Three Ethical Tools (Part One)...

This is Part One of a two-part article. My intention is to review three of the basic tools of ethical thinking that we at the Rutland Institute treat in much more detail in our regular Ethics Across the Curriculum seminars. The tools aren’t tied to any one subject matter, or even to the curriculum or to the academic world; they are basic ethical approaches that are applicable in any context. I’ll call the three approaches the harm-benefit approach, the rights approach, and the virtue ethics approach.

Here in Part One I’ll briefly cover the first two of the three ethical tools (or perspectives). I’ll talk about the third one – the virtue ethics approach -- in Part Two.

First then there is what I’m calling the harm-benefit approach. Here, we try to act rightly by paying attention to the benefits (good results) as well as to the harms (bad results or costs) that our actions are likely bring about. Although very young children might consider only the harms and benefits that they themselves might receive, by the time most of us are older, we are able to consider the harms and benefits that will accrue to an expanding circle of others – family members, friends, neighbors, random people, and even animals (especially, perhaps, our pets) and entire towns and eco-systems.



This is a very basic and very important moral approach, and when we are at an early age our teachers and parents are much concerned about getting us to recognize that the interests of others matter too. We learn to share our toys. We learn to take turns. We learn not to hit. And it is at this point that punishments (for bad behavior) and rewards (for good behavior) are most appropriate.

Some people, however, never seem to learn the simple lesson that we should consider the interests of other people. Think of crimes such as rape or robbery, for example. We have to bring some punishment to bear on the rapist or the thief. The punishment is meant to put a price on the criminal act – a price that is so high that potential rapists or thieves will be deterred.

A second moral approach goes beyond the matter of harm and benefit and takes into account the rights that people are due, and the respect we owe to them. An early lesson we learn here is that of keeping a promise. Suppose I have promised someone to meet him downtown at 8 o’clock Thursday evening. But when Thursday evening rolls around, and it is time to carry out the promise, I balk. I really don’t feel like going downtown. I calculate that the amount of harm in breaking my promise is not very great, and that the benefit of not keeping my promise is considerable; I would be very much inconvenienced if I were to try to keep the promise. Of course, there are various negative consequences that will follow from my failure to keep my word: perhaps I will lose the trust of the person to whom the promise was made, and perhaps I will even gain somewhat of a reputation for breaking my word. But if I were only to rely on the cost-benefit approach, I might calculate that, overall, in this particular case there is more benefit to be gained by breaking my promise than by keeping it. Perhaps the person to whom I have made the promise will never be in the position to do me any harm. Anyway, I reason, the words of the promise are in the past now and it is only the future costs and benefits that matter. And when I weigh up the future costs and benefits, I find that the greater net benefit on the side of breaking the promise. “Why should I make a different judgment just because some words (the promise) were spoken?” But this is not how we treat a promise. We are not supposed to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes time to deliver on the promise; we are supposed to be bound by the promise.

A different case – one in which there are no explicit promises – might be even stronger. Suppose that I am in charge of manufacturing a consumer product. The company and I know that the product will have some benefits, but also some costs. Suppose the product is a new type of computer monitor that has some very desirable features (let’s say that it’s a flat screen monitor with extremely high definition) but it also causes some harm to the eyes of people who use it over long periods of time. At first, users of the monitor will be delighted, but over time (perhaps after several years or a decade) problems will emerge. Lawyers at the firm give me a rough approximation of the costs that I am liable to incur due to people with damaged eyesight who sue the company.

I am at first surprised how low this figure is, but it is explained to me that many of the people who are the potential users of these monitors will have switched to other monitors as the problems emerge, and that some of the users will even have died before the most serious damage would have occurred or before their case can come to court. So, putting all this together, figuring the profit that can be made, and subtracting the anticipated legal and social costs, I find that the greatest benefit comes from manufacturing and marketing the computer monitor. In fact, I reason that it is actually a good use of resources since the monitor is sure to be a big hit, and there will be many people who benefit from this: the sales force, the delivery people, the consumers themselves (certainly for a while, at least). Whereas, if I don’t green-light the manufacture of the monitor, then many people – the sales people, the delivery people, etc. – will be unable to bring a paycheck home to their families.

The eye damage of the consumers counts against my proceeding with this plan, but I figure that manufacturing the monitor can still be profitable--the company can make enough money to pay for all of the manufacturing and marketing costs, as well as the legal judgments that I anticipate will arise form the sale and use of the monitor.

Yet, from a moral point of view, why is this not a good idea? The answer is that more than consequences and results need to be considered. Rights and respect have to be considered. To do what I am thinking to these people – the consumers – is a violation of their rights.

Now I have briefly discussed the two moral approaches that seem to me to provide us with ethical tools -- tools that we can use to think about ethical situations. The harm-benefit approach weighs up the good and the bad consequences of our actions, and the rights approach reminds us that people have rights that need to be respected. (I might be able to produce a lot of good results, for a lot of people, if I can get my hands on some of Bill Gates’s money, but the rights approach tells us that to just take the money without his knowledge or permission would be wrong: it would violate his rights.)

The third approach, which I’ll talk about next time in Part Two, differs in several significant ways from these first two approaches. It’s also the oldest ethical approach, and goes back to the ancient Greeks.
(to be continued …)

 

~Dr. Stephen Satris

stephen@clemson.edu