Professional Ethics

And
Human Values
(HU - 304)

Assignment

Submitted To : ​Submitted By :
Ms. Sushma Priyadarshna ​Ansh Puri (2k16/PS/007)
Dept. of Humanities ​Devansh Dobhal (2k16/PS/013)
Delhi Technological University ​Kunal Rustagi (2k16/PS/018)
Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi ​ Mohd. Rahim (2k16/PS/023)
110042​ Samarth Gandhi (2k16/PS/039)

Submitted On : 27​th​ March 2019

1
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Professional Values and Human Ethics (HU-304) ‘Assignment’, is
being submitted herewith by Ansh Puri, Devansh Dobhal, Kunal Rustagi, Mohd. Rahim and
Samarth Gandhi on 27​th​ March 2019.

2
 Acknowledgement
We would like to express our deepest appreciation to all those who provided us the possibility to
complete this assignment.

A special gratitude to all whose contribution in stimulating suggestions and encouragement,

helped me to coordinate my work especially in writing this assignment.

We appreciate the guidance given by Ms. Sushma Priyadarshna especially in our assignment that
has improved our writing and vocabulary skills.

3
 Table Of Contents

Topic Page Number

Introduction 5

Engineering Ethics 7-10

Moral Autonomy 11

Advancements of Engineering Ethics 12-13

Engineers and Ethical Obligations 14

Engineering Practices 15-17

Codes on Ethics 18

Ethical Theories 20-28

Difference in Ethical and Moral Theories 29

Bibliography 30

References 31

4
 Introduction
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, or specifically moral philosophy, that studies the evolution of
concepts such as right and wrong behaviour. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
(OALD) defines ethics as ‘the moral principles that control or influence a person’s behaviour or
a system of moral principles or rules of behaviour’. OALD also defines it yas ‘the branch of
philosophy that deals with moral principles’.

Morals are welfare principles enunciated by the wise people, based on their experience and
wisdom. They were edited, changed or modified or evolved to suit the geography of the region,
rulers, and in accordance with development of knowledge in science and technology and with
time. Morality is concerned with principles and practices of morals such as:
(a) What ought or ought not to be done in a given situation ?
(b) What is right or wrong about the handling of a situation ?
(c) What is good or bad about the people, policies and ideals involved ?

5
Advancement of Engineering Ethics
and
Ethical Obligations of Engineers

6
Introduction to Engineering Ethics

Engineering Ethics is the activity and discipline aimed at:

1. Understanding the moral values that ought to guide engineering profession or practice,
2. Resolving moral issues in engineering, and
3. Justifying the moral judgments in engineering. It deals with set of moral problems and issues
connected with engineering.

Engineering ethics is defined by the codes and standards of conduct endorsed by engineering
(professional) societies with respect to the particular set of beliefs, attitudes and habits displayed
by the individual or group.

Another important goal of engineering ethics is the discovery of the set of justified moral
principles of obligation, rights and ideals that ought to be endorsed by the engineers and apply
them to concrete situations. Engineering is the largest profession and the decisions and actions of
engineers affect all of us in almost all areas of our lives, namely public safety, health, and
welfare.

An engineer whether he works individually or works for a company, has to go through some
ethical issues, mostly under the conditions such as, conceptualization of a product, issues arising
in design and testing departments, or may be on the issues involving the manufacturing, sales
and services. Questions related to morality also arise during supervision and team works.
The ethical decisions and moral values of an engineer need to be considered because the
decisions of an engineer have an impact the products and services - how safe they are to use, the
company and its shareholders who believe in the goodwill of the company, the public and the
society who trusts the company regarding the benefits of the people, the law which cares about
how legislation affects the profession and industry, the job and his moral responsibilities and
about how the environment gets affected, etc.
Not only an engineer, but everyone has to follow a set of morals in order to keep away from
getting morally degraded.Morality commands respect for persons, both others and ourselves. It
involves being fair and just, meeting obligations and respecting rights and not causing
unnecessary harm by dishonesty and cruelty or by hubris.

7
Scope
The scope of engineering ethics are twofold:
1. Ethics of the workplace which involves the co-workers and employees in an organization.
2. Ethics related to the product or work which involves the transportation, warehousing, and
use, besides the safety of the end product and the environment outside the factory.

Senses of Engineering Ethics

There are two different senses (meanings) of engineering ethics, namely the Normative and the
Descriptive senses. The normative sense include:

1. Knowing moral values, finding accurate solutions to moral problems and justifying moral
judgments in engineering practices,
2. Study of decisions, policies, and values that are morally desirable in the engineering practice
and research,
3. Using codes of ethics and standards and applying them in their transactions by engineers. The
descriptive sense refers to what specific individual or group of engineers believe and act, without
justifying their beliefs or actions.

Moral Issues
A moral issue can be understood as an issue to be resolved not only by considering the technical
stuff but also by keeping moral values in mind. To be more precise, let us consider the definition
in general.

Types of moral issues

There are mainly two types of Moral issues that we mostly come across while keeping the
ethical aspects in mind to respond. They are,
1. Micro-ethics
This approach stresses more on the problems that occur on a daily basis in the field of
engineering and its practice by engineers.
2. Macro-ethics
This approach deals with social problems which are unknown. However, these problems may
unexpectedly face the heat at both regional and national levels.

8
Reasons for moral issues

The reasons for people including the employer and employees, behaving unethically may be
classified into three categories:

1. Resource Crunch

1. Due to pressure, through time limits, availability of money or budgetary constraints, and
technology decay or obsolescence.
2. Pressure from the government to complete the project in time (e.g., before the elections),
reduction in the budget because of sudden war or natural calamity (e.g., Tsunami) and
obsolescence due technology innovation by the competitor lead to manipulation and unsafe and
unethical execution of projects.

2. Opportunity

1. Double standards or behavior of the employers towards the employees and the public. The
unethical behaviors of World Com (in USA), Enron (in USA as well as India) executives in 2002
resulted in bankruptcy for those companies
2. Management projecting their own interests more than that of their employees. Some
organizations over-emphasize short-term gains and results at the expense of themselves and
others
3. Emphasis on results and gains at the expense of the employees.

3. Attitude

1. Low morale of the employees because of dissatisfaction and downsizing,

2. Absence of grievance redressal mechanism,
3. Lack of promotion or career development policies or denied promotions
To get firm and positive effect, ethical standards must be set and adopted by the senior
management, with input from all personnel.

9
Inquiry
The three types of inquiries, in solving ethical problems are: normative inquiry, conceptual
inquiry, and factual or descriptive inquiry.
The three types of inquiries are discussed below to illustrate the differences and preference.

1. Normative Inquiry
It seeks to identify and justify the morally-desirable norms or standards that should guide
individuals and groups. It also has the theoretical goal of justifying particular moral judgments.
Normative questions are about what ought to be and what is good, based on moral values.

2. Conceptual Inquiry
It is directed to clarify the meaning of concepts or ideas or principles that are expressed by words
or by questions and statements.

3. Factual or Descriptive Inquiry

It is aimed to obtain facts needed for understanding and resolving value issues. Researchers
conduct factual inquiries using mathematical or statistical techniques. The inquiry provide
important information on business realities, engineering practice, and the effectiveness of
professional societies in fostering moral conduct, the procedures used in risk assessment, and
psychological profiles of engineers. The facts provide not only the reasons for moral problems
but also enable us to develop alternative ways of resolving moral problems.

Moral Dilemmas
Dilemmas are situations in which moral reasons come into conflict, or in which the application
of moral values are problems, and one is not clear of the immediate choice or solution of the
problems.Moral reasons could be rights, duties, goods or obligations.These situations do not
mean that things had gone wrong, but they only indicate the presence of moral complexity.
This makes the decision making complex.There are some difficulties in arriving at the solution to
the problems, in dilemma. The three complex situations leading to moral dilemmas are:

1. Vagueness
One is unable to distinguish between good and bad (right or wrong) principle. Good means an
action that is obligatory.

2. Conflicting Reasons
One is unable to choose between two good moral solutions.One has to fix priority, through
knowledge or value system.

10
3. Disagreement
There may be two or more solutions and none of them mandatory. These solutions may be better
or worse in some respects but not in all aspects. One has to interpret, apply different morally
reasons, and analyze and rank the decisions. Select the best suitable, under the existing and the
most probable conditions.

Moral Autonomy

Moral autonomy is defined as, decisions and actions exercised on the basis of moral concern for
other people and recognition of good moral reasons. Alternatively, moral autonomy means ‘self
determinant or independent’. The autonomous people hold moral beliefs and attitudes based on
their critical reflection rather than on passive adoption of the conventions of the society or
profession. Moral autonomy may also be defined as a skill and habit of thinking rationally about
the ethical issues, on the basis of moral concern.

Viewing engineering as social experimentation will promote autonomous participation and retain
one’s professional identity. Periodical performance appraisals, tight-time schedules and fear of
foreign competition threatens this autonomy. The attitude of the management should allow
latitude in the judgments of their engineers on moral issues.
The engineering skills related to moral autonomy are listed as follows:
1. Proficiency in recognizing moral problems in engineering and ability to distinguish as well
as relate them to problems in law, economics, and religion,
2. Skill in comprehending, clarifying, and critically-assessing arguments on different aspects
of moral issues,
3. Ability to form consistent and comprehensive view points based on facts,
4. Awareness of alternate responses to the issues and creative solutions for practical difficulties,
5. Sensitivity to genuine difficulties and subtleties, including willingness to undergo and tolerate
some uncertainty while making decisions,
6. Using rational dialogue in resolving moral conflicts and developing tolerance of different
perspectives among morally reasonable people, and
7. Maintaining moral integrity.

11
 Advancements of Engineering Ethics

Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the professional societies and
chartering organizations efforts with their members, the Canadian ​Iron Ring and American ​Order
of the Engineer trace their roots to the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require members to
swear an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.
The ​Order of the Engineer is an association for graduate and ​professional engineers in the
United States that emphasizes pride and responsibility in the engineering profession. It was
inspired by the success of ​The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer​, a similar and much older
Canadian ceremony, and is a common presence in American engineering schools.
Before joining, members must take an oath to abide by a code of ethics called the "Obligation of
an Engineer":

I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations.

As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to
uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that
my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's
precious wealth.

As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and
knowledge shall be given, without reservation, for the public good. In the performance of duty,
and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give my utmost.

In the United States, the ​National Society of Professional Engineers released in 1946 its Canons
of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of
Ethics, adopted in 1964. These requests ultimately led to the creation of the Board of Ethical
Review in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers, but the BER's nearly 500 advisory
opinions have helped bring clarity to the ethical issues engineers face daily.
Currently, bribery and political corruption is being addressed very directly by several
professional societies and business groups around the world. However, new issues have arisen,
such as ​offshoring​, ​sustainable development​, and environmental protection, that the profession is
having to consider and address.

NSPE published ​Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct in 1946,
which evolved to the current ​Code of Ethics adopted in 1964. The first fundamental canon is

12
"Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public."
In 1973, NSPE entered into an agreement with the ​Society of Women Engineers to support
efforts to increase the number of women professional engineers.
In 1976, NSPE was the petitioner in ​National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States,
435 U.S. 679 ​antitrust case​. The United States government brought this antitrust suit against
NSPE, claiming that NSPE's ethical canon prohibiting its members from submitting ​competitive
bids for engineering services suppressed competition which was in violation of the ​Sherman
Antitrust Act​. NSPE countered with argument for exception under the ​Rule of Reason​. The
United States Supreme Court decided against NSPE, allowing the submittal of competitive bids
by members thereafter.

● NSPE has founded and works closely with a number of nonprofit organizations and
outreach-based activities.
● National Engineers Week was founded in 1951 by NSPE to encourage diversity within
engineering and ensure that there would be enough engineers in the future. Different
aspects of this event include "Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day", which is designed to
overcome the gaps the appear between genders in engineering employment.
● NSPE co founded the middle school mathematics competition ​MATHCOUNTS in 1983.
More than 350,000 middle school students from across the United States take part in the
math-based competition each year.
● NICET (​National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies​) is an arm of
NSPE.
● Through its interest group Professional Engineers in the Government, NSPE sponsors the
Federal Engineer of the Year Award and (along with several other organizations)
sponsors the ​Washington Award​. It formerly published the ​Professional Engineers'
Income and Salary Survey​ but no longer does so.

13
 Engineers and Ethical Obligations
Obligations placed on engineers are not principally limitations, but enablers of their practice.
Engineers are highly valuable to society. Ethical obligations are necessary in order for engineers
to carry out their profession. For example, without the obligation of confidentiality clients could
not trust engineers with commercially-sensitive information. Without this information, engineers
could not do their job. The moral obligations of our profession can be understood as duties which
are necessary given the role of engineers in society.

The engineers recognize that the greatest merit is the work and exercise their profession
committed to serving society, attending to the welfare and progress of the majority. By
transforming nature for the benefit of mankind, engineers must increase their awareness of the
world as the abode of humanity, their interest in the universe as a guarantee of overcoming their
spirit, and knowledge of reality to make the world fairer and happier. The engineer should reject
any paper that is intended to harm the general interest, thus avoiding a situation that might be
hazardous or threatening to the environment, life, health, or other rights of human beings. It is an
inescapable duty of the engineer to uphold the prestige of the profession, to ensure its proper
discharge, and to maintain a professional demeanor rooted in ability, honesty, fortitude,
temperance, magnanimity, modesty, honesty, and justice; with the consciousness of individual
well-being subordinate to the social good.

The engineers and their employers must ensure the continuous improvement of their knowledge,
particularly of their profession, disseminate their knowledge, share their experience, provide
opportunities for education and training of workers, provide recognition, moral and material
support to the schools where they studied, thus returning the benefits and opportunities they and
their employers have received. It is the responsibility of the engineers to carry out their work
efficiently and to support the law. In particular, they must ensure compliance with the standards
of worker protection as provided by the law. As professionals, the engineers are expected to
commit themselves to high standards of conduct

14
 Engineering Practices

The application of ethical principles requires judgement. No code can cover all situations. In
difficult cases, the test used by the Complaints Research Officer is to ask what would have been
done by the “reasonable engineer”, working competently and diligently.

Competence

Competence is the overarching obligation of the professional with respect to the client. This
includes: Possessing sound knowledge applied with skill, diligence and care. Working within
your level of competence and specialisation. The engineer who undertakes work for which he or
she is not qualified or sufficiently experienced deceives the client and risks harm to others and to
their own reputation. Accepting personal responsibility for work done. This includes work done
by you or those under your supervision and requires taking steps to ensure that anyone working
under your authority is both competent to carry out the assigned tasks and accepts a like personal
responsibility. Ensuring that you do not misrepresent your areas or levels of experience or
competence.

Public and workplace safety

The codes emphasise the engineer’s role in designing and implementing safe technologies for the
public and creating safe workplaces for staff. This includes:

Public safety – giving priority to the safety and well-being of the community and having regard
to this principle in assessing obligations to clients, employers and colleagues. This requires you
to advocate to clients and employers, and devote adequate resources to ensure safety in use.

Risk management – ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to minimise the risk of loss of life,
injury or suffering which may result from your engineering activities, either directly or
indirectly. Workplace and construction site – minimising potential dangers involved in the
construction and manufacture of engineered products and processes. It is the engineer’s
responsibility to draw the attention of those affected to the level and significance of risk
associated with the work.

15
Community well-being

The engineer should endeavour to be fully informed about relevant public policies, community
needs and perceptions which affect their work. This may require an engineer, as a citizen who is
also a specialist, to use his or her engineering knowledge and experience to contribute helpfully
to public debate and to community activities. The codes’ guidelines also exhort the engineer to
treat clients, peers, employers, staff and the public with humanity, respect, and sensitivity.
Anticipating possible conflicts and attending to conflict resolution is a professional skill and
duty.

Communication

Communication is important to an engineer’s overall competence as a professional. Many

complaints could have been avoided with careful attention to communication.
Important skills include:
● listening
● giving clear and concise advice
● being assertive with respect to clarification or interpretation of instructions
● Good communication procedures include:
● recording all important conversations with clients
● having documentation procedures and internal audit systems for staff
● maintaining up-to-date files
● confirming verbal agreements in writing
● clarifying fees
● following a recognised professional practice (such as the IPENZ model conditions of
engagement)

Conflict of interest

Conflicts of interest arise when the interests of a professional conflict with those of a client or
when the interests of one client clash with those of another. It is important that an engineer has
no motive for compromising the performance of his or her duty to the client. The codes restrict
the conditions under which a professional may act where a conflict exists. They require an
engineer to disclose any financial or other interest that may, or may be seen to, impair their
professional judgement on any engineering activities they are to carry out for that employer or
client. Good practice in any case of conflict requires an engineer to first identify and then assess
any actual or potential conflict.
16
Suggested guidelines include:
in a dispute between two clients, where possible decide which party you are acting for and notify
the other do not act for either if doing so will harm the other assess whether it is better to
withdraw suggest alternative professionals who can supply independent advice
Financial inducements are a source of such conflicts. The codes require that you do not promise
to give to or accept from any third party anything of substantial value by way of inducement.

Confidentiality

An engineer’s pursuit of their professional role is likely to be frustrated if clients are reluctant to
be forthcoming with important, yet sensitive, information. The obligation to maintain confidence
creates the conditions for the required level of openness. An engineer must take care not to
disclose confidential information relating to the work or knowledge of their employer or client
(or former employer or client) without their agreement. An engineer must also refrain from using
that information for another purpose that is to his or her personal benefit. An engineer may,
however, disclose confidential information after gaining permission from the client as indicated
by the codes. It is recommended that this permission be obtained in writing. There are two
important exceptions. The confidentiality clause does not apply if withholding the confidential
information will put the public at risk, or if the information is asked for in a court of law.

Sustainable management and environmental stewardship

Sustainable management is often defined as management of resources, production and emissions

to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own reasonably foreseeable needs. The overriding purpose of the Resource Management
Act 1991 is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”.
Members are required to recognise and respect the need for sustainable management of the
planet’s resources and endeavour to minimise adverse environmental impacts of their
engineering activities.
This includes:
● Using resources efficiently
● Minimising the generation of waste and encouraging environmentally sound re-use,
recycling and disposal
● Recognising the adverse impacts of your engineering activities on the environment and
seeking to avoid or mitigate them

17
 Code of Ethics

Preamble

Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are
expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and
vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers
require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional
behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance
the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

18
 Basic Ethical Theories
and
Difference between
Ethical and Moral Theories

Ethical Theories

19
 Ethical Theories

1. Deontology
In ​moral philosophy​, deontological ethics or deontology is the ​normative ethical theory that the
morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a
series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as
"​duty​-" or "​obligation​-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind one to one's duty".
Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to ​consequentialism​, ​virtue ethics​, and ​pragmatic
ethics​. In this ​terminology​, action is more important than the consequences. It is an ethical
framework that depends on the predefined sets of rules and policies for the proper functioning of
a system in the environment. The deontology is simply based on the checklist which includes
certain rules to be followed while performing a particular task. According to this framework, the
work is considered virtuous only if this checklist is completed. This procedure is very simple to
implement and understand.
Minimum time is consumed to decide between right and wrong. However, its simplicity ignores
the consequences of the decision taken under this approach.The more general sense of the word
is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie (​ethical code​), in the context of
professional ethics. Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a
moral obligation may arise from an ​external or internal source, such as a set of rules inherent to
the universe (​ethical naturalism​), ​religious law​, or a set of personal or cultural ​values (any of
which may be in conflict with personal desires). Deontological ethics, in ​philosophy​, ​ethical
theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the ​morality of human
actions. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.”In
deontological ​ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the
action itself, not because the product of the action is good.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their
consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for
duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”By
contrast, ​teleological ethics (also called consequentialist ethics or consequentialism) holds that
the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being.
Deontological theories have been termed formalistic, because their central principle lies in the
conformity of an action to some rule or ​law​.The first great philosopher to define deontological
principles was ​Immanuel Kant​, the 18th-century German founder of ​critical philosophy​.

20
2. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical and philosophical theory that states that the best action is the one that
maximizes ​utility​, which is usually defined as that which produces the greatest ​well-being of the
greatest number of people, and in some cases, ​sentient animals. ​Jeremy Bentham​, the founder of
utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all ​pleasure that results from an action, minus the
suffering of anyone involved in the action. Utilitarianism is a version of ​consequentialism​, which
states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other
forms of consequentialism, such as ​egoism and ​altruism​, utilitarianism considers the interests of
all beings ​equally​.Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as
whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (​act utilitarianism​) or whether
agents​ should conform to rules that maximize utility (​rule utilitarianism​).
There is also disagreement as to whether total (​total utilitarianism​), average (​average
utilitarianism​) or minimum utility should be maximized. Though the seeds of the theory can be
found in the hedonists ​Aristippus and ​Epicurus​, who viewed happiness as the only good, the
tradition of utilitarianism properly began with Bentham, and has included ​John Stuart Mill​,
Henry Sidgwick​, ​R. M. Hare​, ​David Braybrooke​, and ​Peter Singer​. It has been applied to social
welfare economics, the crisis of global poverty, the ​ethics of raising animals for food and the
importance of avoiding ​existential risks to humanity. Utilitarianism is one of the best known and
most influential moral theories. Like other forms of ​consequentialism​, its core idea is that
whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only
effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce.
A key point in this article concerns the distinction between individual actions and types of
actions. Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions (such as John Wilkes Booth’s
assassination of Abraham Lincoln) while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of types of actions
(such as killing or stealing).Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better
by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and
decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or
systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given
by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or
justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.The most
important classical utilitarians are ​Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and ​John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873).
Bentham and Mill were both important theorists and social reformers. Their theory has had a
major impact both on philosophical work in moral theory and on approaches to economic,

21
political, and social policy. Although utilitarianism has always had many critics, there are many
21st century thinkers that support it.

3. Virtue Theory

Virtue ethics are ​normative ethical theories which emphasize ​virtues of mind and character.
Virtue ethicists discuss the nature and definition of ​virtues and other related problems. These
include how virtues are acquired, how they are applied in various real life contexts, and whether
they are rooted in a universal human nature or in a plurality of cultures.Virtue ethics is currently
one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that
emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or
rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). 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 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” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or
benevolent. This is not to say that only virtue ethicists attend to virtues, any more than it is to say
that only consequentialists attend to consequences or only deontologists to rules.

Each of the above-mentioned approaches can make room for virtues, consequences, and rules.
Indeed, any plausible normative ethical theory will have something to say about all three. What
distinguishes virtue ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the centrality of virtue within
the theory (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). Whereas consequentialists will define virtues as traits
that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as traits possessed by those who
reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to define virtues in terms of some
other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather, virtues and vices will be foundational
for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will be grounded in them. We begin by
discussing two concepts that are central to all forms of virtue ethics, namely, virtue and practical
wisdom.

Then we note some of the features that distinguish different virtue ethical theories from one
another before turning to objections that have been raised against virtue ethics and responses
offered on its behalf. We conclude with a look at some of the directions in which future research
might develop. Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of ​character and
virtue in ​moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about
good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a
virtuous person would act in your situation.”Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration
from ​Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits.
22
These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once
established, they will become stable.
4. Rights Theory

Rights theories maintain that there are things we cannot do against individuals, because they are
holders of moral rights. Having a right means having a special protection. It means that an
interest that the right defends should not be frustrated. If an interest is defended by a right, it
should not be thwarted even if doing so may be good for other reasons.In ethics, ‘rights’ is
shorthand for ‘moral rights’, but in Law it’s shorthand for something else. In the legal system,
individuals enjoy legal rights. Legal rights also protect the interests of individuals, but legal
rights and moral rights are different things. Theories of rights can be realist or constructivist.
According to realist views, rights holders have rights as one of their intrinsic features.

We have to recognize and respect those rights, or struggle for them to be respected. According to
constructivist views, the best theory regarding how to behave towards beings who are morally
considerable is to grant them rights and to respect those rights or to struggle for them to be
respected. Constructivist theory does not accept that rights holders have rights as something
intrinsic.

5. Casuist Theory

Casuistry is a process of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral problems by extracting or

extending theoretical rules from a particular case, and reapplying those rules to new instances.
This method occurs in ​applied ethics and ​jurisprudence​. The term is also commonly used as a
pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral
questions (as in ​sophistry​). Casuistry describes either a form of reasoning that is presumed to be
acceptable, or a form of reasoning that is inherently unsound and deceptive. The word casuistry
derives from the ​Latin noun casus ("case" or "occurrence"). The ​Oxford English Dictionary says
that the word "[o]ften (and perhaps originally) applied to a quibbling or evasive way of dealing
with difficult cases of duty." Its textual references, except for certain technical usages, are
consistently pejorative (e.g., "Casuistry destroys by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and
effaces the essential difference between right and wrong").

Casuistry, in ​ethics​, a case-based method of reasoning. It is particularly employed in

field-specific branches of professional ​ethics such as ​business ethics and ​bioethics​. Casuistry
typically uses general principles in reasoning analogically from clear-cut cases, called
23
paradigms​, to vexing cases. Similar cases are treated similarly. In this way, casuistry resembles
legal reasoning. Casuistry may also use ​authoritative writings relevant to a particular case.
Practitioners in various fields value casuistry as an orderly yet flexible way to think about
real-life ​ethical​ problems.

6. Moral Absolutism

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral
questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of
the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the
individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the
laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.
It is the opposite of ​Moral Relativism​, the position that moral propositions do not reflect
objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural,
historical or personal circumstances. It is related to, but not the same as, ​Moral Realism (the
position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion), and to
Moral Universalism (the position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all people,
regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing feature).

The ancient Greek philosophers ​Plato and ​Aristotle believed in a kind of Absolutism or
Universalism​, opposing the ​Moral Relativism of the ​Sophists​. ​Immanuel Kant was a prominent
promoter of Moral Absolutism, and his formulation of the deontological theory of the
Categorical Imperative was essentially absolutist in nature.

24
7. Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the view that ​moral judgments are true or false only relative to some
particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint
is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about
morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values;
the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence
that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of
cultures other than our own.

Relativistic views of morality first found expression in 5th century B.C.E. Greece, but they
remained largely dormant until the 19th and 20th centuries. During this time, a number of
factors converged to make moral relativism appear plausible. These included a new appreciation
of cultural diversity prompted by anthropological discoveries; the declining importance of
religion in modernized societies; an increasingly critical attitude toward colonialism and its
assumption of moral superiority over the colonized societies; and growing skepticism toward any
form of moral objectivism, given the difficulty of proving value judgments the way one proves
factual claims.

For some, moral relativism, which relativizes the truth of moral claims, follows logically from a
broader ​cognitive relativism that relativizes truth in general. Many moral relativists, however,
take the fact-value distinction to be fundamental. A common, albeit negative, reason for
embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every
attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles
runs up against formidable objections. A more positive argument sometimes advanced in
defense of moral relativism is that it promotes tolerance since it encourages us to understand
other cultures on their own terms.

Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since
superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements. In fact, some say that there is
a core set of universal values that any human culture must endorse if it is to flourish. Moral
relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms
while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm. In the eyes of many critics,
though, the most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies the pernicious
consequence that “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society;

25
sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of
non-relative standard to appeal to, the critics argue, we have no basis for critical moral appraisals
of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another. Naturally,
most moral relativists typically reject the assumption that such judgments require a
non-relativistic foundation.

8. Moral Pluralism
Moral pluralism is the assumption there are moral truths, but that they do not form a body of
coherent and consistent truths as those found in the sciences or mathematical approach. There are
plural, in other words many truths, not just one, and they may conflict with one another. Within
the moral domain, there are conflicting theories even with regard to goodness and rightness, and
each theory contains important truths about moral life. And yet, none of them contain the whole
truth per se. We all inhabit a common world, with judgments and interpretations playing a part in
the process.

The challenge as a society is finding the common ground, and acknowledging the legitimacy of
the conflicting insights, and establishing a minimal area of agreement so we can live together
with our differences. For some, if the action gives a positive result, they consider the action a
morally good thing to do. In other words, because it produced good consequences, it was the
right thing to do.

Others look at how the consequence affects us, and they believe each person is the best judge of
his or her own self-interest and thus leans toward selfishness, but morality encourages
compassion, love, and a sense of others. And then there's a group who thinks we should do what
produces the greatest good for everyone, not just for me.
They believe moral disputes can be resolved by objectively computing the outcome, or the
consequences of actions.

For the Christian, what makes an act right is that it is commanded by God and what makes it
wrong is that it is forbidden by God. These truths are drawn from the text of the Bible and
considered sacred. And thus, we have moral pluralism with similar distinctions and different
outcomes depending on if the action is based on how God would want us to approach the
situation, and always based on love.

26
9. Feminist Consequentialism

Feminist ethics is an approach to ​ethics that builds on the belief that traditionally ethical
theorizing has under-valued and/or under-appreciated ​women​'s ​moral experience, which is
largely male dominated, and it therefore chooses to re imagine ethics through a holistic ​feminist
approach to transform it. Feminist ​philosophers critique traditional ethics as pre-eminently
focusing on men's ​perspective with little regard for women's viewpoints. Caring and the ​moral
issues of private life and family responsibilities were traditionally regarded as trivial matters.
Generally, women are portrayed as ethically immature and shallow in comparison to men.
Traditional ethics prizes masculine cultural traits like "independence, autonomy, intellect, will,
wariness, hierarchy, domination, culture, transcendence, product, asceticism, war, and death,"
and gives less weight to culturally ​feminine traits like "interdependence, community, connection,
sharing, emotion, body, trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace, and
life." Should women embody or use any traditionally masculine cultural traits they are seen as
other or as an attempt to be more like men.

Traditional ethics has a "male" orientated convention in which moral reasoning is viewed
through a framework of rules, rights, universality, and impartiality and becomes the standard of a
society. The "female" approaches to moral reasoning emphasizes relationships, responsibilities,
particularity, and partiality.​Feminist justice ethics is a feminist view on morality which seeks to
engage with, and ultimately transform, traditional universal approaches to ​ethics​. Like most
types of feminist ethics, feminist justice ethics looks at how gender is left out of mainstream
ethical considerations. Mainstream ethics are argued to be male-oriented. However, feminist
justice ethics does differ considerably from other feminist ethics. A universal set of ethics is a
significant part of feminist justice ethics but depending on the geographical location, such as the
difference between the Global North and Global South, may differ in how justice is applied and
may change what is considered justice.

Feminist justice ethics is clear in dividing "thick" morality from "thin" morality. Other ethical
approaches that define themselves by differentiating groups from one another through culture or
other phenomena are regarded as "thick" accounts of morality. Feminist justice ethics claims that
"thick" accounts of morality, as opposed to "thin" accounts of morality, are intrinsically prone to
eroding valid feminist critique.

27
10. Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is the ​normative ethical position that ​moral agents ought to do what is in their
own ​self-interest​. It differs from ​psychological egoism​, which claims that ​people can only act in
their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from ​rational egoism​, which holds that it is ​rational
to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will
benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical ​altruism​, which holds that moral agents have an ​obligation
to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical ​utilitarianism​, which holds that a
moral agent should treat one's ​self (also known as ​the subject​) with no higher regard than one has
for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to
others). But it also holds that one should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one's own interests to
help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own ​desires or ​well-being​) are
substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and
altruism are all forms of ​consequentialism​, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism,
in that egoism and altruism are both ​agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e.
subject-focused or ​subjective​). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. ​objective
and ​impartial​): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests
as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.
Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of
others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be
incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. ​Individualism allows for
others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in
satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in
pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the
fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to ​the self​. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes
a back seat to protracted ​eudaimonia​. In the words of ​James Rachels​, "Ethical egoism ... endorses
selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."
Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of ​right-libertarianism and
individualist anarchism​. These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals
should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

28
 ❖ Difference between Ethical and Moral Theories

➔ The moral development theories expound the manner or methods by which we acquire
moral values. Ethical theories, on the other hand, stipulate the considerations and
thoughts that should go into deciding our actions.

Moral Theories Ethical Theories

1. More general and prescriptive based 1. Specific and descriptive. It is a critical
on customs and traditions. reflection on morals.

2. More concerned with the results of 2. More concerned with the results of a
wrong action, when done. right action, when not done.

3. Thrust is on judgements and 3. Thrust is on influence, education,

punishment, in the name of God or by training, through codes, guidelines and
laws. correction.

4. In case of conflict between two, moral 4. Less serious, hence second priority
theories is given top priority, because only. Less common. But relevant today,
the damage is more. It is more common because of complex interactions in the
and basic. modern society.

5. Example: character flaw, corruption, 5. Example: Notions or beliefs about

extortion and crime manners, tastes, customs and towards
laws

29
 Bibliography
1. https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00543.x
2. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_5_Teleolog
ical_Theories_Egoism/Ethical_Egoism.htm
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810895?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00543.x
5. https://www.allaboutreligion.org/moral-pluralism-faq.htm
6. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-pluralism
7. https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
8. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=89A2E4909B45D50796D4E271628DB164
9. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
10. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
11. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
12. https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
13. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
14. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
15. https://www.animal-ethics.org/rights-theories-the-general-approach/
16. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/rig
hts-theory
17. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry
18. https://www.britannica.com/topic/casuistry
19. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
20. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-absolutism
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics#Recent_developments

30
 References

1. Professional ethics and human values- R. Subramaniam

2. A textbook on professional ethics and human values -R.S. Naagarazan

3. Professional ethics And Human values in Engineering- V. Jayakumar

31