Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    P1 19

    Uploaded by

    Mikko Arvin Chua

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    P1 19

    Uploaded by

    Mikko Arvin Chua
    18 views19 pages

    Original Title

    P1-19

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views19 pages

    P1 19

    Uploaded by

    Mikko Arvin Chua

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 19
    IT ETHICS AND THE | = MORALPERSON cuaprer J Neer Concepis WY ses eee moral questions and issues in our life, since the actions that we do are bound ro affect ourselves and other people either positively or ively. We inevitably face choices that may benefit or hatm other people, Our actions sy promote the welfare of other people, just as they may infringe on their rights and their dignity. ‘veryone of ts at one time or another has experienced asking about what the morally thing to do is, or more generally about what things should be valued. Some of our sal questions may be straightforwardly practical (Should we take away a scholarship from an underprivileged student due to a low grade she incurred? Is it right to cea friend to spare him from a certain risk?) or more abstract (What is the ultimate does provide Only fe and fused. other, how it subject refer her this or have which en this understanding of what morality is, how does ethics differ from moralin? igh sometimes used to refer to one’s sct of moral beliefs and practices, stricdy cesking, etbicr is the discipline chat examines the moral standards of an individual or a >. Ina sense, ethics is a study of morality. It looks into the soundness, reasonableness, propriareness of the moral standards a person ora society espouses. It is one thing to oc or adopt a set of moral standards, itis another thing to reflect on and examine these ards. Thus, a person engages in ethics when he/she reflects on the moral standards has imbibed from his/her family, church, and friends, and asks: “Are these standards rable? Are these practices morally permissible? Are we justified to do this or that? As mentioned above, morality begins to form in childhood, which is a time when we unquestioningly and mechanically accept what is taught to us with regard to what and wrong, Thus, ic is importance that, as we macure in reason, we subject out moral ‘and practices to a reflective analysis. We ought to question those moral standards wut any critical inquiry. We need to espouse only sz we simply acquired in the past wit indards which are supported by good reasons. Iris here where the enterprise of comes in. Just as what other philosophical disciplines do, it invites us to exercise wareness and self-criticism with regard to our own fundamental views and beliefs ut morality. 'n guiding usin evaluating our own moral beliefs and standards, ethics aims to shed light che basic questions such as what s right conduct, what principles should govern our moral on-making, and what basically is a good life. Ethics is not limited to particular moral 1s and practices, but it concerns itself with the whole of moral ideals and behaviors. Areas of Ethies Asa branch of philosophy that examines and reflects about morality, ethics is usually prized into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied “Metaethics, also known as analytic ethics, looks into the nature, meaning, scope, 4 foundations of moral values and discourses. The term “meta” means affer or beyond, hus, metaethics involves an abstract and detached way of thinking philosophically «morality. It attempts to shed light on the basic ideas, concepts, and assumptions underlie our moral beliefs and judgments. If the other two areas focus directly on estion what is moral, metaethies focuses on the more fundamental question what ality itself isin the first place. For this reason, metacthics is also occasionally referred second-order” moral theorizing, to distinguish ic from the “first-order” level of mative theory. he first part of this book is devoted to metaethics as it inquires about fundamental 2s on morality—What is the nature of moral claims? How is morality distinct from ser normative standards? Is morality objective or relative? Who have moral rights? What ic mean to be morally accountable? Metaethical positions respond to these questions mining the basic meanings, ideas and connotations involved in moral discourse. sey shed light on issues pertaining to the status of moral beliefs and judgments, the editions of moral personhood and accountability, and other concepts that lie underneath se subject of morality. Normative ethic, tackled in the second part of the book, is concerned with the moral mulation of moral rolves the standards to determine right from wrong conduct. It i norms ot rules that can serve as basis of the kind of actions, institutions, and ways of life that we should pursue. Theoties proposed to answer what moral standards should govern human action usually fall into three broad categories, namely, a) consequentialism, b) deontology, and c) virtue ethics. These represent the three aspects of an action that are often considered in judging an action’s moral right ss (of wrongness): its consequences, the rule it follows (or violates), and the character of the person performing, “The third area of ethics is applied eis, which isthe subject of the third part of this book. Is thrustis to examine the particular issues in both the personal and social spheres that are matters of cal concems of ethics, i uses philosophical methods moral judgment. Focusing on the more pra to determine the moral permissbility of sp ons and practices. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, applied ethics attempts to analyze, clarify and shed light our mora judgment. Some isues in applied ‘on various ethical issues with the goal of guidi cthics pertain to public policy and d rofessions, In recent decades, new specializations in al policies, law, and applied ethics have arisen in diverse fields: busines the media. Other issues focus on personal concerns in everyday life, such as chose pertaining to life, health, sex, and relationship. Before we delve into the basic concerns of metaethics in this chapter itis important to note that there is another study of morality known as descriptive etbics; however, this is not considered an area of moral philosophy. Descriptive ethics endeavors to present to us what people think about right and wrong, how they behave, ot how they reason about ethics. ‘As such, it incorporates rescarches from the fields of anthropology, psycholo sociology, and history as part of the process of understanding the moral norms that people follow or believe in. But itis not considered a philosophical study of ethics since it does not aim to establish what should be the case-—what people ought to do, what moral standards should regulate human acts, how we should view morality. Rather, descriptive ethics aims to establish what the case is. It attempts to describe or explain the world rather than 1s tell us that some tribes prescribe whar the world should be. For example, anthropolog in India practice throwing babies from the temple roof 30 to 50 feet high to be caught in a blanket held by a g determine whether it was morally right by throwing them from the temple roof. Ethics, on the other hand, tries to answer the ive but normative—it soup of men on the ground. But anthropology, as such, does not try to hese tribes to endanger the lives of these babies question of whether such practice is right or wrong, Icis not descri asks how people should live, anthropology asks how people in fact live. in morality in so far as ie wants to find out xy follows. It may Like anthropology, sociology is interest. the set of moral beliefs and practices that a particular group of so even compare the moral belief of one culeure to that of another, But it does not seck to establish whether this or that moral belief is sound or not. Psychology studies morality in terms of its being a component of human development. Ic attempts to describe how the person’ sense of moral responsibility develops. Buc while it explains how a person makes moral judgment and whac factors affect it, it does nor tackle the correctness, cogency, of defensibility of moral judgments f life b) Its sof ods val ight pled nd B. Nature of Moral Statements derstand ethics’ normative character as a study of morality, itis important of claims that pertain to morality which we will label moral ation is important in understanding how these statements should «dor how they should be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable, This will also ht on the difference of morality from law, etiquette, and religion Moral Statements as Normative Statements accments are categorized as normative statements rather than factual statements. ative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that claims chat i ought to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment thae claims that ng f the case, As such, when one makes a normative statement, he/she presents account of how thing should be rather than what things are. Thus, we assess ess of normative statements by looking at certain criteria, standards or norms cusing on empirical data. However, as can be seen in the examples below, aside statements, there are various kinds of normative statements that have their ponding basis of assessment: irs to | Moral standard aght to return the excess chang should be unity, balance, and Aesthetic standard st in your painting. ight 10 use the preposition “in” | Grammatical standard than “on.” legal to make a U-turn there Legal standard t your mouth when you laugh Standard of etiquette s mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something is se, its claim can be empirically assessed as true ot false based on either research, ion, or experiment. For example Philippine Independence day was | Historical research ed on June 12, 1946 3 tribes in India practice cannibalism. | Observation cause of the fish kill in the river is | Scientific research ion from agricultural biotoxins. litmus paper will turn ted wl ped in an acid solution. Experiment Normative statements differ from factual statements in the way they are justified, confitmed, or assessed. We appeal ¢o certain standards when we deal with normative Statements, On the other hand, we appeal to the results of research, experiment, of observation when we deal with factual statements. It can be noticed on the above examples that normative statements are of various kinds, not only those pertaining to morality. Some pertain to the standards of visual arts, grammar, law, etiquette, religion, et. We will claborate on the distinction of moral statements from these other normative statements in the next section. Here, we will focus mainly on the normative nacure of moral claims. Since a moral statement is a normative statement rather than a factual one, it cannot be justified by merely appealing to facts, empirical evidences, or data. Although providing facts may be significane in justifying a moral claim, this remains insufficient Consider the following argument: “According toa study often countries that enforce the death penale, the rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced. Therefore, i i morally right to enforce the death penalty “The premise supporting the above moral claim is a statement of fact. This statement is established by gathering statistical daa to arrive at a factual claim. However, to make @ moral conclusion that imposing the death penalty is right needs more than merely providing 4 factual statement or information. There is a need to connect the factual statement with the moral conclusion by supplying certain moral standards or principles such as “An act is right if t promotes the greater good of the people.” Thus, the moral argument should be: Imposing the death penalty will lower the rate of eriminality in our society and thus will be beneficial to the greater number of people “An act is right ifit promotes the greater good of the greater number. Therefore, imposing the death penalty is right. The moral principle (second statement) added as a premise in the argument is not factual by nature. It was nor derived from appealing to research or experiment. But without citing this moral standard, the fact that death penalty has brought down the rate of criminality in countries that have imposed it, cannot suffice co justify thac death penaley should be imposed. This point can be explained more by stating that though some people may also accept or agree with the fact that death penalty can reduce the rate of criminality in our society, they still hold that it is morally wrong to impose the death penalty as they believe that the right to life of a human being is sacred and inviolable. Thus, despite the greater good to society that the imposition of death penalty may Popropranseramdon cine ply) ing about, other Poul stil regard it as morally unacceptable. (Chapter | Eis Bac Cons ee les will ment make a ding ex with ld be: will be “We can see here that determining the rightness or wrongness of imposing the death penalty does not lie only on establishing certain facts but deciding what moral standards or principles to follow—pursuing the greater good or respecting the human rights of individuals. One accepts a moral claim not by looking at the facts alone. One agrees or disagrees with a moral claim on the basis of the moral standard he/she follows or believes in Such distinction of factual and moral statements suggests that factual statements are easier co sere than moral statements, since che basis of the later (For being true or false) is objective. That is, if there is a disagreement between two people whether the rate of criminality had gone down this year compared to last year, or whether a drug can cure a particular disease, the results of scientific research can clearly determine who is correct and who is mistaken. However, itis said that disagreements on moral claims—whether we should allow homosexual marriage or not, whether euthanasia is permissible or not—are more difficult, if not impossible, to settle or to be given any final resolution. It is for this reason that moral claims are said to be relative and their acceptability lies on one’s personal ‘opinion oF culeural beliefs Although this question of whether moral claims are relative or not will be extensively discussed in a later section of this chapter, itis worth mentioning at this point that i is a mistake to think that moral statements are always difficult to justify, and their acceptability is always subjective tothe individual. The claim “Ic is morally wrong to torture a person for fan or the assertion “Ic is morally right to give aid to typhoon victims” is not difficult to justify Ie is alo incorrect to think that issues dealing with Factual daims are always easy to resolve or uncontroversial. Certain factual statements like “Humans evolved from primitive primates” “Imposing the death penalty will deter murdes,” and “Aliens from other planets have visited the carth” are controversial and their truth (or falsity) is not easy to establish, Therefore, we cannot distinguish moral and factual statements in terms of the degree of difficulty disagreements about them can be resolved. What is clear, however, is the basis by which we determine the acceptability of these statements—for factual statements we appeal to empirical data through research and observation; for moral statements, like other normative statements, we appeal to norms and standards. Moral Statements and Moral Standards Afier distinguishing moral from factual statements, it is now easier to understand the difference of moral statements from other normative statements, We have seen earlier that aside from moral statements, there are other statements that are normative, that is, ‘hose that are justified and accepted based on standards rather than facts. However, the standards used to justify normative statements are not moral standards. ‘The standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, the standards of law by which we judge an action to be legally right or wrong, the standards of language by which we judge what is grammatically right and wrong, the standards of aesthetics by which we judge good and bad art, and the athletic standards by which we judge how well a basketball or 2 football game is being played—these standards are not moral standards. So how can we distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards? Addressing this question can shed ihice Thesnd Applione| Unt 7 light to how different moral statements are from other normative statements, as well as hhow distinct morality is from etiquette, law, and religion. Ethicists have identified a number of characteristics that speak of the nature of mora standards, Although each of these characteristics may not be unique to moral standards, f taken together, they can distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards. First moral standards deal with matters that we chink can seriously harm or benefit human beings. ‘The conventional moral norms against cheating, lying, and killing deal wich actions that can gravely hurt people. Whether human dignity is respected or degraded, work conditions are safe or dangerous, and products ate beneficial or detrimental ro out health are matters that affect human well-being. The standards thac govern our conduct in these areas are moral standards. Second, moral standards have universal validity. They apply to all who are in the relevantly similar situation. IF it is morally wrong for a person A to do act X, chen ic is ‘wrong co do X for anyone relevantly similar co P. This characteristic is exemplified in the moral rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” If we believe that killing a person is morally wrong, then we expect that people in other places follow the same bel cess of their culture or religion. In comparison, other standards are only valid to a particular group governed by such standards, The rule on fasting at certain times is observed in some religions but not to other religions or to non believers. Etiquettes such as not wearing red in a funeral or taking off your shoes when entering a house are practiced in some cultures but not to others. ‘Third, moral standards are generally chought to have a particularly overriding importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over other values. A violation of the moral rule against killing or stealing is more important than a violation of the rules of etiquette or of grammar. Similarly, a moral judgment weighs more than an acsthetic judgment. Moral claims are also more imporcane than claims pertaining to law. Thus, laws are questioned when they are thought to be unjust or are contrary to moral standards. Moreover, legislators determine what laws to enact on the basis of certain moral principles such as common good, respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice. This point will be claborated more in the next section when we discuss morality and law. Fourth, moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies, nor are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition. While laws and legal standards are established by the authority of the legislature, religious beliefs and practices are taught by the Church fathers and scholars, rules of etiquette emanate from tradition and consensus, moral standards, however, are not established by a particular authority Instead, the validity of moral standards lies on the adequacy of reasons that support ot justify them. So long as these reasons are adequate, the standards remain valid Guided by these characteristics of moral standards, lee us look into how, in particular, morality differs from law, etiquette, and religion. These three are often identified with morality, since these are also institutions and customs that lay down certain norms that serve as our basis in determining what we ought to do and not do. C. Morality and Other Normative Subjects Morality and Etiquette Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular social group. Following these rules makes us show respect and courtesy t0 others. In eating out, for example, one should wait until all the people on the table have been served before he/she starts eating. Of course, there are various areas in our social life ‘where our courtesy to others is expected. Aside from dining, we have etiquette at certain occasions such as baptism and funeral, we have etiquette on riding a public transportation, doing business, and even communicating (thus, we need to also observe certain rules in the more modern ways of communicating such as sending emails and posting in social media.) But these so-called rules of etiquette vary from one culture to another. What may be an accepted behavior in one culture may not be in another. Etiquette is differene from morality in that the former is concerned with proper behavior while che latcer with right conduct. Etiquette is also more arbitrary and culture- based than morality. To get others’ approval of our action, to be thought of well by people, and to show respect to them, we try to observe common rules of etiquette. Violating the rules can lead society to consider you ill-mannered, impolite, or even uncivilized —but not necessarily immoral. Making loud slurping sound when taking noodles or not closing your ed as mouth as you chew your food may result to being called impolite or being perce lacking in manner, but they are not basis for claiming that one is acting immoral. In the same way, it does not necessarily mean that following what etiquerte demands is acting morally. Shaw (2002) pointed out that scrupulous observance of rules of etiquette can camouflage moral issues. Before the laws against racial discrimination were enacted in the ‘America, it was thought that i is bad manners for blacks and whites to eat rogether or to si side by side in a bus. But for one who believed that such rule of etiquette is rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation, promoting or simply conforming to such rule does not ar-old black woman amount doing the moral ching. Such was the point shown by a named Rose Parks when she was asked to give up her seat fora white man and refused. Though she may noc comply with the social expectation, she stood her ground knowing that she has not done anything immoral. On the contrary, she believed she was doing the morally right thing to do as she fought for equality and fairness. Though morality and etiquette are not synonymous with each other, there is a relationship between the two since both concern human action. For example, disregarding or scorning etiquette can be considered immoral in certain circumstances, There can be different ways of greeting a person among various cultures. In Japan people greet each other by bowing, and their bows differ in angle and duration depending on the person they are greeting. In Oman, men greet each other by pressing their noses together. In Thailand, people greet each other by pressing their hands together in the fashion of a prayer and slightly bowing their heads. But as pointed out by Pojman (1999), once the custom is adopted, the practice takes on the importance of a moral rule, subsumed under ible Thora Apis the wider principle of showing respect to people. In Islamic societies, standards of modesty ‘all for a woman to cover her body, particularly her chest. Thus, some Muslim women swear hijab ora scarf that covers the head and neck and falls below the level ofthe shoulders to cover the upper chest area. Muslims who follow this practice believe that it protects women’s dignity and promote modesty. Although there is nothing immoral for a non- Muslim woman to wear sleeveless blouse or skimpy clothes, appearing in such an ourficin a Muslim communiey may well be so offensive that it is morally insensitive or scandalous. Morality and Law Like etiquette, law also regulates human conduct, which is why i is often confused with morality. We ought not to exploit the weak, deceive another person, or take what is not fours because these acts are morally and legally wrong. The moral imperative not co Kill person coincides with the legal imperative not to commit murder or homicide. ‘Law and morality, however, are different. Breaking the law is not always an immoral act just as following the law is not necessarily doing what is morally right. Let ws take an example to illustrate ths point. Suppose your mother sufered a heart attack and she needed to be brought to the hospital immediately. You took her in your car and rushed her to the hospital driving ata speed of 100 kph. Although you are prohibited by law to drive at more than 60 kph on that road, it does not seem morally right for you to follow the law and drive at that speed limit knowing hac doing o will jeopardize the life of your mother, Driving the carat chat speed may break the law, but is morally right. Tecan also be said that an action that is legal can be morally wrong, For instance, abortion may be legal in a particular country, but the question whether itis morally right to commit an abortion remains an issue; thus, some of its citizens may stage a protest oor demonstration urging the state to respect the right to life of the unborn, Or when Janet Napoles, the alleged mastermind behind the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scams, repeatedly invoked the tight to selFincrimination, thus evading the questions and being mum on what she knew about the politicians who were involved in corruption. It may be legal to remain silent rather than to tell che eruth, but such act jeopardizes truth and justice, and thus is morally questionable. In those cases, itis clear that certain actions may be in aecordance to the law, but not morally right. Despite theie differences, how are law and morality related to each other? We can say thac in many cass, laws are based on morality. We determine what laws to adopt or enact on the basis of certain moral principles. RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 which prohibits people from smoking in public places is based on the moral principle of the greater good for the greater number. Since law is derived from morality people tend to equate what is lawful with what is moral. To a significant degree, law codifics a sociery’s ‘moral ideals and values, But we should not see what is lawful and what is moral as identical for, as pointed outby Shaw (2002), “law cannot cover the wide variety of possible individual and group conduct, and in many situations i is roo blunt an instrument o provide moral guidance” (p. 6) Laws may be enacted, amended, or epealed by legislators to protect their vested interests, and may not really be beneficial to the general welfare, One may wonder why the Anti-Political Dynasty bill which aims to remove the concentration of political (Chapter | Ebi Bsc Cony Tiss ea. pbb l AAS Peterrrrrr cer within a particular clan has been proposed in the Philippine Cong ready, but has not g several times n the nod of the legislators. It can be surmised that enacting such 2w will be detrimental to the interests of those political personalities in the Congress, Mo ality and Religion spite their difference, morality is ofte identified with religion. In various societies and the world, religion has so much influenced che moral life of the people so as ro be

    You might also like