Values & Ethics In

Profession
BIT 366

BASIC THEORIES
BY AVINASH ADHIKARI

Phoenix College of Management

Maitidevi, Kathmandu
[Link] BBA, BHM, BIT, MBA, MCS
Agendas
• Basic ethical Principles
• Moral Development
• Deontology
• Utilitarianism
• Virtual Theory
• Rights Theory
• Casuist Theory
• Moral Absolution
• Moral Pluralism
• Ethical Egoism
• Feminist Consequentialism
• Moral Issues
• Moral Dilemmas
• Moral Autonomy

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical Principles
1. Respect for person
2. Respect for autonomy
3. Respect for freedom
4. Respect for beneficence (doing good)
5. Respect for Non-Malfeasance (avoiding Harm)
6. Respect for veracity (Truth Telling)
7. Respect for Justice ( Fair and Equal Treatment)
8. Respect for rights
9. Confidentiality
10. Respect for fidelity (fulfilling promises and commitments)

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical principles
1. Justice:
Justice is fairness. Nurses must be fair when they distribute care, for
example, among the patient in the group of patients that they are taking
care of. Care must be fairly, justly, and equitably distributed among a
group of patients.
2. Autonomy:
The respect for individual liberty to take decision. ‘ Informed Consent’ is
an important outcome of this principle.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical principles
3. Beneficence:
Beneficence is doing good and the right thing for the people. Our actions must aim
to benefit people- health, welfare, comfort, well-being, improve a person’s potential,
improve quality of life.
4. Non Maleficence: (To Do no Harm)
• Do not cause pain or suffering
• Do not incapacitate (injure) and Kill
• Do not deprive people

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical principles
5. Accountability:
Accountability is accepting responsibility for one’s own actions. Nurses are
accountable for their nursing care and other actions. They must accept all
of the professional and personal consequences that can occur as the result
of their actions.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical principles
6. Fidelity:
Fidelity is keeping one’s promises. All profession must be faithful and true
to their professional promises and responsibility by providing high quality ,
safe care in a competent manner.
7. Veracity:
Veracity is being completely truthful with patients e.g. nurses must not
withhold the whole truth from clients even when it may lead to patient
distress.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Moral Development
• Moral Development is an aspect of a person’s overall development that
follows over the course of a lifetime.
• Moral development is growth and, like all growth, it takes place
according to a pre-determined sequence.
• The gradual development of an individual’s concept of: right or wrong,
conscience, religious values, social attitudes, and certain behavior.
• Process by which children learn their moral beliefs and develop moral
reasoning for making decisions regarding what is right or wrong.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral
Development
• He was an American psychologist.
• He served as a professor in- the Psychology department at the
University of Chicago and at the Graduate School of Education at
Harvard University.
• He started as a development psychologist and then moved to the field
of moral education.
• He was particularly well-known for his theory of moral development
which he popularized through research studies conducted at Harvard’s
Centre of Moral Education.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral
Development
• This theory is a stage theory. In other words, everyone goes through
the stage sequentially without skipping any stage.
• Assessed moral reasoning by posing hypothetical moral dilemmas and
examining the reasoning behind people’s answers.
• Proposed three distinct of moral reasoning: Pre-conventional.
Conventional and post conventional.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 How did Kohlberg come up with
the theory of moral development?
• All his ideas started from the research he performed with very young
children as his subjects. He found out that children are faced with
different moral issues, and their judgements on whether they are to act
positively or negatively over each dilemmas are heavily influence by
several factors. In each scenario that Kohlberg related to the children,
he was not really asking whether or not the person in the situation is
morally right or wrong, but he wanted to find out the reasons why
these children think the character is morally right or not.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

• For purposes of illustration, Kohlberg uses the Heinz Dilemma.
The Heinz Dilemma:
A woman was near death form a special kind of cancer. There was one drug
that doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a
pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was
expensive to make, but the pharmacist was charging ten time what the drug
cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a
small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone
he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000
which is half of what it cost. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying
and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the pharmacist said:
“No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz
got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Kohlberg asked a series of questions
Such as:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug? Why or why not?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder of the woman died?

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

• By studying the answers from children of different ages to these
questions Kohlberg hoped to discover the ways in which moral reasoning
changed as people grew older.
• The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10-16 years, 58 of whom
were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years.
• Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas.
• What Kohlberg was mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged
the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision.
• He found that these reasons tend to change as the children got older.
• He demonstrated that people progressed in their moral reasoning
through a series of three level.
• Each level is based on the degree to which a person conforms to a
conventional standards of society.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Level of Moral Reasoning

Pre-Conventio Post-Conventi
Conventional onal
nal

• Self-Centered • Internalized-truth
• External • Group centered -centered
Authority • Shared viewpoint • Internalized
• Isolated • Member-of-group values
Individuals perspective • ‘Prior-to-society’
Perspective perspective.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 The Capacity To Reason grows

From To
Self-Centeredness Other-Centeredness

From To
Reliance on external Authority Fidelity to internalized values

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

1. Pre-Conventional Moral Reasoning

• Judgment based solely on a person’s own need and perceptions.

• Moral reasoning is based on external and punishments.
• Characterized by the desire to avoid punishment or gain reward.
• Typically children under the age of 10.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

2. Conventional Moral Reasoning

• Expectations of society and law are taken into account.

• Laws and rules are upheld simply because they are laws and rules.
• Primary concern is to fit in and play the role of a good citizen.
• People have a strong desire to follow the rules and laws.
• Typical of most adults.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

3. Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning
• Judgement based on abstract, personal principles not necessarily
defined by society’s laws.
• Reasoning based on personal moral standards.
• Characterized by references to universal ethical principles that
represent protecting the right of all people.
• Most adults do not reach this level.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Kohlberg’s Six Stage

Principled
Social Conscience
Law and Contract
Good Order
Obedience Boy/ Girls
Self-Interest
and
Punishment

Pre-Conventional Conventional Post-Conventional

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
How does the progress Happen?
• Everyone goes through the stages sequentially in the order listed
without skipping any stage.
• The movement through these stages are no natural, that is people do
not automatically move from one stage to the next as they mature.
• In stage development, movement occurs when a person notices
inadequacies in his present way of coping with a given moral dilemma.
• Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage.
• People cannot understand moral reasoning more than on stage ahead
of their own. For example, a person in stage 1 can understand stage 2
reasoning but nothing beyond that.
• Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Pre-Conventional Moral Reasoning
Stage 1 & 2

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 1: Punishment-obedience Orientation
At this stage:
• Children see rules as fixed and absolute.
• They obey rules in order to avoid punishment.
• They determine a sense of right and wrong by what is punished and what is not
punished.
• They obeys superior authority and allow that authority to make the rules, especially if
that authority has the power to inflict pain.
• They are responsive to rules that will affect their physical well-being.
• Fear of authority and avoidance of punishment are reasons for behaving morally.
• The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or
she must unquestioningly obey.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 1: Punishment-obedience Orientation

• How can I avoid punishment?

• Not law or justice, but cost to me.
• Conscience=self-protection.
• A focus on direct consequences.
• Negative actions will result in punishments.
In the Heinz Dilemma:
Pro: “Hopefully he won’t get caught.”
Con: “He’ll go to jail.”
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Stage 2: Self-Interest Orientation
At this stage:
• Children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the
authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
• Children account for individual points of view, and judge actions based on how they
serve individual needs.
• Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one’s own interests.
• They are motivated by vengeance or “an eye for an eye” philosophy.
• They are self-absorbed, while assuming that they are generous.
• They believe in equal sharing in that everyone gets the same, regardless of need.
• They believe that the end justifies the means.
• They do a favor only to get a favor.
• They expect to be rewarded for every non-selfish deed they do.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Stage 2: Self-Interest Orientation
• Personal reward orientation. - What’s in it for me?
• Instrumental purpose and exchange - Paying for a benefit.
• Satisfying personal needs determines moral choice.
• Minimize the pain; maximize the pleasure.
• Right behavior means acting in one’s own best interests.
• Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his individual
interests.
• Conscience=cunning.
• Reasoning is based on an attitude of “you scratch my back and I’ll
scratch yours.”
• Getting what one wants often requires giving something up in return.
• “right” is a fair exchange, and morals are guided by what is “fair”.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 2: Self-Interest Orientation
In the Heinz Dilemma:
• Pro:
- Heinz will be lonely if his wife dies
- Heinz had children and he might need someone at home to look after
them.
- The druggist is very greedy by charging so much.
• Con:
- Prison is an awful place.
- They might put him in prison for more years than he could stand.
- He can marry someone younger and better-looking.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Conventional Moral Reasoning
Stage 3 & 4

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 3: Good Boy-Good Girl Orientation
At this Stage:
• People attempt to live up to the social roles and expectations of the family and
community.
• Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love,
empathy, trust and concern for others.
• They follow rules or do what other would want so that they win his approval.
• Maintaining the affection and approval of friends and relatives motivates good
behavior.
• Negative actions will harm those relationships.
• They find that intentions are as important as deeds, and they expect others to
accept intentions or promises in place of deeds.
• They begin to put themselves in another’s shoes and think from another
perspective.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 3: Good Boy-Good Girl Orientation
• Interpersonal accord and conformity.
• Peer pressure, group orientation
• Social norms
• Peer approval is very important.
• There is an emphasis on conformity, being “nice”, and consideration of how
choices influence relationships.
• Obligation to one’s family, gang, etc.
• One earns acceptance by being “nice”.
• Behavior is often judged by intention- “well, they mean well.”
• Conscience=loyalty
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Stage 3: Good Boy-Good Girl Orientation

In the Heinz Dilemma:

• Pro:
- He should steal the drug because that’s what a devoted husband would do. He’ll
show what a good husband he is. Hea was good man for wanting to save his wife,
and his intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves. No
husband should sit back and watch his wife die.
- I don’t think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all side, and see that
druggist was charging too much.
- It was really the druggist’s fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting
someone die. He ought to be put in jail.
• Con:
- Other people will think he is a bad man.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 4: Law And Maintaining The
Social Order Orientation
At this stage:
• People begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments.
• The focus is on maintaining social order by:
-resisting personal pressures, - following the rules
-doing one’s duty, - obeying laws,
- And respecting authority without question.
Because without laws, society would be chaos.
• They are duty doers who believe in rigid rules that should not be changed.
• They support the right of the majority without concern for those in the minority.
• A duty to uphold rules and laws for their own sake justifies moral conformity.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Stage 4: Law And Maintaining
The Social Order Orientation
• Social accord and system maintenance
• Right behavior consists of doing one’s duty and respecting authority.
• Flaws in the system are due to the failure of individuals who do not
obey the system.
• There is a part of about 80% of the population that does not progress
past stage 4.
• Conscience=good citizenship.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 4: Law And Maintaining
The Social Order Orientation
In the Heinz dilemma:
• Pro:
A husband has a duty to care for his wife.
• Con:
The theft is against the law even though his motives were good. We would
have chaos, and society couldn’t function if everyone felt he had a good
reason to break the laws, or set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Postconventional Moral Reasoning
Stage 5 & 6

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
At this stage:
• People begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own
society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold, to answer this
question “what make for a good society?”
• They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior consideration.
• They account for the differing values, opinion, and beliefs of other people and respect the
right of the minority especially the right of the individual, because they believe in consensus(
everyone agrees), rather than in majority rule, and they are motivated by the belief in the
greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
• They obey the law, until they can change it through the system (by democratic means), if:
- It fails to promote general welfare, or it violates ethical principles.
- There were better alternatives
- And member of the society agree upon these standards.
• They want to keep society functioning. But smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a
good one. For example, a totalitarian society might be well-organized but it is hardly the moral
ideal.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
• A good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people
freely enter to work toward the benefit of all.
• Different social groups within a society will have different values, but
they believe that all rational people would agree on two points:
- They would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life to be
protected.
- They would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law
and for improving society.
• Social contract, utility, individual rights.
• Fairness of the legal order.
• Loyalty to truth
• Conscience=reason
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
In the Heinz dilemma:
Pro:
- The law isn’t intended to cause someone’s death.
- Heinz’s obligation to save his wife’s life must take precedence over his obligation to
respect the druggist’s property right.
- The wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected.
- It is the husband’s duty to save his wife.
- The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to
judge his action.
- Life is more important than property.
Con:
The druggist’s rights are not being respected.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 6: Universal Ethical principles
orientation
At this stage:
• People follow these internalized moral principles of justice that are higher than those
represented by social rules and customs, so these moral principles take precedence over laws
that might conflict with them.
• For example, they are conscientious objectors, and refuse to be drafted because they are
morally opposed to war.
• They are willing to accept the consequences for disobedience or violating the social rules they
have rejected.
• They suggest that we need to:
a) Protect certain individual rights,
b) And settle disputes through democratic processes.
• However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcome that we intuitively sense
are just. For example, a majority may vote for a law that hinders a minority, but representatives
of this stage define the principles by which we achieve justice.
• They work toward a conception of the good society, and the well-being of others, regardless of
who they are.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Stage 6: Universal Ethical
principles orientation
• These internalized moral principles of justice are:
- The human dignity ( of all people as individuals) is sacred,
- The principles of justice are universal; they all to all,
- Treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner,
- Profound respect for sanctity of human life,
- All human have value - Non-Violence, - Equality
• These principles guide us towards decisions based on an equal respect for all. In
actual practice, we can reach just decisions by looking at situation through one
another’s eyes.
• Self-chosen ethical principles
• Principles, no matter what the price
• Conscience=personal integrity

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 6: Universal Ethical
principles orientation
In the Heinz Dilemma:
• Pro:
- Saving a life is more important than property
- Heinz should steal the drug even if the person was a stranger and not his wife.
- He must follow his conscience and not let the druggist’s desire for money outweigh
the value of a human life.
• Con:
-if he steals the drug, others who need the drug can’t buy it.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Stage 6: Universal Ethical
principles orientation
In the Heinz Dilemma:
• All parties (the druggist, Heinz and his wife) take on the roles of others.
• To do this is an impartial manner, people can assume a “veil of ignorance”, acting as
if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy.
• If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over
property; for he wouldn’t want to risk finding himself in the wife’s shoes with
property valued over life.
• Thus, they would all agree that his wife must be saved-this would be the fair
solution.
• Such solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but he principle that
everyone is given full an equal respect.
• If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not
be reached.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Conscience is……

Personal
Reason Integrity
Good
Loyalty Citizenship
Self-Protectio Cunning
n

Obedience
Good Law and Social Principled
and Self-Interest
Punishment boy/Girl Order Contract Conscience
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Kohlberg’s Six Stage

Principled
Social Conscience
Law and Contract
Good Order
Obedience boy/Girl
Cunning
and
Punishment

Self Family Community Humanity

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Kohlberg’s Theory
Level/Stage Age Range Description
I: Obedience/ Punishment Infancy No difference between doing the right thing and avoiding
punishment
II: Self-Interest Pre-School Interest shifts to rewards rather than punishment- effort is made
to secure greatest benefit for oneself.
III: Conformity and School-Age The good boy/girl level. Effort is made to secure approval and
interpersonal accord maintain friendly relations with others.
II: Authority and Social School-Age Orientation towards fixed rules. The purpose of morality is
Order maintaining the social order. Interpersonal accord is expanded to
include the entire society
I: Social Contract Teens Mutual benefits, reciprocity. Morally right and legally right are
not always the same. Utilitarian rules that make better for
everyone.
II: Universal Principles Adulthood Morality is based on principles that transcend mutual benefit

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Criticisms of Kohlberg’ Theory
• Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg’s theory is
concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing
what we ought to do versus our actual actions.
• Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have
pointed out that Kohlberg’s theory of moral development overemphasizes the
concept as justice when making moral choices. Other factors such as compassion,
caring, and other interpersonal feeling may play an important part in moral
reasoning.
• Does Kohlberg’s theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic
cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance
of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that
Kohlberg’s theory does not account for.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Deontological
Ethics

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Introduction
• A duty-based ethics= called deontology.
• Focuses on the act and not its consequences.
• Rules can be expressed in 2 ways

Negatively positively
“do not lie” “tell the truth”
“ do not steal” “keep your promises”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Deontological Ethics
• Derived from the Greek word “deon” meaning duty.
• Deontology is a category of normative ethical theories that encompasses
any theory which is primarily concerned with adherence t certain rules
or duties.
• Consequences do NOT matter!
• Intention is relevant. I am acting a certain way only if I act for the right
reason.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Basic Assumptions
• No matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are
morally forbidden.
• What makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm.
• The right is said to have priority over the Good.
❖ If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be undertaken, no
matter the Good that it might produce.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Example: Accounts Payable
Clerk
The employee is responsible for reviewing invoices and expenses reports,
and the company policy requires original receipts to justify the items on
the expense report. However, the employee submitted photocopies only.
A clerk with a duty-based ethic may reject the employee’s report and
require the originals even though other clerks may simply process the
report without question.
To know that this is the obligation or duty makes breaking the rule
morally wrong.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 In other words..
• Deontological theories hold that actions that are morally right are those in
accordance with certain rules, duties, right or maxims.
• Actions can be morally good, required, permitted or forbidden.

What is a maxim?
• A Maxim is a principle that underlies or informs an act or set of actions.
• Several acts may satisfy the underlying maxim or principle.
Famine Example:
Maxim: “Try to reduce the risk or severity of world hunger.”
Action: Giving money, volunteer, start an organization.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Examples of Deontological
Theories
• Divine command theory
• “The Golden Rule”
• Natural law & natural right theories
• Kantian Ethics (Categorical imperative)

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Divine Command Theory
• It’s the idea that we have a duty to obey god, and therefore a duty to do or not do
whether God has commanded us to do or not do.
• Divine command theory is a moral theory and moral theology but strictly speaking
it in not normative moral philosophy.
• Philosophy is defined as the systematic inquiry into the nature of things (such as
Norms), based on logical reasoning or rationality.
• Following commands does not require reason (blind faith).
• Divine command theory has been variously categorized as moral prescriptivism as
moral theology and deontological ethics.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 A Familiar Example:
“The Golden Rule”
• Also known as the ethics of reciprocity, this famous cross-cultural
maxim states: “Do to others as you want them to do to you.”
• May seem like a useful maxim at first but is has limitations:
• Depends on the mental state ( personality, mental health, emotional
health, compassion, etc) of the moral agent rather than the person
being acted upon.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Natural Law & Natural right
•
Theories
Human have reasoning and the Laws of nature are discernable by human reason.
• Humans are morally obligated to use reasoning to discern what the laws are then to
act in conformity with them.
• Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in
accord with a natural law for species to survive and procreate.
• Thus, activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work
against that law are morally wrong.
• As an example, consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy
is morally wrong.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Imperatives
• An Imperative is a command to act . It is prescriptive.
• There are two kinds of imperatives:
1. Hypothetical imperatives
2. Categorical Imperative

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Hypothetical Imperatives
• Commands that are not absolute, but conditional, and premised on
one’s desires.
• The form of a hypothetical imperative is:
• If you want Y, you ought to X.
(Y=goal/consequences/end; X =Means)
An example of hypothetical imperative is: “if you want to pass this test,
you ought to study”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Categorical Imperatives

• Absolute and unconditional moral commands.

• The form of a categorical imperative is:
• You ought to X.
(X=end-in-itself, without regards to means or other ends)
An example of a categorical imperative is: “you ought to study (because you are a
students).”
-it is implied here that the rule or maxim is that students are supposed to study.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Categorical Imperatives
CI1- Formula of Universal law: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that is should become a universal law.
CI 2: Formula of The End in Itself: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a mean, but
always at the same time as an end.
CI 3: “the Kingdon of Ends”- Reason is both the source of moral law (legislator) and
subject of the law (citizen). Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your
maxims, a lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey the las you
impose upon yourself and others.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Agent-Centered vs.
Patient-Centered Deontology
Agent-Centered Deontology
• Theories focused on the duties of the moral agent ( the person acting) rather than
the rights of the person being acted upon (patient-Centered theories).
• This allows for agent-relative reasons for actions and duties.
- Agent-relative duties: An act is relative to the individual duties of the agent (eg.
Duties of family, personal morality, self-interest).
- Agent-Neutral Duties: The act is the same for every agent ( e.g. duty to follow the
law, duty to not kill innocents).

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Agent- Relative Duties
An Agent-relative obligation is an obligation for a particular agent to take or refrain
from taking some action.
Since it is agent-relative, the obligation does not necessarily give anyone else a reason
to support that action.
Example:
Each parent is commonly thought to have such special obligations to his/her child,
obligations not shared by anyone else. Likewise, an agent-relative permission is a
permission for some agent to do some act even though others may not be permitted to
aid that agent in the doing of his permitted action. Therefore, each parent is commonly
thought to be permitted (at the least) to save his own child even at the cost of not
saving two children to whom he has no special relations.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Agent-Centered Deontology
• At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of agency.
• The idea is that morality is intensely personal, in the sense that we are each
charged to keep our own moral house in order.
- our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our action cause or enable other
agents to do evil; the focus of our categorical obligations is to keep pour own agency
free of moral contamination.
- In other words, we only answer for our own actions, not anyone else’s, nor for the
how others act in response to our actions.
• e.g. refusing to lie even it will cause 20 more lies, while lying just this once might
prevent others from having to do so.
• Agent-centered theories can be divided into those that—
1. Focus on the mental stage of the agent
2. Those that focus on the nature of the agent’s actions

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Agent-centered theories: Mental
States
One type of agent-centered theory:
• An action is wrong or right because of the intentions that motivated it.
• E.g. Doctrine of double effect (longstanding catholic theory)- we should not “set
ourselves at evil.”
• We are categorically forbidden for intending to cause evil (such as killing innocents),
even to prevent other evils.. However, it is acceptable to cause evils unintentionally
, even if we foresee them as effects of our actions.
• The focus here is on belief, risk, and cause. These are not the same as intent.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Doctrine of Double Effect: Example
A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life,
might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform
hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the
doctor would aim to save the women’s life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus.
- Here the doctor knows that the baby will die, but this is an effect of the procedure, not
his intention. It is implied that if he could perform the procedure without killing the
baby, he would.
- In contrast, performing an abortion, even under the same circumstance, would involve
intending to kill the fetus as means to saving the mother.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Agent-Centered Theories: Actions
Assumes that all action originates with a will or volition.

Will + action = Agency

The focus here is on labeling actions as right or wrong. Then you must
determine if there was agency in committing the act (will + action or direct
cause).
E.g. Murder- the death has to occur, you were the cause and you mean to do
it.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Example
If you were to hold baby’s head under water until it drowns, that is murder; however,
seeing a baby lying face down in a puddle and doing nothing to save it when one could
do so easily is merely a failure to prevent its death.
Our categorical obligation are usually negative in content:
We are not to kill the baby. We may have an obligation to save it, but this will not be an
agent-relative obligation, unless we have some special relationship to the baby.
Problem- this sounds like an incredibly unpleasant approach to many; it also reminds
many of egoism and offers reliance on self-interest.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Patient-Centered Deontology
• These theories are right-based rather than duty-based; some versions
claims to be agent-neutral in the reasons/obligation they give moral
agent.
• These ideas are focused on people’s right as a reason to act or not to act.
• Withing this framework, you have the right against being used only as
means for producing consequences (either good or bad) without your
consent.
• This is not to be confused with more discrete rights-the right against
being killed, or being killed intentionally.
• It is a right against being use by another for the user’s or others benefit.
• More specifically, this version of patient-centered deontological theories
prohibits using another’s body, labor and talent without the latter’s
consent for any reason.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Good Points of Duty based ethics
- Emphasizes the value of every human being
Duty –based ethical system tend to focus on giving equal respect to all human beings.
- Provides more certainty in individual situations
Duty-based ethics don’t suffer from this problem because they are concerned with
the action itself- not a lot of gray area.
- It does deal with intentions and motives.
You have to do the right action, but you also have to act with the right intention.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Bad Points of Duty Base Ethics
Absolutist-
• Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules.
• The only way of dealing with cases that don’t seem to fit is to build a list of
exceptions to the rule.
Allows acts that make the world a less good place-
• Because duty-based ethics isn’t interested in the results it can lead to courses of
action hat produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.
e.g. if you could kill someone you knew to be a murderer, a utilitarian would say ‘go
for it’ because it will prevent further death. Yet.. A deontologist would likely maintain
that killing is wrong and would, therefore allow any future death since foreseeing or
risking those deaths does not make you responsible.
Hard to reconcile conflicting duties-
e.g. when you have a duty not to kill but you have a duty to rescue a family member.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism says that the Result or the Consequence of an Act is
the real measure of whether it is good or bad.

• This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.

• Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or consequences

are called teleological or consequentialist.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Bentham’s Formulation of
Utilitarianism
• Man is under two great masters, pain and pleasure.
• The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a hedonistic
perspective)
• Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are
good. They have “utility.”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus
• In determining the quantity of happiness that might be
produced by an action, we evaluate the possible
consequences by applying several values:
• Intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty,
propinquity or remoteness, fecundity (growth), purity,
and extent.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Four Theses of Utilitarianism
• Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their
consequences.
• Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure.
Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we
seek and that we should seek.
• Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences
and the least bad.
• Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone
affected, and everyone equally.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Two Formulations of Utilitarian
Theory
Principle of Utility: The Greatest Happiness:
best action is that which We ought to do that
produces the greatest which produces the
happiness and/or greatest happiness
reduces pain. and least pain for
the greatest number
of people.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Two Types of Utilitarianism
• Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (Jeremy
Bentham)

• Rule: An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules

the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (John
Stuart Mill)

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Application of Utilitarian Theory

A) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. He gets across
safely.

• Conclusion: the Act was a good act.

B) You attempt to help an elderly man across the street. You stumble
as you go, he is knocked into the path of a car, and is hurt.

• Conclusion: The Act was a bad act.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Application of Utilitarian Theory
• If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war, and thereby attack an
enemy force and kill several hundred enemy soldiers, that is a morally
good choice even though the eighty might be lost.

• If lying or stealing will actually bring about more happiness and/or

reduce pain, Act Utilitarianism says we should lie and steal in those
cases.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Application of Utilitarian Theory
Actual Cases
• The decision at Coventry during WWII.
• The decision was made not to inform the town that they would be bombed.

• The Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicle would sometimes explode

when hit.
• The model was not recalled and repaired by Ford because they felt it was
cheaper to pay the liability suits than to recall and repair all the defective cars.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Criticisms of Bentham’s theory
Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be happy
watching a man being eaten by wild dogs, it would be a morally good
thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone whose
death would not cause grief to many others) and throw the man into a
cage of wild, hungry dogs.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

John Stuart Mill’s Adjustments to
Utilitarianism
• Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the happiness, not
merely the quantity.

• For example, some might find happiness with a pitcher of beer and a
pizza. Others may find happiness watching a fine Shakespearean play.
The quality of happiness is greater with the latter.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Mill’s Quality Arguments
• “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better
to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the
pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own
side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both
sides.”
• “As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism
requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read
the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. ‘To do as you would be done
by,’ and ‘to love your neighbor as yourself,’ constitute the ideal
perfection of utilitarian morality.”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Criticisms of Utilitarianism
If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, not putting my own
happiness above others, that may lead to a dilemma. I live in a neighborhood
where 83% of my neighbors use drugs. I could make them most happy by helping
supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel uncomfortable doing that. What should a
utilitarian do?
• Bernard Williams criticizes the implied “doctrine of negative responsibility” in
Utilitarianism. For example, a thug breaks into my home and holds six people
hostage, telling us he will kill all of us. “However,” the thug says, “if you will kill
two of your family, I will let you and the other three live.”
• With Utilitarianism, the good thing to do is to kill two members of my family.
• Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with God’s commandments. If lying, stealing,
or killing could lead to an increase of happiness for the greatest number, we are
told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a rejection of God’s commands?

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Mill’s Answer to the “Godless Theory”
Criticism
• What is the nature of God?
• Does God make arbitrary rules just to see if we will obey?
• Does God make rules that He knows will lead to our happiness?
• If the latter statement is true, doesn’t it make sense God would want us
to use our God-given reason to look at the situation?
• “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of
his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is
not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other. . . .
.whatever God has though fit to reveal on the subject of morals must
fulfill the requirements of utility in a supreme degree.”
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
A Second Criticism of Utilitarianism
If one must decide the probable outcome of an act before knowing
whether it is good or bad, how can children learn to evaluate acts, since
they know so little of what consequences might arise from their actions?

Mill’s “Rule” Utilitarianism

“ . . . Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the
effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have
thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the
philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better.” Mill concludes,
however, that we should always seek improvements.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Rights and Utilitarianism
• Many philosophers hold that we have certain rights, either from God,
nature, or from a social contract

• Can the idea of rights be made compatible with Utilitarianism?

• If ignoring rights brings about more happiness to the greatest number,

should we ignore so-called rights?

• Mill’s rule-based view in On Liberty; having a right to liberty will bring

the greatest happiness

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Virtue Ethics

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Aristotle G.E.M Philippa Foot
Anscombe and
Peter Geach
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Virtue Ethics
• Accommodates the natural concern many of us have with being a good person
in addition to merely performing right acts (producing good consequences,
following moral rules).
• Acting well vs Acting rightly.
• Often describes actions in the virtue and vice terms
- Torture is cruel.
- Paying back your debt is just
- Speaking up in that situation was courageous
• Anscombe suggested that this is a great improvement over “morally wrong”
(or “right”), because this language still informs us abut what we ought and
ought not to do.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 More than Actions
• The virtue (and Vice) terms do not merely apply to the outward action,
but to the state of character of the agent.

- When a store manager practices business in an honest fashion because

this is a good way to attract customers and maximize profits, we don’t
quite want to say that he is acting honestly, or that he is a man of honest
character.

• Being virtuous doesn’t simply mean “prone to act in good ways”

- Being honest does not only mean “tends to tell the truth.”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 What is a Virtue?
1. Good- Making Property
• Makes one good “qua” human
• Because we are, by nature, rational and social beings, the virtues help us
fulfill our human nature.
• Important for achieving a good life, or eduaimonia (good Spirit).
2. Goodness of the Rational Will
• Concerns reason and rational choice
• Not a mere pre-reflective inclination to do well.
• This implies that virtue is something more than what nice children are
capable of having.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 What is a Virtue?
3. A Corrective
• Supplement human being where they find natural temptation,
deficiencies of motivation, or tendencies toward vice.
- Justice is a corrective where we want to keep things we don’t deserve or
distribute things(like punishment) in a way that other don’t deserve;
- Courage is a corrective where we have the tendency to be overcome by
fear;
- Charity is a corrective where we tend to be selfish or uncaring of others.
• This suggests that knowing the virtues depends on knowing what human
nature is like.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Components of Virtue
1. Habit:
• Reliability and Consistency
• Virtues are developed , not acquired at once
• Virtues are strongly entrenched
2. Sensitivity to reasons:
• Virtue involves seeing certain considerations as practical reasons, and being
motivated by and acting on them.
- Seeing the humanity of others as reason to not to harm or lie to them.
- Seeing another’s vulnerability as a reason to help, not to take advantage.
- Seeing the value or truth as reason to conduct business honestly.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Component of Virtue
3. Emotions and Attitudes:

• You are happy to perform virtuous deeds

• You are attracted to other virtuous people

• The vicious behavior of your friends and family makes you sad.

• Note the contrast here with Kant’s ethics: on virtue ethics, subjective
desire to do the right thing tend to make someone more virtuous.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Components of Virtue
4. Natural Inclination to act Well:
• Virtuous actions come naturally
• No need to battle contrary desires
• Spontaneous expression of one’s innermost desires.
5. Phronesis: Practical Wisdom
• The ability to reason correctly to make wise choices
• Requires knowledge and life experience
• Solves conflict between the virtues (or moral rules)
• Supplements mere “natural virtue”: it perfects (is a check on ) the spontaneous
component.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Virtue>Continence
• Continence=Strength of Will

• But virtue, for the virtuous person, should be easy.

• Exercise of will-power implies imperfect virtue:

- No virtuous habit formed

- Wrong motives and attitudes

- Not naturally inclined to act well.

• But is this always the case?

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 The Puzzle

• [We] both are and are not inclined to think that the harder a man finds
it to act virtuously the more virtue he shows if he does act well. For on
the one hand great virtue is needed where it is particularly hard to act
virtuously; yet on the other it could be argued that difficulty in acting
virtuously shows that the agent is imperfect in virtue.

• Philippa Foot, “Virtues and Vices”

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Foot’s Solution
• The dilemma can be resolved only when we stop talking about difficulties
standing in the way of virtuous action as if they were of only one kind.

• Consider the following:

• A woman finds a purse on the street with lots of money in it, and is temped to
take it.

a) She is poor single mother with hungry children at home

b) She is struggling with kleptomania (the desire to steal)

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Circumstances VS Character

• In (a) it is the woman’s circumstance that makes it hard to act rightly.

• Even further, an important factor contributing to the difficulty is her

love and concern for her children, which is a sign of virtue.

• So, we can imagine that even someone with full virtue would find this
situation difficult. In fact, we might think less of the woman if she
weren’t tempted by the purse.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Circumstances VS Character
• In (b) it is the woman’s Vicious character that makes it hard to act
rightly.

• Assuming that she did not need the money to feed her children, the
prospect of taking the purse should not quite have occurred to her if she
were fully virtuous.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Right Theory
• Development of Right theory

Three generations

1. Political rights

2. Social rights

3. Cultural rights

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 first generation: political rights
• relate to people’s ability to have a say in how the communities within which they
live and work are run
• also concern broader aspects of people’s treatment by those in positions of power
• words such as participation, justice, fairness, equality, and freedom are common
the focus of concern
early focus:
concerned with political rights in relation to state power
contemporary focus:
also concerned with political rights in relation to the power of corporations
• Two ways in which corporation might be guilty of suppressing political rights
1. By influencing government decision making
2. By denying people a say in how the companies they work for are run

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 second generation: social rights
• concerned with basic human needs
• significance of the industrial revolution
• contemporary relevance for business due to:
• loosening of employment legislation
• prevalence of ‘offshoring’
trade unions
• the expression of political rights
• the protection of social rights
Article 23.4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘Everyone
has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his (sic)
interests’ (United Nations, 2013)
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 third generation: cultural rights
include:
• the right of groups of people to be recognized by other groups of people
• the right to preserve traditional ways of life
• the right to maintain certain patterns of behaviour and belief
• the right to enjoy particular styles of social and artistic expression
• are often challenged when vulnerable/ disadvantaged minorities are
marginalized or suppressed by dominant majorities
• these minorities are often defined by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or disability
• accommodating the needs and expectations of minority groups of employees,
customers, etc.
• beware of business activity threatening the traditional ways of life of
less-powerful communities
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Stakeholder
‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by [a business]
organizations’ objectives’ (Freeman, 1984: 46)

two types of stakeholder

• influential stakeholders: groups or individuals who can influence a

company’s achievement of its objectives

• affected stakeholders: groups or individuals who are affected by a

company’s activities

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 influential affected
stakeholders stakeholders

influence effect

company

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 influential stakeholders:
reciprocity rights
• reciprocity: ‘the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual
benefit’ (Oxford English Dictionary)

• stakeholders influence the success of a company by supporting it

• Therefore, they have, in exchange, a right to expect that their interests

will be taken into account by that company

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 affected stakeholders:
effect entails a right to
consideration
• if our actions have an effect on other people, those people have a right
to be taken into account by us

• similarly, if a company’s activity has an effect on stakeholders, those

stakeholders have a right to be taken into account by that company

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 normative relationships
• ‘normative’ denotes some form of ethical content

• stakeholders have a normative relationship with a company if the

company has ethical reasons to take them into account

• influential stakeholders have a normative relationship because of their

reciprocity rights

• affected stakeholders have a normative relationship because effect

entails a right to consideration

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 instrumental relationships
• ‘instrumental’ denotes helping something to achieve its objectives

• stakeholders have an instrumental relationship with a company if they

help it to achieve its objectives

• influential stakeholders have an influential relationship with a company

because their support helps it to achieve its objectives

• affected stakeholders do not have an instrumental relationship with a

company because they have no influence on its achievement of its
objectives

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 influential affected
stakeholders stakeholders

instrumental relationship
and normative relationship
normative relationship

company

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

is good ethics good for business?
• a company has normative reasons and instrumental reasons to look
after its influential stakeholders

• therefore, in its relationships with influential stakeholders, good ethics

is good for business

• a company has normative reasons to look after its affected

stakeholders, but no instrumental reasons to do so

• therefore, in its relationships with affected stakeholders, good ethics is

not necessarily good for business

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 the importance of property in
business
• property (assets) as an indicator of corporate prosperity
• the importance accorded to owners (shareholders) of a business
• capitalist business activity understood as voluntary exchanges of
property
• where do property rights come from?
• why are they given so much importance?
• do they merit the significance accorded to them in business?
property rights matter
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 two perspectives:

• John Locke
• Karl Marx

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

John Locke’s justification of
property rights

how do we get from common ownership

to private ownership?

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

self-ownership and the ownership of one’s labour:
• I own myself
• Therefore, I own my labour
property as the outcome of the application of one’s own labour to common
resources:
• I apply my labour (which I own) to commonly owned things
• I thus come to own those things
• therefore, I have a right to use them as I see fit
this works to everyone’s benefit because
• we make things more useful by working on them
• and everyone benefits when we make things more useful

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Locke’s rationale applied to
business
• businesses have ownership rights to the things they make because
production is the outcome of their own labour

• businesses make things more useful by working on them; therefore the

recognition of those property rights works to everyone’s benefit

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Karl Marx’s critique of property
rights
Marx was critical of primacy given to rights in modern society:
‘none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond egoistic man, … namely an
individual withdrawn behind his private interests and whims and separated from
the community’ (2000/1843: 61).

he was particularly critical of property rights:

‘the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of
the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independently from society,
the right of selfishness’ (2000/1843: 60).

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

how exploitation occurs in business
• business creates surplus value by combining resources

• labour makes the biggest contribution to the creation of surplus value

• but most of this surplus value is kept by the owners of the business
• who only give their workers enough to get by

• which Marx sees as exploitation of workers by owners

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Casuist Ethical Theory
• The casuist ethical theory is one that compares a current ethical
dilemma with examples of similar ethical dilemmas and their outcomes.

• This allows one to determine the severity of the situation and to create
the best possible solution according to others’ experiences.

• Usually, one will find paradigms that represent the extremes of the
situation so that a compromise can be reached that will hopefully
include the wisdom gained from the previous examples.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Casuist Ethical Theory
• One drawback of the casuist ethical theory is that there may not be a
set of similar examples for a given ethical dilemma.

• Perhaps that which is controversial and ethically questionable is new

and unexpected.

• This may not be necessarily true and would greatly hinder the
effectiveness of applying this ethical theory.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Casuist Ethical Theory
• In ethics, casuistry is a process of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral
problems by extracting or extending abstract rule from a particular case,
reapplying those rule to instances.

• Casuistry, in ethics, a case-based method of reasoning.

• It is the study of cases of principles and method of solving conflicts of

responsibilities by applying general principles of ethics, religion, and
moral theology to particular and concrete cases of human conduct.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Casuist Ethical Theory
• It is particularly employed in field-specific branches of professional
ethics such as business ethics and bioethics applied ethics and law.

• Casuistry typically uses general principles in reasoning analogically from

clear-cut cases, called paradigms, to vexing cases.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

ABSOLUTISM vs
RELATIVISM

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Is Morality absolute or relative?
The meaning of absolute
• Absolute means variously perfect, complete, certain. Not limited by restrictions or
exceptions. Not to be doubted or questioned.
• However, it is difficult to prove an absolute supernatural being exists or the presence of
absolutes (laws) in nature, let alone "natural moral laws."
The meaning of relative
• Relativism: Values are relative to time, place, person, situation, etc; no values are
absolute or independent of cultures and peoples. What's right for you may not be right
for me. Mild-respect each other's moral views. Strong view of anything goes.
• Individual perception of morality. No one person is more moral than another.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Cultural Cultural
Absolutism Relativism

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Cultural Relativism
• Studies by anthropologists reveal wide variation in customs, mores, practices, etc. as
evidence of its theory.

Anthropological "facts" -

1) Studies of modern and primitive cultures show extreme variation in customs,

manners, taboo, moralities and attitudes.

2) Moral beliefs and attitudes are absorbed from cultural environments. We internalize
(for the most part) what's socially accepted/sanctioned by our cultures.

3) People in different cultures tend to believe that their morality is the only one true
morality

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Cultural Absolutism
Ultimate moral principles underlying the various moral standards and rules don't vary
culturally. i.e. All value human life, but differ in protecting and approving killing.
"Facts" -
• Similar moral principles exist in all societies, e.g,. prohibition on murder, truth telling,
etc.
• All peoples have similar needs. Survival, eat, shelter, etc.
• Similarities in situations and relationships across cultures, e.g., families, brothers and
sisters relationships, participation in family, religion, arts and languages.
• Similarities in sentiment, jealousy, emotion, love, need for respect, etc.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Evaluation of these Theories
Moral relativism
• Because cultures disagree does not mean that a particular belief cannot be right or
wrong.
• A belief learnt or accepted by a culture doesn't mean it's true or false, or truth is
relative only to specific societies.
Moral absolutism
• Similarities of principles in societies does not suggest that the principles are valid or
the existence of absolutes. Because people and situations exist or behave in certain
ways tells us little about what should or ought to be the case.
• Anthropologist shows us varied human cultural behavior but doesn't prove either
case nor what's moral.
• It appears that if absolutism is true then relativism is false and vice versa.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Proposition and Truth
Propositions and states of affairs

• Propositions are true or false statements regarding states of affairs.

States of affairs are occurrences, events or happenings that either occurs
or not. They cannot be true or false.

Are there any absolute truths?

• Truth is not dependent or contingent upon our ability to know at a

given time. Truth is based on whether state of affairs occur.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Types of Propositions
Analytic propositions
• Logical truths - law of non-contradiction, true by definition of terms. Ex: "No circles are
squares," "all triangles are three sided."
Internal sense propositions
• Propositions that assert something of our internal state. True by experience.
• How you feel at a given moment cannot be denied as false (if you are honest).
Empirical propositions
• State of affairs that occur in the external world. True by evidence of the senses.
Moral propositions
• Propositions that have moral import, e.g., abortion is evil.
Generally, but not always, these propositions contain words like should, ought, right, good, etc.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Emotive Theory
• If some propositions are absolutely true by virtue of logic or experience, are moral
propositions ever absolute?
• Some claim that morals are non-cognitive or "emotional" and have no basis in fact.
Problems with the emotive theory
• John Hospers has pointed out discrepancies. Moral propositions can have:
• purpose or intention
• effects of propositions on hearers
• actual meaning
• If a moral proposition can have these attributes, then not all moral propositions are
solely emotive. Emotivist theory exaggerates its claims.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Moore's naturalistic fallacy

• If we say moral propositions are not any different from empirical

propositions we are committing the "naturalistic fallacy," i.e, trying to
get an "ought" from an "is."

• Descriptive "is" and the prescriptive "ought."

• However, some moral propositions can be clearly and logically inferred

from empirical propositions (example of AIDS).

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Moral propositions as types of empirical proposition
Perhaps moral propositions are empirical propositions with value judgments.
Normative moral statements
Some possibility that "he is a good man" could be thought similar to "that is a green
table?"
Prescriptive moral statements
Can prescriptive moral claims be thought true or false? Some prescriptive non-moral
statements (chess example) appear to assert something about reality, i.e., are true or
false.
Propositions against killing human beings
Could we make some case for moral propositions? Perhaps propositions against killing
human beings is "best case scenario."
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Problems with moral propositions

• Tension between true propositions and human action and between propositions that
conflict. But perhaps all moral theories require some absolute.

• Even relativism adheres to one absolute: There are no absolutes

Near or almost absolutes

• Perhaps the best to aim for are near or almost absolutes making sure we justify all
the exceptions.

• i.e. Do not kill other humans. Exceptions: in self-defense or defense of innocents.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Conclusion
Relativism
• Are people 100% extreme relativists in real situations?
Most will qualify this statement. What does the need to supply or add rules to relativism
tell us? (anything goes as long as no one's hurt.) Our practical lives seem to conflict with
our relativist theories. Not practical to live with a total relativistic viewpoint.
Absolutism
• There are absolutes in the sense of absolutely true propositions. From some of these we
may derive "near or almost absolutes" that are moral principles like "don't kill another
human being" that provide basic foundations.
• Principles are basic. Each exception must be carefully justified, to not do so is to act
immorally. Principles serve as means for us to act as close as possible to known true
propositions.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Moral Rationalism

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Rationalism
• Humans can arrive at truth by reasoning (understanding obtained through
cause-and-effect logic) rather than by relying on past authorities, religious faith or
intuition.

• Rationalism is an epistemological position in which reason is said to be the primary

source of all knowledge, superior to the senses.

• In general, rationalists believe that abstract reasoning can produce undeniable,

absolutely certain truths about natura, existence and the whole of reality.

• These truths are called a priori or innate, ideas- because they are discovered
independently of experience, without empirical observation of experimentation.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Rationalism
• According to rationalists, there is no other way of getting knowledge
except reasoning.

• Rationalism view is opposite to empiricism which says that all

knowledge come from sense experience.

• This is commonly called continental rationalism because it was

predominated in the continental school of Europe, whereas in British
empiricism dominated.

• Most prominent rationalists were Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 History of Rationalism

• Rationalism is a Latin word which means Reason.

• Many of the great philosophers from antiquity laid down the foundation of
rationalism. Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle were among the first philosophers
who talked about reason. But they themselves were not rationalists.
Descartes was the first modern philosopher who took the true rationalistic
view by starting doubting everything even his own existence. He wanted to
know if there is anything in this world that we can know for sure. His work
was followed and further developed by other rationalists like Spinoza and
Leibniz.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Essential Theses of Rationalism

• At its core, rationalism consists of three basic claims. For one to

consider themselves a rationalist, they must adopt one of these three
claims:

1. The intuition / Deduction thesis

2. The innate knowledge thesis

3. The innate concept thesis

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

THE INTUITION / DEDUCTION THESIS

• It states that some subjects are knowable by intuition alone, while

some are knowable by being deducted from intuited propositions.

• Intuition means that we simply see something to be true.

• Deduction is a process in which we draw conclusion based on valid

arguments presented to us, in one way or other.

• Intuition and deduction combine to give us proper knowledge.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

THE INNATE KNOWLEDGE THESIS
• It states that we have knowledge of some truths as part or our rational
nature.
• It means that our innate knowledge is not acquired through experience,
intuition or deduction. It is a part of our nature.
• Philosophers have different views of how this knowledge comes to us. Some
believe that God granted us this knowledge at our creation, and some believe
that it became part of our nature through natural selection.
• E.g., Descartes discussed that the idea of God is present in our rational
nature.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

THE INNATE CONCEPT THESIS
• It states that some of the concepts are part of human’s rational nature
and does not require experience to unlock it.

• It means that experience does not provide the concepts that we have
but they are part of our rational nature and we know them naturally.

• John Locke argued that The Innate Knowledge Thesis and The Innate
Concept Thesis are on and same.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

NON-ESSENTIAL THESES OF RATIONALISM

• There are two non-essential theses that may or may not be adopted by
rationalists:

1. The indispensability of reason: It stated that experience cannot

provide that we gain from reason.

2. The superiority of reason: It stated that the greatest way to gain

knowledge is through reason and not through experience.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 MORAL
PURALISM

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Moral Pluralism

• One common feature of our moral lives that we've already encountered are
conflicts of duties. There is often more than one thing that we are morally
obligated to do, and when we can't satisfy both obligations, we have to chose
one to satisfy and one to fail.
• Morally monistic views would ultimately deny that any such conflicts exist. If
we are conflicted, it's because we are not working the machinery of the
theory correctly.
• Morally pluralistic views, on the other hand, are skeptical that there is any one
deontic standard that can do all the work necessary.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

The Main Idea

• For moral pluralism, there is a plurality of basic moral principles of right

conduct. There is no more fundamental or basic moral principle that
justifies these plural principles.

• The basic moral principles give us moral reasons to perform actions.

These reasons can compete with and outweigh one another.

• Because these principles are basic, but can be outweighed by other,

competing principles, moral philosophers say that they impose a prima
facie (at first glance; sufficient unless rebutted) moral obligation.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Ross’s Ethics of Prima Facie Duty

• Ross's account of our prima facie duties emerges out of a theory of

human nature that identifies four basic intrinsic goods:

1. virtue

2. pleasure

3. pleasure in proportion to virtue

4. knowledge

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Ross’s Ethics of Prima Facie Duty

From this account of these basic goods, Ross identifies seven classes of prima facie
duties (i.e., basic moral principles of right action):
1. Duties of Fidelity (keeping one's word)
2. Duties of Reparation (repairing harm we've done)
3. Duties of Gratitude
4. Duties of Justice (distribution of goods and burdens)
5. Duties of Beneficence (obligation to help others in need)
6. Duties of Self-Improvement
7. Duties of Non-Maleficence (do no harm)
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
Ross’s TRA

On the basis of this account of our basic prima facie duties, we can specify a TRA for a
Rossean moral pluralism.

• An action A is obligatory if one has a prima facie duty to do A that is weightier than
any other conflicting prima facie duty.

• An action A is wrong if there is some alternative action that would be responsive to a

weightier prima facie duty.

• An action A is permissible if 1) there are no prima facie duties operating in the

context or 2) there are more than one prima facie duties operating in the context and
they are of equal weight; and you act in accordance with one of them.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

Strengths and Weakness

• One obvious advantage of a view like Ross's is that it builds in recognition of and machinery
to handle a common, perhaps ineliminable feature of our moral lives: the fact of moral
conflict.

• It also benefits from being rooted in a relatively straightforward account of human nature.

• On the other side of the equation, just as with virtue ethics, the particular account of the
prima facie duties seems susceptible to criticism, both in terms of their content and in terms
of their connection to each other.

• There are also possible questions about the action-guidingness of such an approach. There
would seem to be a number of possible moral concerns that aren't addressed by Ross's
duties.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ethical Egoism
• Egoism is a form of consequentialism because it asks you to weigh up what actions would be good
for your own self-interest
• It states that one should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests,
so long as one's own interests are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being.
• If you interests are as important as someone else's - you have a duty to protect yourself
• Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of
others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally
detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others.
• Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do
what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove
detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the
words of James Rachels, „
"Ethical egoism [...) endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Ethical Egoism is based on Self-Interest as
Opposed to Altruism
Self interest = one's personal interest or advantage, especially when
pursued without regard for others. Often seen as self-serving
Altruism = disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
• This basically means that the person has a duty to act in a way which
pleases them and helps them meet their own goals.
• Think, Pair, Share: In what way could acting out of self-interest an
ethically good society?

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Important
• Ethical Egoism does not say that you should avoid actions that help
others
• It could be that by helping others you help yourself
• "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'
• Or your interests coincide with the interests of others and by helping
yourself you inadvertenthy help others
• The important point is that in such cases the benefit to others is not what
makes the action right

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Selfishness not Foolishness
• It is also important to realise it doesn't endorse the idea that we ought
always to do what we want to
• Short term pleasures may be harmful in the long run
• It doesn’t lead to a debauched hedonistic (indulges excessively in sensual
pleasure such as drinking, eating and sex often to the point of
self-destructive behavior) lifestyle
• - It says that a person really ought to do what really is in his/her own best
advantage over the long run
• - It endorses selfishness not foolishness
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Two arguments in support of
Ethical Egoism
1. a) Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual needs and
wants but we cannot know the desires and needs of other people
b) The policy of looking out for others is an offensive intrusion into other
people's privacy
c) Making other people the object of one's 'charity' is degrading to them it
robs them of their dignity and self-respect

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Ayn Rand

2. The second argument was put forward by Ayn Rand

• She argues the ethics of altruism is a totally destructive idea both in
terms of society and individuals taken in by it
• Altruism leads to a denial of the value of the individual
' If a man accepts the ethics of altruism... his first concern is not how to
live his life but how to sacrifice it'

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Value of The human Individual

• Rand is arguing along these lines

• A person has only one life to live. If we value the individual - that is, if the
individual has moral worth - then we must agree that this life is of
supreme importance
- If you are willing to sacrifice for the good of others (altruism) you are not
truly valuing the human individual
• Therefore, Ethical Egoism is the philosophy that ought to be accepted

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 James Rachels- Two Arguments
against Ethical Egoism
1. Rachels argues that ...Ethical Egoism cannot provide solutions for conflicts of
interest
• We need moral rules because our interests some times come into conflict
2. Ethical Egoism advocates that each of us divides the world into two categories of
people - ourselves and the rest - and we regard the interests of the first group as
more important than the interests of the second group
• But what is the difference between myself and others that justifies placing myself in
this special category
• Am I more intelligent? • Do l enjoy my life more?
• Are my achievements greater? - What makes me so special?
- Failing an answer Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 In Deductive Form
• Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to interests of one group than
to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference
between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently
• Therefore, Ethical Egoism would have each person assign greater importance to his
or her own interests than to the interests of others. But there is no general
difference between oneself and others, to which each person can appeal, that
justifies this difference in treatment
• Therefore, Ethical Egoism is unacceptably arbitrary and not a valid theory

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Finally
• We should care about the interests of others for the same reason we care about
our own interests - because their needs and desires are the same as our own
• Consider again - the starving people we could help to feed by giving up some of our
luxuries
• Why should we care about them?
• Because there is no difference between us and them - we would go to any lengths
to feed ourselves if we were starving
• Their needs are the same as ours
• They are no less deserving than us - If our needs should be met then so should
theirs
• This realization that we are equal to one another is the deepest reason why our
morality must include some recognition of the needs of others and why Ethical
Egoism fails as a moral theory.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Feminist Consequentialism
• - virtue approach to ethics supplemented and sometimes revised by
thinkers in the feminist tradition, who often emphasize the importance of
the experiences of women and other marginalized groups to ethical
deliberation
• the most important contributions of this approach: the principle of care as
a legitimately primary ethical concern, often in opposition to the cold and
impersonal justice approach

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Key Features
• Feminist approaches to globalization seek to provide frameworks for understanding
the gender injustices associated with globalization. Rather than developing
all-encompassing ideal theories of global justice feminist philosophers tend to adopt
the non-ideal theoretical perspectives, which focus on specific, concrete issues.
Early feminist analyses focused on issues that were widely believed to be of
particular importance to women around the world, such as domestic violence,
workplace discrimination, and human rights violations against women. Many
feminist philosophers view this approach as too narrow, both in terms of the
specific issues it addresses and its methodological approach to these issues.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Limitations of Early Feminists
• Moreover, by addressing specific global “women’s issues” as independent
phenomena, early feminist analyses failed to take into account the systematic
and structural gendered injustices associated with neoliberalism.
• Although gender oppression takes different forms in different social, cultural,
and geographical locations, women in every society face systematic
disadvantages, such as those resulting from their socially assigned
responsibility for domestic work.
• Because of these structural injustices, women of all nationalities tend to suffer
more from the poverty, overwork, deprivation, and political marginalization
associated with neoliberal policies.
• Thus, more recent feminist analyses of globalization tend to understand the
outcomes of globalization not as disparate or contingent phenomena, but
rather as a result of systematic, structural injustices on a global scale.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Key Features (contd..)
• Another key feature of feminist approaches to globalization is a shared
commitment to core feminist values, including an opposition to the subordination
of women.

• Many feminists also use the language of human rights to address the challenges of
globalization. While they acknowledge that traditional understandings of human
rights are implicitly male-biased, they contend that feminist rearticulations of these
norms can help to identify the gendered harms involved in sexual slavery, forced
domestic labor, and the systematic withholding of education, food, and healthcare
from women and girls that follow from severe economic deprivation.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Relational Model
• However, not all feminist political philosophers agree with this approach. Some believe
that new feminist ideals, such as relational understandings of power, collective
responsibility, and mutual dependence, are needed to diagnose the gender injustices
associated with globalization.

• For example, Iris Marion Young argues that the traditional ideal theories of justice are
unable to account for the unjust background conditions that contribute to the
development of sweatshops in the global South.

• She argues that a new relational model of responsibility, which she calls the social
connection model, is needed to articulate the obligations that people in affluent
northern countries have to workers in the global South.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Social Connection Model of Iris
Marion Young
• The social connection model holds that individuals bear responsibility for
structural injustices, such as those suffered by workers on the global
assembly line, because our actions contribute to the institutional processes
that produce such injustices.

• In particular, northern consumers have a responsibility to organize

collectively to reform the injustices associated with sweatshop labor.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Feminist Methodologies
• The third key feature of feminist approaches to globalization is an
emphasis on feminist methodologies. In particular, these approaches tend
to embody three key methodological commitments.
• The first is intersectionality, which maintains that systems of oppression
interact to produce injustices, and thus, that gender injustices cannot be
understood solely in terms of sex or gender.
• Feminists who theorize about justice on the domestic level argue that
women’s experiences of gender oppression are shaped by other forms of
oppression, such as those based on race, class, disability, and sexual
orientation. Feminist theorists of globalization contend that gender
oppression interacts with these systems of oppression, along with other
forms of systematic disadvantage that arise within the global context.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Methodological Commitments (contd.)
• Given this broad conception of intersectionality, feminist theorists of globalization
insist that gender injustices arise within specific transnational contexts, such as
historical relationships among nations and current global economic policies.

• The second methodological commitment shared by feminist approaches to

globalization is a sensitivity to context and concrete specificity. Feminist
philosophers strive to accurately reflect the diverse interests, experience, and
concerns of women throughout the world, and to take seriously differences in
culture, history, and socio-economic and political circumstances.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Self-reflexive Critiques
• Finally, feminist theorists of globalization are committed to developing
self-reflexive critiques. At the heart of this methodology is a willingness to
critically examine feminist claims, with particular attention to the ways in
which feminist discourses privilege certain points of view.
• For instance, Schutte insists that ostensibly universal feminist values and
ideas are likely to embody the values of dominant cultures. This helps to
explain why the voices of women from developing countries are often
taken seriously only if they reflect the norms and values of the West and
conform to Western expectations. Thus, Schutte insists that feminists must
engage in methodological practices that de-center their habitual
standpoints and foreground perspectives that challenge accepted ways of
thinking (Schutte 2002).
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Moral Issues
• Are Situation or actions that do not conform to the shared norms and
values, culture, and beliefs distinguished by a certain community or social
setting.
• A dilemma that arise when we are faced with situations where our
actions may have significant consequences for ourselves or other.
• An issue becomes a moral issue under the following circumstances:
1. It is against the values, beliefs and preferences of the people in the
society.
2. It involves behavior patterns that bring the individual repeatedly into
conflict with the society.
3. It involves actions which have the potential to harm others or the
person themselves.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari
 Examples
• Abortion involves the termination of pregnancy. While other countries
consider abortion as legal, it is a moral issue in the Philippines and is
regarded a grievous sin. This action is against the norms and values of the
people, the church and the society. It is illegal under the law of the land
and is highly condemned.
• Stealing is an act of taking away someone else’s possession without
permission. It is morally and illegally wrong as it is against the ethical
standard of the society and it also violates the law of land.
• Corruption is a criminal offence that constitutes the illegal use of public
power to gain private interest. This may be done by a person, a group of
people or an organization entrusted with authority.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Moral Dilemma
• Dilemma is a kind of Situation in which difficult choice has to be made.
• An Ambiguous Situation that makes a Person to make Moral Decision.
• Moral dilemmas are the situations in which two or more moral obligations,
duties, rights, goods or ideals come into disagreement with each other.
Situations of Moral Dilemma
1. Problems of vagueness
2. Problems of conflicting Reasons
3. Problems of Disagreement

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Steps in configuring moral dilemmas
1. The relevant moral factors and the reasons are to be identified. What are
the conflicting responsibilities, rights and ideas involved?
2. All the available facts that are relevant to the moral fact involved are to be
gathered
3. The moral considerations in order of importance as they are applied to
the situations, are to be marked.
4. Alternative courses of action to solve the dilemmas are to be considered.
5. The discussion may be had with colleagues seeking their suggestion.
6. A reasonable judgement by weighing all the relevant moral factors and
reasons based on the facts, is to be arrived at carefully. This is most difficult
part of it.

Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari

 Skills for Improving Moral Autonomy
• The engineers must have the ability to distinguish and relate the moral problems with
the problems of law, economics, religions ,principles etc.
• They must possess (have) the skills of understanding, clarifying and assessing the
arguments which are against the moral issues.
• They must have the ability to suggest the solutions to moral issues, on the basis of
facts. These suggestions must be consistent and must include all the aspects of the
problem.
• They must have the Sensitivity to genuine difficulties and delicate issues.
• They must have the imaginative skill to view the problems from all view points and also
be able to suggest a proper alternative solution.
Prepared By: Avinash Adhikari