Social Contract Theory and Virtue Ethics
Ethical Frameworks CS-3111 Computer Ethics © 2018 James Allert All rights Reserved Social Contract Theory and Virtue Ethics
Ethical Framework #6: Social Contract Theory Often called “Contractualism” or “Contractarianism” Based on social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Social life is unorganized and dangerous without laws Hobbes: life without laws is “nasty, brutish and short.” To insure that it’s members survive, social groups organize themselves based on a number of rights and obligations their members recognize
Primitive life without rights (in need of civilization) Primitive life without rights (the noble savage) Comparison Do not look at the consequences of a decision to see if it was right Do not look at the universal moral imperatives to see if they were upheld Look instead at the social contract you have with others If your decision violates that contract it is bad If your decision upholds the contract it is good The contract specifies What the rights are (given you by the society/government) What the obligations are To be ethical, a decision must not trample on the rights of others The social contract Where does the contract come from? Inalienable rights Consent of the governed Positive and Negative Rights A ‘right’ is an entitlement or claim to something Negative rights – the right to be left alone and not interfered with. Lots of these in US Constitution. Freedom of speech Right to own property Right of privacy Right to not have email monitored by the NSA? Positive rights – the right to be provided with something Right to medical care Right to education Right to Internet access?
Where do rights come from? Society is held together informally by arrangements of universal human rights (inalienable rights) that exist regardless of governments. However, governments can help by specifically identifying the rights of their citizens. Consent of the governed The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. They were written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. The Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power (negative rights).
US Bill of Rights US Bill of Rights Canadian Bill of Rights Fundamental Rights of India Rights in China The Social Contract Life is grounded in a “social contract” Without this contract society lapses back into anarchy Society provides protection for individual rights (like life, liberty and property) in return for obedience to rules of law. Contractualism is all about respecting the legal and moral rights of others The challenge is in determining how far each right extends Example: Free speech A More Recent Version John Rawls’ Theory of Justice Addresses “inalienable rights” The right actions are those that are consistent with the principles of justice and fairness Whether a person has a legal right or not, they may still have a universal moral right to something
Rawls’s Theory of Justice How do we determine what is just and fair? Every nation may define fairness differently in their laws There are universal principles that tell us. Principles of justice are those which equal, rational, self-interested individuals would choose for themselves.
The “veil of ignorance” The “veil of ignorance” The “veil of ignorance” The Veil of Ignorance Veil of Ignorance Top 10 List of Rights Rawls’s Theory of Justice Principle 1: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of equal liberty for all Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that the least advantaged get the most benefits Example: free education, free healthcare, etc. offices and positions are open to all, fairly and equally
31 Articles in the Universal Human Rights Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Examples of rights that might apply to computing Personal rights Right to privacy Right to data confidentiality Right to control over personal data dissemination Right to data accuracy Right to data security Corporation rights Right to property (including information)
The Case For Social Contract Theory It is framed in the language of rights It is based on a solid understanding of human nature: rational people act out of self-interest if there is no common agreement It explains why, under certain circumstances, civil disobedience can be the morally right decision (if laws are at odds with human rights)
None of us signed any “social contract” Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways (lawsuits argue rights on both sides) How do you solve situations with conflicting rights? Spam is free speech Spam is invasion of privacy The social contract might not work in your favor. If healthcare is not included in the social contract then… Bankrupted by health problem? Too bad. You may need to sell your home, property, etc. and live in poverty the rest of your life.
What about this one? Case Study: Employee Email A corporation has to make a policy decision about random inspection of employee email This is legal but seems to invade employee privacy Managers face three options Keep email confidential Inspect email with employees informed of the policy Inspect email surreptitiously Which option is the best one? Analyze the situation using a social contract theory approach to guide your decision Conventional social contract theory analysis Companies have the legal right to monitor employee email. So they can do it if they so choose. Employees have no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy and furthermore they have an employment obligation to not use company assets for their personal business. So there is no ethical quandary here. The company has a right to do whatever they like. Workers gave up those rights to privacy when they signed on.
Rawl’s rights-based analysis What would we say about this from behind the veil?
Rawl’s analysis Companies have the legal right to monitor employee email. So they can do it if they so choose. Employees have a more fundamental right to privacy. So monitoring email would be unjust unless the employees willingly gave up that right. From behind the veil of ignorance we might have made rules that said “If you create something it belongs to you.” “Nobody can look at another person’s stuff without getting permission.”
Ethical Frameworks Ethical Framework #7: Virtue Ethics It is not about acting in a right way it is really about being in a right way Virtues are about who we are at our core. We should act the way a virtuous person would. The right action is the action that a virtuous person (role model) would do in the same circumstances.
WWJD A virtuous person is one who possesses and lives out the virtues The virtues are those character traits human beings need in order to flourish and be truly happy
Virtue Acting virtuously ---that is, acting in accordance with reason---is acting in the way characteristic of the nature of human beings and this will lead to happiness. The good life for humans is the life of virtue and therefore it is in our interest to be virtuous. Virtue is its own reward. The virtues realize our capacity for rationality and therefore contribute to our well-being and perfection in that sense. Virtue in action Comparisons Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, A deontologist will point to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” A virtue ethicist will point to the fact that in helping the person we would be living in a virtuous manner (helping ourselves to become more virtuous). Aristotle’s Foundational Beliefs Every action aims at some good result. Aristotle claims that all the things that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is the greatest good of all. For example, the knife has a function, to cut, and it performs its function well when it cuts well. Each person has a function and the good person is the person who performs that function well. What about this one? Case Study: Employee Email A corporation has to make a policy decision about random inspection of employee email This is legal but seems to invade employee privacy Managers face three options Keep email confidential Inspect email with employees informed of the policy Inspect email surreptitiously Which option is the best one? Analyze the situation using a virtue ethics approach to guide your decision Analysis A good person will not read another person’s email Not because it maximizes happiness Not because it treats others the way you want to be treated But because they are being good by not doing it. The ethical decision flows from the virtue of goodness within the person making the decision. Aristotle’s List of Moral Virtues 1. Courage in the face of fear 2. Temperance in the face of pleasure and pain 3. Liberality with wealth and possessions 4. Magnificence with great wealth and possessions 5. Magnanimity with great honors 6. Proper ambition with normal honors 7. Truthfulness with self-expression 8. Wittiness in conversation 9. Friendliness in social conduct 10. Modesty in the face of shame or shamelessness 11. Righteous indignation in the face of injury
Aristotle and the Virtuous Life
Scouts Honor Confucius To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue Gravity Generosity of soul Sincerity Earnestness Kindness
Instantiation Instantiation Instantiation The Case For Virtue Ethics In many cases it makes more sense to focus on virtues rather than duties, rights or consequences Living up to a standard rather than analyzing situations Patriotism It factors personal feelings into decision-making It recognizes that our moral decision-making skills can develop over time as we become better people There are no unsolvable moral dilemmas
The Case Against Virtue Ethics
Different people have different definitions of what a particular virtue consists of. Patriotism and taxes, war, etc. Virtue is easier to act on as a person than an organization. Are companies like people? Can a company be virtuous? It undermines attempts to hold people accountable for bad actions – they simply have not yet attained a high level of virtue Greek virtue in action?
Modern educational theory Ethical Frameworks Ethical Framework #8: Subjective Relativism There are no universal moral norms “What is right for you may not be right for me.” Everyone decides right and wrong for themselves I might return a lost wallet to its owner, you might take the money. Neither of us was more right or wrong than the other.
What about this one? Case Study: Employee Email A corporation has to make a policy decision about random inspection of employee email This is legal but seems to invade employee privacy Managers face three options Keep email confidential Inspect email with employees informed of the policy Inspect email surreptitiously Which option is the best one? Analyze the situation using a subjective relativist approach to guide your decision Analysis Any choice is possibly acceptable You cannot say that any decision is good or bad because this is all relative to the person who made the decision If in your company you decide to monitor employee email and in mine we don’t there is no right or wrong here, just different policy decisions. The Case For Subjective Relativism Well-meaning, intelligent people can have totally opposite opinions In some situations, there is definitely no right or wrong answer or getting there is not possible (endless debate) Subjectivism declares both sides right and moves on We use it to calm disputes “Let’s not get into it. Let’s just have a nice dinner.”
Whatever… you are all right. The Case Against Subjective Relativism
Impotent. Cannot make moral judgements Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa both did what they felt like Confuses tolerance with ethics Opts out of having to make a decision Sometimes you have to get off the fence Allows people to make decisions on something other than reason I am going to do whatever seems right to me at the time. Example: golf in the park – “We were just having fun!” Recognizes no accepted standards of evidence to justify an act Does not recognize one moral judgement as better than another even though it is backed by better reasons than the alternative Rejected by the author Section 2.2 “If your goal is to persuade others that your solutions to actual moral problems are correct, adopting subjective relativism is self-defeating because it is based on the idea that each person decides for him or herself what is right and what is wrong. According to subjective relativism, nobody’s conclusions are any more valid than anyone else’s, no matter how these conclusions were drawn. Smoking is bad for you Smoking is fine. Both opinions carry the same weight. This leads to denial of science and reason. Therefore we reject subjective relativism as a workable ethical theory.” Comparison to other theories Subjective relativism: you don’t need reasons to justify your choices. Ethical egoism: you should do whatever will benefit you the most. Utilitarianism: you should do whatever produces the most good for the greatest number Kant: you should do only what you would want others to do to you. Social contract theory: you should do what the rules allow you to do. Virtue ethics: you should strive to develop a good character Ethical Frameworks Ethical Framework #9: Cultural Relativism Every society has its own moral guidelines therefore definitions of “right” and “wrong” may vary. There is no society that can claim to be right and impose its beliefs on others.
The Case For Cultural Relativism Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines It is arrogant for one society to judge another
Just because two societies have different views of right and wrong does not mean they ought to. How can we ever say that something is right or wrong across or between cultures? Moral guidelines change within cultures. Why? Does that mean they got better? Author’s rejection Section 2.3 “According to cultural relativism, the ethical evaluation of a moral problem made by a person in one society may be meaningless when applied to the same moral problem in another society. Cultural relativism suggests there are no universal moral guidelines. It gives tradition more weight in ethical evaluations than facts and reason. For these reasons, cultural relativism is not a powerful tool for constructing ethical evaluations persuasive to a diverse audience, and we consider it no further. Ethical Frameworks In Summation… Normative Frameworks A Combined Ethical Framework There are four commonly used approaches to normative ethics Consequentialism (utilitarianism) Duty-ethics (Kant) Rights-based ethics (contractualism) Virtue ethics
Management decisions: If you are a consequentialist Managers must consider what will produce the best overall consequences for all stakeholders Usually done using a cost/benefit analysis factoring in all stakeholders Stakeholders include any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the decision. Employees, stockholders, customers, suppliers, communities, government agencies, society at large, even competitors. These can each be valued in a different way
If you are a duty-ethics person Before making a managerial decision ask Would I want everyone to make this decision this way? Does the decision violate any core ethical duties? If there are alternatives that violate fewer duties then choose that one If you are a rights-based ethicist Managers must consider whose rights are being promoted by a decision and whose are being demoted Are any of the alternatives in clear violation of basic human rights or established legal rights?
If you are a virtue ethicist Managers must decide what it means to be a good manager and aspire to those standards A manager who can inspire employees to a higher level of performance becomes a better person in the process.
Important Nobody adopts just one of these strategies to solve problems. Normative ethics work together to solve problems None of them are perfect alone Together they address more problems than they could by themselves Examples: Inside information You have recently been hired as a project manager for a web services company. The CEO has a reputation for being difficult to work with, always demanding action now and no excuses. The pay is right however, so you join up. The chief competitor has a web services suite that is similar to yours, but is rumored to be about to launch an upgrade that is vastly superior to yours. Your new company is playing catchup. The only problem is that you do not know exactly what you are trying the catch up to. You competitor’s upgrade is not out yet but is being aggressively marketed to some of your best customers. What to do? Your immediate supervisor knows a client who was privy to a feature presentation by your competitor. Everyone there had to sign non-disclosure agreements. However, his buddy might talk. You are asked to seek out this person and persuade them to divulge everything they know about the upcoming product so that your firm can quickly revise their web services to meet or exceed the features offered in the competitors’ upgrade. What do you do? Give three possible approaches based on each of the three ethical frameworks listed here (consequentialism, duty-ethics, rights-ethics) Groups Repercussions If the decision is made to get the info no matter what it takes, what are the benefits/risks to the manager? If the decision is made not to go after the information in this manner what are the benefits/risks to the manager?