University of Khartoum

Faculty of Engineering

The Ethical Cycle

Lc 7
By

Asila Osman
 Introduction
• Ethics problems are difficult to solve. It is
very hard to come up with a general
strategy to tackle ethics problem. But there
is one such strategy: the ethical cycle.
We’ll discuss it in this chapter
 ILL-STRUCTURED PROBLEMS
• Mainstream ethics has been dominated by
rational foundationalist approaches. They
try to search for one, or a limited number,
of basic moral principles that can solve
every ethical problem. However, they fail
to see that solving ethical problems is
really rather complex. This is because
moral problems are ill-structured problems
• ill-structured problems have no definitive
formulation of the problem, they may embody an
inconsistent problem formulation, and they can
only be defined during the process of solving the
problem. Also, ill-structured problems don’t have
just one perfect solution. Instead, they may have
several alternative satisfactory solutions. Thus,
solving ill-structured problems is not only about
analyzing the problem and choosing/defending a
certain solution. Instead, it is also about finding
new solutions. (This is called synthetic
reasoning.)
 Case Description

Problem Statement

Problem Analysis

Options of actions

Ethical Evaluation

Reflection

Moral Acceptable Action

 1. Case description
• Give a brief description of the case at hand: 
– Background of a problem
– Nature of the problem
– The problem itself
– Interacting /involved Actors (primary , secondary and even off-
stage)
– Assumption and constraints
– Facts and legal points raised
– what has occurred.
– What are the damages
 2. Problem statement
A good moral question/problem statement must meet three
conditions:

1. what the problem is?

2. Who has to act?
3. What is moral nature of the problem? Moral dilemmas

Then state your moral statement.

 3. Problem analysis
• Contain sub-steps to get a good overview of the case and the moral
problem at hand.

1st list the all the relevant stakeholders and interest,

2nd select all the relevant moral values & mark the values that might
conflict.

3rd select all relevant facts.(Certain) ;

Unknown or Disputed Facts (Uncertain);
May make assumption / available constraints.

4th responsibility: ( involved; adopt, central figure)

Do I need to reformulate my moral statement?

• 1st

Stakeholder Interest
 2nd Identify relevant values
Relevant Moral Values

Can include: own morals & commitment ; fairness, ……

• 2nd continued
What is the moral dilemma do given on the one hand and the other
hand?
moral /value considerations Conflicting values/morals

This problem formulation places more emphasis on the relevant

moral values than the one before and it does not directly focus on
one possible solution,

.
3rd

Certain Facts Uncertain/disputed Facts

assumptions constraints
 4. Options for action
• Our original problem formulation was, then consider the reformulated problem
Which suggests a range of other option of action . The suggested sub-steps:

 1st Black-and-white-strategy : for action in which only two options for actions are
considered: doing the action or not.

 2nd Strategy of cooperation :The action strategy that is directed at finding

alternatives can help to solve a moral problem by consulting and pay more
attention to the relationship with relevant stakeholders.( can lead to a win solution)

 3rd Create middle way solution

 4th whistle blowing can be an option also

disputed or unknown facts identified can change course of options

List all your options of actions according to strategy
 5. Ethical evaluation
• The steps are related to five types of ethical theoretical backgrounds:
• Informal moral frameworks
 1st Intuitivist framework :
 2nd Common sense method ( dominant value?)
• Formal moral frameworks
 3nd Professional ethics, Code of Conduct ;evaluate the options in the light of the
engineering codes of ethics.
 4rd Utilitarianism. Several utilitarian evaluations are provided.
 Utility principle ( Bentham)
 Freedom Principle (Mill)
 5th Kantian ethics. The two variant tests are offered, which correspond to the a two
formulations of the categorical imperative.
 Universality principle
 Reciprocity principle
 6th Care Ethics
 7th Virtue ethics.
This step can lead to Conflicting Ethical Frameworks options
Do I need to return to problem analysis?
 • Write explain your evaluation test principle briefly (classify formal / or
informal)
• apply them to at least 4 selected option (one of those tables
presented can be used)
• Specify if the framework supports your option ( may add a row or
column for counts)
Option/evaluat Intuitivist Common Profes Utility Freedom Universa Reciproci Care Virtue Total
ion framewor sense sional principle Principle lity ty Ethics ethics applied
k method ethics ( Bentham) (Mill) principle principle

Option 1 …….
……..

Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Total
applied
Option/evaluation Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Total applied

Intuitivist framework : …..

…….

Common sense method

Professional ethics

Utility principle
( Bentham)

Freedom Principle (Mill)

Universality principle

Reciprocity principle

Care Ethics

Virtue ethics

Total applied
 6. Reflection
• The goal is to come up with a well argued choice among various options of actions,
using the ethical evaluation in the previous step

1st Criticisms on the theories ( intuition and theories)

Answer the question:
Does an ethical framework provide reasons that support my intuitive opinion?

2ndWide reflective equilibrium

Answer the question
Does an ethical framework succeed in selecting those features of a situation that are
morally relevant?

Do I need to return to option of action / or to problem analysis case?

1st Wide reflective equilibrium for each option to figure all coherent
believes that support the option, draw and state your supported
arguments :

considered moral judgments(intuitions);

moral principles; and
background theories.

considered moral judgments(intuitions);

Option ?

moral principles background theories

(values, principle, concerns, virtues)
 7. Discussion
May be used in several ways.
• It can be inserted at the end of a sequence of steps, for example for
discussing the conclusion of the ethical evaluation.

• But it can also be used in isolation from other steps; for example, if it is
required to discuss a specific statement or question.

• The discussion step requires building up a tree of argumentation,

ordered in arguments in favor and against the statement

• The discussion step always requires a basic ordering of the arguments

• Using argumentation proposed for theories in chapter 4

Teaching Ethics and Technology with Agora, an Electronic Tool

Simone van der Burgδ and Ibo van de Poelγ
 7. Discussion
May be used in several ways.
• It can be inserted at the end of a sequence of steps, for example for
discussing the conclusion of the ethical evaluation.

• But it can also be used in isolation from other steps; for example, if it is
required to discuss a specific statement or question.

• The discussion step requires building up a tree of argumentation,

ordered in arguments in favor and against the statement

• The discussion step always requires a basic ordering of the arguments

• Using argumentation proposed for theories in chapter 4