00:00:11 Palestrante 1

Ethical decision making. In this video, we will see how ethicists recommend we proceed to
make good ethical decisions.

Stand even sometimes nowadays philosophers would not refer to ethical decision making or
decision making process is. Rather they would talk about moral judgement, moral judgement,
ethical decision making. It's the same thing.

Ethical decision making.

Oh, and the philosophers we're about to discover in the next videos have studied how people
reason to arrive at a good solution, not just any thought process.

Reasoning. So that is why what we're about to see today is moral reasoning or ethical
reasoning.

Let's take an example.

Uber and Lyft are now two well known companies. They offer services that compete with taxes
in several cities around the world. Actually, those two companies do not offer much to the
customer. They do not own any vehicles. They do not employ any drivers. Uber and Lyft.

Drivers are contractors or independent workers. It means they use their own cars and they
take all the risks to offer you the service. Some people consider those drivers do not get a lot in
return from those two companies.

Drivers are contractors or independent workers. It means they use their own cars and they
take all the risks to offer you the service. Some people consider those drivers do not get a lot in
return from those two companies.

In the fall of 2019, California passed a bill to force these chair riding companies and others to
classify their drivers as employees rather than contractors.

In your opinion, what could have motivated the legislators to make such a decision?
To increase social and economic protection for the drivers and force Uber and Lyft to face their
actual responsibilities towards those drivers.00:01:47 Palestrante 1

To stop the injustices committed by Uber and Lyft and provide fairness to the drivers.

To help California become a more just society in which there is more fairness and less precarity
to take care of, the drivers who are often financially fragile and need protection.

Which answer did you choose? Each of them seemed to say more or.

Less the same thing.

However, they all correspond to a different kind of logic of reasoning, a type of reasoning that
we will explore in the next videos.

Moral values and moral deliberation.

A value is an ideal that we hold dear. It's a bit like the lighthouse that we seek in the night. We
use values to choose our behaviours because they help us determine what is acceptable and
what is not.

There are various types of values. For instance in culture, like how early should you arrive for
an appointment in entertainment, such as what makes a pleasurable experience or not in
science to determine what is good science or not, et cetera.

Moral values are the values that have to do with good and bad or right and wrong.

We inherit our values from our education, our culture, our social circles.

Our life experience.

Also influences our moral values. Sometimes our values are Conflicting, for instance.

Should we move abroad, in order to study or should we stay home and start a family?

Or less serious one. Should we go out tonight with friends?

Or should we stay home and study when this is the case, we are facing a dilemma and when
we are facing a dilemma, we need to consider things carefully. That careful thinking is called.

A deliberation is the act of moral reasoning.

In the following videos, we will see five types of deliberation, consequentialist, deontological,
arising from the ethics of virtue - teleological, arising from,the ethics of care, and a
combination.

Arquivo de áudio
A gravação 4.wav

Transcrever
Consequentialist deliberation. In a consequentialist deliberation, we focus on the
consequences of our actions. For the purpose of this Business ethics course we will only talk
about a particular type of consequentialism called utilitarianism as a moral deliberation.
Consequentialist or utilitarian deliberation helps us find the best course of action when faced
with a dilemma in order to decide what to do, we ask the following question in the situation
that we are facing, what is the action that will bring the greater good to the greater number?
Utilitarian or consequentialist deliberations are very commonly used in the business world
because they offer a logical way to measure different options against each other. Yet they are
often reduced to their simplest expression. A cost benefit analysis. However, conducting a
complete utilitarian or consequentialist deliberation is more complex than that, and it is
fraught with difficulties. The first difficulty is our capacity to anticipate all possible
consequences of our actions. Some consequences are difficult to foresee. Unimaginable. The
COVID-19 pandemic offers us plenty of examples of consequences that were not anticipated.
For instance, in some countries presently confinement orders are resulting in a resurgence of
illnesses such as polio, because vaccination campaigns had to be put on hold. Since we are not
omniscient, predicting consequences could prove problematic. The next difficulty is being able
to weigh consequences adequately. Not all consequences are equal, and some are more
desirable or undesirable than others. For instance, nowadays there's a worldwide effort to
abandon paper into switch to electronic documents in the workplace. Though the effort.
Means cutting less trees and reducing waste. We must not forget it also means a huge increase
in electricity consumption due to the number of facilities needed to store all these electronic
data and that electricity is produced in power plants that are not always green. And cause all
that pollution problems. So how do we choose between less tree or more power plants? The
third difficulty we face is that when deciding what course of action brings the greater good, we
assume that we know what the greater good is and history provides us with plenty of
examples. As people who thought they knew what the greater good was. And yet nowadays
we considered that instead. They caused great evil. The 4th difficulty is linked to the previous
one when deciding the greater good for the greater number, we must ask ourselves who is
included in that greater number. Again, history and recent history shows us how women and
many demographic minorities were excluded from the decisions. And we do not forget about
them only because we are biassed or prejudices sometimes. We lack in. Education and
information, and we simply do not know that there are groups that have been silenced. For
instance, in International Development projects, women are only now beginning to be
included in discussions on those projects for a very long time. Development projects were
actually maintaining them in poverty and forced silence. So talking about the greater number
raises. All sorts of questions about inclusion, difficult questions. Finally, as human beings, we
are limited, as we've seen with the incapacity to predict all the outcomes of our actions or with
our numerous vices. We are also limited in our capacity to treat information. Although a
consequentialist or utilitarian deliberation requires us to consider all possible. Courses of
action and select the best one our brains can only deal with a limited quantity of information.
Therefore, instead of looking for the optimal solution, we look for one that will both satisfy our
needs and suffice to solve our problems, we simply look for an adequate solution or as Nobel
Prize winner Herbert Simon described it, we look for a satisficing solution. So a
consequentialist or utilitarian deliberation is very difficult to conduct and is never as logical as
we would like to think because we are not computers. However, conducting such a
deliberation forces us to reflect on how our actions can affect others.

__________________________________________Arquivo de áudio
Transcrever
Deontological deliberation. When we are facing a moral dilemma, a deontological deliberation
is one way to find what we should do by asking ourselves what are the rules that apply in that
situation, and what actions respects them. All those rules are the rules of law, of course, but
also our moral duties. The moral values, our moral principles, et cetera. It is a way of arriving at
a solution that we are able to practise from a very early age. Studies have shown that infants
younger 6 month old react negatively toward people who treat others unfairly. So conducting
A deontological deliberation comes naturally to us, and it is simpler than conducting A
consequentialist or utilitarian one. Indeed, instead of carrying out complicated calculations on
the consequences of all our options, we simply have to find the one that cheques. All the
boxes. Some well known rules make the ontological deliberation even easier. Here are three
such. Rules the 1st. 2 ones come from philosopher Emmanuel Kant. They are, in his own terms.
Categorical imperatives, meaning that they are rules that apply unconditionally to everybody.
Can't cause the first rule. They formula of universal law. He posits that a good action is one
that could become universal. Carried out by everyone on the planet. If you feel upset when
you see somebody throwing a piece of garbage on the floor rather than disposing of it
properly, you are unconsciously applying the universal law. You're asking yourself what if
everybody did that? A second categorical imperative dictates that we always treat a person as
an end or as having intrinsic value and never as a means to achieve an end. Although
enlightening, we must recognise that this imperative raises many problems. In the workplace,
for instance, we always talk about human resources. Clearly, designating employees as means
and not as end in themselves. But can we do otherwise, and if yes, to what extent? The third
rule that can help a deontological deliberation is known as the golden rule. Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you. It is an ethical foundation, found in many philosophies and
in all religions. Simply put, do not harm others. So deontological deliberation is quite simple.
However, there are at least 2 problems with it first following. The rules is. OK, but blindly
following them may lead to highly undesirable consequences. For instance, in 2012 on a beach
in Florida, a lifeguard. Named Thomas Lopez was alerted to someone needing help in an
unsupervised area of the beach. Lopez ran to help and with the help of others, saved the
person's life. Yet after filing his incident report, Lopez was fired because his intervention. Had
taken place 500 metres outside of his assigned area. His employer rapidly became an
international laughing stock in the news for blindly applying a company's rule. Another
difficulty of deontological deliberation becomes apparent when 2 rules are conflicting.
Lifeguard Thomas Lopez might have been torn between obeying the obligation to stare at his
post and watched swimmers who counted on him for their safety or abandoned his post and
provide assistance. To a person in immediate danger, a conflict of rules can easily be resolved
by prioritising one above the other. Thomas Lopez apparently decided that immediate danger
trumped potential danger, and he ran out of his territory to help a drowning person. Incapacity
to prioritise might result in indecisiveness and paralysis, and that could lead to very bad
consequences. So a deontological decision makes decision making easier, because it's tells us
we simply have to follow the rules, but maybe we should still be mindful of
consequences.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------- -Arquivo de áudio

The virtue ethics deliberation. State what kind of person does that action make me? This way
of thinking about a problem is inspired by the writings of Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle
lived in the 4th century before comedy era, and is considered the father of ethics. For
Aristotle, a sure guide to making the right choices would be to develop a strong moral
character. It means to become a good human being, a person who regularly practises courage,
honesty or kindness, for instance, is much more likely to choose actions that reflect. Those
values meet the future. Then, when choosing a course function, the question that we must ask
ourselves is, is this action in agreement with my moral character or with the person that I
really want to be? For that reason, this type of deliberation is sometimes called teleological
deliberation, from the Greek telos, which means ultimate result or ultimate aim. Contrary to
the ontology or utilitarianism, the virtue ethics deliberation does not give us a strong process
to follow to solve each problem that we face. It may lack in structure, provides no strict
principles to a Deal, 2 but it gives us perspective a deep sense. Of direction to help us become
the human being, we aspire to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arquivo de áudio
A gravação 8.wav

Transcrever
The deliberation based on the ethics of care. When confronted with a problematic situation,
an ethics of care approach requires that we ask ourselves which action would meet the needs
of the people involved and what would help preserve and nurture the existing relationships.
The ethics of care is in a proto morality that is based on well. Caring meeting the needs of
others and nurturing relationships. Let's say you have no money or not enough to buy a
medicine that could cure somebody you love. A very serious illness. Would you steal it? And if
you knew somebody who had to make that choice, would you let them steal the medicine? If
you say yes, your answer is probably motivated by your natural drive to take care of your loved
one or by your compassion for a person trying to cure a loved one. A deontological
deliberation would require you to look. At your duties? And might have led you to refuse
stealing on principle, but it could also point you to the imperative to protect life.
Consequentialist or utilitarian approach would have you weigh all the consequences of
stealing. Versus refusing to do so here we ask different questions. Although it might seem very
intuitive, the ethics of care approach to a problem does not necessarily offer a quicker way to
find what to do, because you may have to think hard about how best to take care of the
people in the situation. The ethics of care was initially considered a feminist ethics because it is
associated with the. Way women are. Usually expected to behave to take care of others,
whereas men are usually expected to adopt principle based behaviours, in particular justice
based behaviours, however. Since the concept was first described by moral psychologist Carol
Gilligan in 1982, studies have confirmed that this type of approach is found in men as well as.
In women. And yes, men can be sensitive to others needs, so we must not oversimplify.
Applying the ethics of care is not a question of gender, and in fact any type of deliberation can
be adopted. By men and women alike.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arquivo de áudio
A gravação 9.wav
Transcrever
Multimodal deliberations. When confronted with the difficult, sometimes existential question,
thinking about it from only one point of view may not be enough. This is why specialists in
ethics suggest deliberation processes that combine the deliberation modes seen in the other
videos. These deliberation processes are presented in grids or matrices. These grids present
similarities, of course, since many of them refer to consequentialism, deontology, and virtue
ethics. But some also incorporate additional elements. Here we will examine two such
deliberation grades. The first grid is widely used in the province of Quebec. It was originally
designed in French by Quebecois philosopher and ethicist named George Aligo. It is informally
referred to as LEGO's grid. Here you can see the. Outline of that grid. Note that this is an
updated version, not the original logos grid. It has been modified in order to simplify it and to
make group for the ethics of voter approach, because grid is divided in three parts. The first
part consists in identifying and documenting the problem you must solve. The second part
goes through three deliberation modes, consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. It
requires you to answer questions about each of the options or possible actions that could
solve your problem. The third part helps you sift through all the information that you
generated in the second part. In other words, it helps you verify which of the following is the
most important given the problem you're confronted with. Is it the consequences? The norms
and duties or your integrity in the long run. When you have answered all the questions in this
grid, you will be in possession of a solution to your problem. A robust solution, well
documented if you ever have to justify the choice that you made. That grid gives you
everything that you need. Needless to say, it's very useful in the workplace where you are held
accountable for your decisions. It's also extremely useful when you need to advise and
convince someone. Your boss on the right course of action. Then you have all the arguments in
hand. The second grade we examine here was developed by American ethicists Linda Trevino
and Catherine Nelson. For the most part, it is similar to LEGO's grid, except. For a few
elements. Notably, it is less formal and does not ask precise questions at each step of the
decision making process. It also contains an additional element at the 8th step. Trevino and
Nelson ask you to check your gut. In doing so, they deviate from the rational decision making
process that these deliberation grids normally respect. They want to call your attention to the
fact that you may have. Passion lies to your answers, and each step of the process you may be
lying to yourself in trying to justify a bad decision or trying to convince yourself to adopt A
particular course faction. Yet if something is wrong, you will know it in your gut. Or in your.
Boat or in your heart? Well, you will know. There are other grids that you could find in books
or on the Internet. You may also try to design your own. You may want to incorporate the
ethics of care approach to existing grids. Find or design one that you feel comfortable using.
You will not need this grid every day, but if you have a very tough decision to make, such a grid
could prove very helpful.

-------------