Providing a Philosophical Basis for Ethical Decisions  ©

 

Andrew Olson

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved. Contact the author

for permission before copying.  No permission

granted for use in commercial products.  All

copies must contain this copyright notice.

 

The person who asserts a statement as a fact can intend it in one of two ways: it is a descriptive claim, or it is a normative claim.  A statement that is descriptive is one that is empirical.  It describes a state of something, generally in the world around us.  It is falsifiable (i.e., can be proven false, at least in theory, if it is not true about the world.)  Scientific claims about the world are of this type.  An example is:  The sun rises in Indianapolis at 7:00 A.M. everyday.  This is can be tested by watching to see if it rises at some other time, or does not rise at all.  Indeed in this case, anyone can prove it false by simply observing it rise at 6:37 A.M. on some day.  A statement of a similar nature is:  The sun rises in Indianapolis between 5:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. everyday.  This is more likely to be an accurate statement than the first about the nature of the path of Indianapolis relative to the sun.

 

Another common example, but one which is more tenuously descriptive of the state of the world, is:  Fifty two percent of the people drive within 5 and 20 mph faster than the speed limit.  This really should be stated as:  Of the 532 drivers observed on Highway 70 on July 30, 2001, 277 (or about 52 %) were traveling between 5 and 20 mph above the posted speed limit.  This latter statement can be falsified by simply examining the data that was collected on that date.  Are the correct numbers 277 out of 532, or are they different?  This is a statement about a sample population, not about drivers in general.  Nevertheless, it is typical of descriptive statements purporting to reflect the state of the world.  The connection with the real world comes in the predictive power of this set of data.  If others repeat the experiment at many other times and locations and arrive at approximately the same data, then we develop confidence that our statement is predictive of the state of the world.  At this point, we can formulate the first statement above as a descriptive claim about the world.  It is falsifiable still.  For example, someone could question the methods of collecting the data.  It might be that the observers recorded personal estimates of the vehicles' speeds rather than using radar to measure them.  If various persons repeat the experiments using radar guns and observe that the number of drivers exceeding the speed limit between 5 and 20 mph is about 24 %, then the original claim of 52 % would no longer be accepted as "true", i.e. as an accurate reflection of the world.

 

A normative claim about something is a definitive assertion about it.  It states what is true about it, or what characteristics it should have.  An example is:  Two parallel lines never intersect.  A normative statement may be taken as a fundamental hypothesis that everyone agrees to accept as true, or it may be a logical deduction from a set of such hypotheses.  In general, philosophers do not accept descriptive statements as a solid enough foundation on which to base a philosophy.  They attempt to lay a logical foundation of normative claims about the world and then deduce, as necessary, theories to explicate specific issues.  Descartes' assertion, "I think." is an example of an attempt to find a fundamental hypothesis that everyone could accept as a basis for subsequent reasoning.  He went on to deduce, "I am." as a consequence, and thus began building his philosophical structure.  Of course, if the logical structure is to say something about the real world, its logical foundation, the hypotheses, must reflect correctly the real world.  Ultimately, then, a useful logical system must, in some sense, rest on an empirical basis.  It is probable that Descartes, for example, believed that his fundamental assertion would be accepted by everyone (i.e. every thinker) as an accurate statement about reality and that, therefore, his subsequent philosophical system would accurately reflect it.

 

In the same vein, most philosophers attempt to ground a framework of ethics on normative claims rather than descriptive ones.  Two types of ethical framework that are useful in analyzing situations from an ethical perspective seem to be influential in western society.  One starts from a utilitarian basis and the other is a deontological theory.  The former is probably more useful for analyzing practical situations because it allows for compromise based on assessing the ethical value or merit of the various components of the situation.  The latter is good for defending a strict position because it tends to assign very high ethical values to persons.

 

There are various interpretations of a utilitarian ethical framework.  A very simplistic statement of its ethical claim is that the degree of rightness or wrongness of an act, say, depends upon the consequences of the act.  Its ethical value is "instrumental" in the sense that it serves as the instrument for achieving consequences that have an ethical weight.  Thus, for example, it is ethically worse to drop a nuclear bomb on a large city than to throw a lighted firecracker at someone because the former is almost certain to destroy and maim a million people whereas the latter may risk only injuring one individual.  This ethical framework is useful in practice because it allows one to assign an ethical value to each act within a situation and arrive at a value balance.  From this balance, one can decide which is ethically the best course of action to take.

 

Let us consider an application of how this approach might be used to arrive at an ethical decision in a conflictive case.  Suppose that a software project is running behind schedule and exceeding monthly budget allocations.  The final software product will not be used in life-critical situations.  One manager proposes that the planned testing of the software be reduced in order to accelerate the schedule and reduce costs.  Is this an ethical problem, or solely economic?  If it is an ethical problem, what are the various ethical factors involved and what is the best decision to make ethically?

 

We begin the utilitarian analysis of the situation by identifying the ethical stakeholders in the outcome of the decision.  Then, we estimate the ethical benefits and liabilities that each would experience if the proposal were carried out.  Finally, we attempt to balance the various opposing benefits and liabilities to arrive at a measure of the ethical value of effecting the policy.  From this analysis, we might arrive at a table like the following:

 

Ethical Value	Stakeholders	Benefits	Liabilities
+	Purchaser	Lower cost	Higher maintenance costs
O	Users	Earlier delivery	Frequent downtime & frustration
+	Investors	Higher dividends	Lower stock price due to loss of reputation
+	Employees	Less pressure to produce	More risk of layoff
+	Company	More profit	Loss of reputation

 

Here we have balanced ethical benefits/liabilities for a stakeholder to yield a +, O, or -, where + indicates a net ethical benefit.  In this table, we have estimated that the benefits tend to outweigh the liabilities because all of the liabilities, except for the users, will begin to be felt only after sometime past the software delivery date.  The net estimate is that, although there are some negative ethical concerns, the proposal on the whole has merit.

 

You might ask why this is an ethical problem.  Most of these benefits and liabilities seem to be of an economic nature.  Yet the decision to impose greater inconvenience on the users or greater risk of layoff on the employees clearly has a strong negative ethical component to it.  Likewise, the decision to relieve the working pressure on the employees seems to have a positive ethical component.  Here we are focusing on this ethical problem.  One could do a strictly economic balance in order to come to a decision devoid of ethical consideration.  In practice, it is better to do both types of analyses in order to make your decision better informed.

 

To emphasize that such decisions do have a serious ethical component, suppose that the software product will be used in a life-critical situation.  For example, it might be used to monitor radiation doses in cancer therapy.  An overdose could seriously injure or kill the patient, whereas an underdose could permit the cancer to spread to a lethal extent.  In this case, we arrive at a table that is similar except that the liabilities change.

 

Ethical Value	Stakeholders	Benefits	Liabilities
-	Purchaser	Lower cost	Very high repair costs; damage liability
O	Users	Earlier delivery	Injury or death
O	Investors	Higher dividends	Lower stock price; possible bankruptcy
-	Employees	Less pressure to produce	High risk of layoff
-	Company	More profit	Possible bankruptcy;  liability for damages

 

With this simple change of application environment, the ethics of the proposal changes dramatically.  Now, the consequences of the proposal clearly have a predominately negative ethical impact.  It is a bad proposal.  Note that, curiously enough, the benefit of earlier delivery to the users may save lives also if it provides better treatment than current methods do.  That is why the balance for the users is rated O.

 

Unfortunately, when one performs only an economic analysis of such a situation, the conclusion is likely to be that the proposal has strong economic merit, and therefore, should be carried out.  Many times there is a tendency to lose sight of the ethical dimensions of a decision problem because economics is such a strong driving factor in our society.

 

These two case indicate how utilitarian principles can allow us to evaluate the various ethical factors in a situation, balance the conflictive ones and arrive at a reasonable decision on an ethical course of action to follow.  We now turn to see how the deontological approach supports an ethical framework for making decisions.

 

In this approach, ethical value arises from the intrinsic nature of something, not from serving as an instrument in achieving ethical consequences.  Immanuel Kant, in his contributions to deontological philosophy, posed a categorical imperative asserting that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end, but always as an end.  Thus, ethical value is intrinsic to what it means to be a person.  The norms defining what are right and wrong must respect the ability of each person to function rationally and choose freely.  Many of the precepts embedded in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the U. S. A. are based on such a concept.  One's human rights stem from his or her identity as a person.

 

Let us now apply this approach to evaluating the first case described above.  As before, we first identify the ethical stakeholders.  Then we ask to what extent the proposed policy adheres to the categorical imperative for each one.  In doing so, we do not need to allow each individual free rein, but rather require only that the she or he be free to make rational choices about whether or not to pay the prices involved in order to obtain the benefits that might accrue.  Let us reexamine the merits of the proposal

 

Ethical Value	Stakeholders	Benefits	Liabilities
+	Purchaser	Lower cost	Higher maintenance costs
-	Users	Earlier delivery	Frequent downtime & frustration
+	Investors	Higher dividends	Lower stock price due to loss of reputation
-	Employees	Less pressure to produce	More risk of layoff
+	Company	More profit	Loss of reputation

 

Would adopting the policy to reduce the amount of testing treat the purchaser as an individual free to accept the consequences or not?  An educated purchaser with a view over a long time horizon may not.  However, if negotiating with the purchaser and adjusting the contract as needed convinces it that accepting the policy is not detrimental to it, then the categorical imperative is not violated.  Assuming this, we place a + in the Value column for the purchaser's row.  A similar attempt may be made with the users.  However, if they are really apprised of the operational difficulties that are likely to arise, they are not likely to willingly accede to the policy.  This is why a negative appears in the Value column for them.  Investors frequently have a short time horizon, so the appeal of higher dividends may outweigh the thought of lower stock prices in the distant future for them.  Therefore, a positive appears in their Value entry.  The unenlightened employee may welcome relief from the pressures of work, but understanding the implications of the risk of being unemployed would probably cause most to hesitate to accept the policy.  Hence, the negative value recorded for them.  Finally, does the policy respect the company as a person?  Should it even do so?  Is a company a person?  Does it merit the rights of a person?  Clearly, it does not qualify completely as a person legally because it does not have a right to vote.  On the other hand, our society does grant companies some of the rights it grants to citizens – the right to free speech, for example.  In the U. S. legal sphere, companies are generally accorded the status of a person, so we will adopt that stance in this analysis.  Generally, companies are more driven by short-term profit than by long-term intangibles such as reputation.  Therefore, we place a plus in the company's value entry to indicate that it would willingly adopt the proposed policy.

 

We are ready to ask whether or not the policy is ethically negative, and should be rejected.  Now we arrive at another difference with the utilitarian approach.  With the latter, we could balance the various ethical values down the column to obtain an estimate of the ethical value of the policy.  This is not possible in the present case because the categorical imperative does not permit assigning ethical weights to different individuals.  To do so would be to adopt the utilitarian approach.  This reveals one of the deficiencies of the deontological philosophy in ethical analysis.  It can be difficult to resolve conflicting ethical claims with it.  Here, we have arrived at a better understanding of the ethical issues, but not an accurate guide as to whether or not the policy is ethically acceptable. The only thing we can conclude is that, because at least one of the stakeholders would be negatively impacted, the policy is not acceptable.[1]

 

As an exercise, do a deontological analysis of the second case above.  What can you conclude about the ethical acceptability of the policy to perform less testing?