![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Q1. Listing some good traits. What are some examples?
Answer: Honesty, Justice, Wisdom, Courage
Q2. But *how and why* does this make someone ethical?
Answer: I think that’s a good question! Some traits are obviously problematic in some circumstances like being overly generous with people who will just abuse your generosity. I think with this theory you need to follow something like the “Golden Mean”, that is try to avoid extremes like being generous to people who don’t deserve it.
Q3. Does an ethical person get there by
1) Following the right rules (deontological ethics)?
or
2) Getting positive results (utilitarian ethics)?
Answer: I tend to think that ethics is going to be based on positive results. If an action has no positive or negative results then I don’t think its really worth caring about.
Q4. Do you lean more toward utilitarianism or deontology?
As I mentioned earlier I believe I lean more toward utilitarianism.
Q5. Scenario a:
A hungry homeless person asks for food money
You give some
He uses it to get drunk
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)
He buys a hamburger
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)
Answer: It depends. If someone was homeless I could see why they would want to get drunk so maybe the action wasn’t so bad. However, if the person had a serious problem with alcohol then I would say this was unethical since it only feeds their addiction. If he bought some food then I would say it was definitely ethical.
Q6. You refuse and offer him a job
He takes you up on the offer
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)
He gets sick from lack of food
Were you ethical? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)
Answer: I would say this is probably unethical. Making someone work while seriously hungry seems to inflict needless suffering since either way you would end up giving them the same amount of money. There is no difference in cost from your point of view.
Q7. Some have claimed …
“The ends justify the means”
Do they? (Utilitarianism vs. Deontologism vs. Virtue)
Answer: I think they could given the circumstances. Again, going back to my previous point, results are the only reason we care about an action. If an action was unethical according to deontology but didn’t inflict any negative consequences at all (i.e. suffering, loss of property, jail time, etc.) then I don’t think any rational person would get upset.
Q8. Is the concept of “a war to end all wars” ethical?
Answer: Probably not. You can’t really know that such a war would actually have the results you want. People during the first world war probably thought that the war fit this description. I think they wouldn’t have believed it would be repeated again as world war 2.
Q9. So . . . what is Kant’s categorical imperative?
Answer: The categorical imperative is the idea that we should treat people as “ends” instead of “means”. In other words, this is pure deontological ethics applied to people.
Q10. What is the Golden Rule?
Answer: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Q11. Does The Declaration of Independence contain the categorical imperative?
Answer: Since it talks a lot about God given rights I would say yes it does contain it.
Q12. What do you think of the categorical imperative?
Answer: I think it’s a great ethical rule and someone will be a better person for following it.
Q12. Suppose an out-of-control train is hurtling down the tracks, you happen to be at the switch, and if you operate the switch it will hit one person but if not it will hit five. What do you do?
Answer: I would sacrifice one person to save five.
Q13. “Don’t lie”: Ok, but what if that leads to harm for someone?
Answer: You should lie in that case if you were really sure.
Q14. What about punishing “pre-crime” as in the movie “Minority Report” ?
Answer: Probably not. If per-crime is true then that means free will isn’t true. If free will isn’t true it makes no sense to punish people. In that case I would be in favor of whatever means prevents crime from occurring in the first place.
Q15. Ends vs. means:
Which is the focus of deontological ethics?
Which is the focus of utilitarian ethics?
Answer: Ends is the focus of utilitarian ethics and means is the focus of deontological ethics.
Q16. Which of the following are best justified by:
Deontologism?
Utilitarianism?
Laws about the awarding of damages
Tax laws
Parking and speeding laws
Laws about violent crime
The golden rule and similar
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you
Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them (promoted by e.g. J. Gray Cox)
The 10 commandments
Answer:
Laws about the awarding of damages: Utilitarian
Tax laws: Utilitarian
Parking and speeding laws: Utilitarian
Laws about violent crime: Utilitarian
The golden rule and similar: Deontology
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you: Deontology
Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you: Deontology
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them (promoted by e.g. J. Gray Cox): Deontology
The 10 commandments: Deontology
Q17. Threshold Deontology
Tolerate some adverse ends,
– but –
switch to utilitarianism
if appropriate
Any examples?
How about victim impact statements in criminal trials?
Answer: I think this is how most people approach ethics. An example would be lying. Basically avoid it unless some bad consequences are obvious. Victim impact statements are another example.
Q18. Should rules be broken when the utility is high?
Answer: Probably yes but I think it depends on the circumstances.
Q19. moral intuition
often fits utilitarianism
better than it fits deontologism
What do you think?
And how should we think about some of our examples?
Answer: I disagree. I think most people are more comfortable with rules based thinking. As for our examples I still prefer utilitarian thinking
Q20. Theory of copyrights and patents
– persuade people to create by protecting their IP
– let others benefit by not over-protecting the IP
– how to balance those two?
– How is this deontological? Utilitarian?
Answer: I think the current system in America works pretty well. Our IP based economy is pretty vibrant.
Q21. Suppose someone is injured by a rare side effect of a drug?
– should they be compensated, or not?
– what is the utilitarian argument?
– what is the deontological argument?
– what is your argument?
Answer: If the side effect was not a result of negligence then no they should not be compensated. Overall, drugs do much more good than harm and you can’t really get rid of all side effects. That would probably be considered the utilitarian argument. Deontologists would probably say that the person deserves compensation because humans deserve to be protected.
