines: Provides clear and concrete rules for behavior, which can be
helpful in ensuring consistency in ethical decision-making.
 Respect for Rights: Emphasizes individual rights and fairness, ensuring that people
are treated with dignity and respect.
 Moral Integrity: Protects the moral integrity of individuals by focusing on what they
ought to do.
Weaknesses:
 Rigidity: Duty-based ethics can be too rigid, not allowing for exceptions or
consideration of context (e.g., telling the truth in a situation where it could lead to
harm).
 Conflicting duties: Sometimes, duties can conflict (e.g., the duty to tell the truth
versus the duty to protect someone from harm), making it challenging to make
decisions.
 Lack of flexibility: It doesn't always account for the complexity of real-world
situations where following a strict rule might not lead to the best outcomes.

5|Page
Example:
A doctor who must decide whether to tell a terminally ill patient the truth about their
prognosis may follow a duty-based approach. In this case, the duty to be honest and
transparent outweighs potential emotional harm, even if the truth leads to distress.

Comparison of Consequentialism and Duty-Based Ethics:

Aspect Consequentialism Duty-Based Ethics (Deontology)
Outcomes and consequences of Intrinsic morality of actions
Focus
actions regardless of consequences
Greatest good for the greatest Follow moral rules or duties (e.g.,
Key Principle
number (Utilitarianism) Kant’s Categorical Imperative)
Practical, flexible, focuses on Clear moral guidelines, protects
Strengths
overall well-being individual rights
Can justify harmful actions if they Can be rigid, does not always
Weaknesses
lead to better results account for context or consequences
Moral Dilemma Upholding duties like truth-telling or
Sacrificing one to save many
Example respect for rights

Moral reasoning
Moral reasoning refers to the process of determining what is right or wrong, just or unjust,
good or bad, based on ethical principles. It involves the cognitive process of evaluating
situations, actions, or decisions from a moral perspective. This often requires weighing the
consequences, motives, and rights of individuals involved, as well as considering societal
norms and values.
Moral reasoning typically involves several stages or approaches, including:
1. Consequentialist reasoning (Utilitarianism): Focusing on the outcomes of actions
to determine if they are morally right or wrong (e.g., maximizing happiness or
minimizing harm).
2. Deontological reasoning: Focusing on the adherence to rules, duties, or obligations
rather than outcomes (e.g., telling the truth is right regardless of the consequences).
3. Virtue ethics: Focusing on the character and intentions of the person performing the
action, asking whether the action reflects good moral character.

Important Skills for Ethical Reasoning

 Moral Reasonableness − the ability and willingness to be morally reasonable that
one should have while dealing such issues. Unless one is willing and improve such
ability, justice cannot be done.
 Respect for Persons − the persons involved in the issue, should be treated with
genuine concern by one. Such concern should also be there with oneself along with
being there for others.

6|Page
  Tolerance of diversity − One should have a broader perspective towards ethnic and
religious differences that the people have. Every person differs with another when
compared on grounds of moral reasoning. The acceptance of those differences is
really important.
 Moral hope − The moral conflicts can be resolved by using better communication
and having rational dialogue which is evident-based and open-ended which is
acceptable and appreciable by both the parties.
 Integrity − the moral integrity has to be maintained. Being honest and having strong
moral principles helps one to resolve an issue in an efficient manner. An individual
also needs to consider other’s professional life and personal convictions while solving
a problem.

An issue is a point of concern, controversy, or dispute that requires attention, consideration,

or resolution. It can refer to a problem, topic, or situation that needs to be addressed or
discussed. Issues can arise in various contexts, including social, political, personal, or
professional domains.

Steps to Deal with Issues:

Whenever there occurs an issue, one should possess a few skills in order to sort out the
problem. The issues that engineers face have to be dealt with patience and few moral goals
have to be kept in mind while dealing with such issues. They are as follows −
 Moral Awareness − One should be able to recognize the moral problems and issues
that occur in Engineering. The analysis on the problem is necessary in order to
differentiate and judge according to ethics or according to the rules to follow.
 Cogent Moral Reasoning − In order to come to a conclusion on an issue, the
argument has to be assessed and comprehended. The argument on both sides has to be
considered with all the probabilities and the nature of the argument should be logical
and moral.
 Moral Coherence − After having gone through all the logical and moral facts,
consistent and comprehensive viewpoints are to be formed based upon a consideration
of relevant facts.
 Moral Imagination − The moral issues and the practical issues have to be dealt
separately. Alternative responses are to be found out for dealing with moral issues
while creative solutions should be found out for practical difficulties.
 Moral Communication − The language to communicate about one’s moral views
should be so precise and clear, that the expression or words should not alter the
original meaning.

7|Page
Moral Issues:
A moral issue can be understood as an issue to be resolved not only by considering the
technical stuff but also by keeping moral values in mind. To be more precise, let us consider
the definition in general.
“Moral issue is a working definition of an issue of moral concern is presented as any issue
with the potential to help or harm anyone, including oneself.”

Types of Moral Issues

There are mainly two types of Moral issues that we mostly come across while keeping the
ethical aspects in mind to respond. They are −
 Micro-ethics: This approach stresses more on the problems that occur on a daily basis
in the field of engineering and its practice by engineers. For example, problems and
decisions of individuals, professionals, and companies.
 Macro-ethics: This approach deals with social problems which are unknown.
However, these problems may unexpectedly face the heat at both regional and
national levels. For example, global issues, collective responsibilities of groups such
as professional societies and consumer groups.

Let us now understand a few examples related to moral issues.

Example 1
After a recent collapse of a structure in which many people died, an Engineer came to know
about a bridge which is marginally safe. He informed his superior who asked him to stay
calm and not to discuss with anyone, while waiting for the next year budget sessions to get
some financial help for the repair required. What should the engineer do?
Example 2
What should an Engineer who observes his colleague copying confidential information
unauthorized, do immediately? If he chooses to stop his friend, what if this gets repeated
without his notice? If he chooses to report the management, what if his friend loses the job?
Which is morally correct?
Example 3
An engineer, who develops a proto-type for the project, loses it due to a mishap exactly the
day before the submission. Is it morally correct to outsource the prototype of the project and
reduce the risks of job insecurity? What should he do?
These are the few examples just to understand the kind of moral dilemmas. There might be
one or more correct answers at times. There can be some other way around to deal with the
issue, which one can’t easily notice. However, the decisions have to be made by following a
slow and clear process in order to avoid further problems and also to solve this in a manner
that leads to no regrets.

8|Page
Moral Dilemma:
Dilemmas are situations in which moral reasons come into conflict, or in which the
application of moral values are problems, and one is not clear of the immediate choice or
solution of the problems. Moral reasons could be rights, duties, goods or obligations. These
situations do not mean that things had gone wrong, but they only indicate the presence of
moral complexity. This makes the decision-making complex. For example, a person promised
to meet a friend and dine, but he must help his uncle who is involved in an accident — one
has to fix the priority.
There are some difficulties in arriving at the solution to the problems, in dilemma. The three
complex situations leading to moral dilemmas are:
1. The problem of vagueness: One is unable to distinguish between good and bad (right or
wrong) principle. Good means an action that is obligatory. For example, code of ethics
specifies that one should obey the laws and follow standards. Refuse bribe or accept the gift,
and maintain confidentiality
2. The problem of conflicting reasons: One is unable to choose between two good moral
solutions. One has to fix priority, through knowledge or value system.
3. The problem of disagreement: There may be two or more solutions and none of them
mandatory. These solutions may be better or worse in some respects but not in all aspects.
One has to interpret, apply different morally reasons, and analyze and rank the decisions.
Select the best suitable, under the existing and the most probable conditions.

Which of the following is a special case that justifies breaking a generally accepted rule?
[Link] should respect the Highway Code, but it is ok to drive through a red light if you are
late for work.
[Link] should respect the Highway Code, but it is ok to drive through a red light if you are
taking a critically ill person to the hospital.
[Link] should keep your word, but it is ok to break a social engagement if something more
interesting comes up.
[Link] should keep your word, but it is ok to break a social engagement if you have just
contracted an infectious disease.
[Link] should pay your taxes, but it is ok not to pay them if you are short of money that year.
[Link] should pay your taxes, but it is ok not to pay them if they are being spent on a nuclear
arms program.
Example:
An elderly woman living alone in poor circumstances with few friends or relatives is dying,
and you, her friend, are at her bedside. She draws your attention to a small case under her
bed, which contains some mementos along with the money she has managed to save over the
years, despite her apparent poverty. She asks you to take the case and to promise to deliver

9|Page
its contents, after she dies, to her nephew living in another state. Moved by her plight and by
your affection for her, you promise to do as she requests. After a tearful goodbye, you take
the case and leave. A few weeks later the old woman dies, and when you open the case, you
discover that it contains $500,000 dollars. No one else knows about the money, or the
promise you made. You learn that the nephew is a compulsive gambler and has a drug
addiction.
What would you do? Why?

Steps in Facing Moral Dilemmas

Whenever a person is faced with a moral dilemma, the issue is to be solved with a stepwise
approach as this will generate a better output. The steps include the following −
 Identification
The step of identification involves the following −
 The issue has to be thoroughly understood.
 The duties and the responsibilities of the persons involved are to be clearly known.
 The moral factors related to the issue are to be understood.
 The conflicting responsibilities, the competing rights and the clashing ideas involved
are to be identified.
 Ranking
The considerations in the issue are to be listed down. Then they have to be ranked according
to the priorities. The moral aspect has to be considered to rank the issues. The advantages of a
single person should never be given any importance unless any moral reason is there behind
it. No partiality is allowed.
 Inquiries
The inquiry of details involved in the issue is to be completely made. All the facts related to
the issue are brought into light. Considering the alternative courses of action for resolving
and tracing, full implications are also needed.
 Discussions
Discussions are to be made with other members, as different minds look at the issue in
different views to give different solutions. The complete analysis of a problem gives chances
to different viewpoints, perspectives and opinions from which a better solution can be drawn.
 Final Solution
After analyzing different perspectives and considering the facts and reasons on the basis of
truths and understanding the flaws which lead to the issue, a final solution has to be drawn
out. This solution will add value to the whole analysis, in all aspects.

10 | P a g e