Lecture No.

1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

Overview:
This provides an introductory overview of ethical reasoning as a foundation for
professional ethics. It presents some of the philosophical background to ethical thought
and attempts to answer the question - "How can we know the difference between right
and wrong?".

Objective:
At the end of the discussion, learner will be able to:
• weigh the difference between right and wrong on the basis of -
:Golden Rule & Utility Principles

Definition of Terms:

Ethics
"a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture." ~ Dictionary.com

Moral
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the
distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes." ~ Dictionary.com

How Can We Know the Difference Between Right and Wrong?

If you were to ask this question of a randomly selected group of people, you are
likely to hear some or all of the following answers - or versions of them.

• Ethical intuition - I am intuitively able to distinguish between right and wrong.

• Religious authority - My religion tells me the difference between right and wrong.
• Legal definition - If something is against the law then it is wrong.
• Social consensus - If my friends and family behave a certain way then that must be
right.

While we might see some value in these replies, none of them provides a
satisfactory foundation for a rational approach to ethics. Each falls short for a variety of
reasons but a recurring objection is the lack of any agreed basis on which rational
individuals might discuss ethical questions - for example:

• There is no single religious authority to which everyone subscribes - indeed many

people subscribe to none.

1/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM

 Lecture No. 1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

• Legal systems differ from country to country - for example, gambling is legal in the UK
but it is illegal in parts of the USA.

"Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking." ~ H.L.
Mencken

If we are to make any sense of the notion of right and wrong it can only be on the
basis of agreed principles - principles upon which ethical judgements can be made and
ethical choices justified. Philosophers have studied ethics for centuries and have
suggested a number of such principles. Two that have received a lot of attention are
the golden rule and the utility principle.

The Golden Rule

The golden rule - sometimes called the global ethic or the ethic of recipricocity - is
present, in different forms, in many cultures and most religions. The wording and
emphasis varies but the central idea is this:

Treat others as you would like to be treated

Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)

2/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM

 Lecture No. 1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

The philosopher Immanuel Kant (2004) talked about, what he called

the categorial imperative, which was an ethical principle that was intended to apply
in all situations.

Although stated in very different words, Kant's categorical imperative is similar in

spirit to the golden rule. Philosophers have argued that all ethical reasoning and ethical
choices should be justified on the basis of universal principles such as the golden rule.

The Utility Principle

The utility principle - sometimes known as the greatest happiness principle -

favours actions that produce:

the greatest good for the greatest number of people

Jeremy Benthem
(1748-1832)

Utilitarianism is generally accredited to Jeremy Benthem (2000) and was later

defended by John Stuart Mill (1865). More recently, Singer (1981, 1983) investigated the
application of utilitarianism to animal rights, abortion and euthanasia. Utilitarianism is
based on the claim that ethical behaviour follows from acting in a way that maximises the
total amount of happiness or, alternatively, minimising the total amount of unhappiness.
Ethical reasoning, consequently, consists of attempting to quantify happiness, and
choosing actions that maximise it.

3/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM

 Lecture No. 1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

An Important Philosophical Distinction

These are not the only principles that have emerged from philosophical study, but
they are two of the more significant ones, and they each have their own extensive
literature. These principles also embody one of the most important distinctions in ethical
thought - the distinction between consequentialist ethical
theories and deontologicalist ethical theories.

• Consequentialism:
• A consequentialist ethical theory holds that actions are good if they have good
outcomes or consequences. For example, it may be good to tell a "white lie" in order
to spare someone's feelings.
• Utilitarianism is an example of a consequentialist approach to ethics.
• Deontologicalism:
• A deontological ethical theory holds that actions can be intrinsically good are bad,
regardless of their consequences. For example, it is good to tell the truth and bad to
tell lies - regardless of the consequences.
• The golden rule is an example of a deontological approach to ethics.

Do not be put off by the strange language. The important thing is to recognise that there
are two distinct approaches, and to appreciate the difference between them.

There are extensions and refinements within each of these approaches. For example,
within utilitarianism a distinction has been made between act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism.

• Act utilitarianism: choose between individual acts using the utility principle.

4/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM

 Lecture No. 1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

• Rule utilitarianism: choose between rules for behaviour using the utility principle and
then use the rules to choose between individual acts.

This distinction are illustrated in the scenario below.

Jane is a student who needs a copy of a particular textbook to help her with her
coursework. The college library has a single copy of the book, which is already
on loan, and will not be available again until after the coursework is due to be
submitted.

The book is available in the local bookstore for $30 but her friend tells her of a
file sharing site on the internet where she can download a PDF version of the
book for free. Jane knows that downloading the PDF version is in violation of
the author's copyright - on the other hand, she has already overspent this month
and cannot really afford to spend another $30.

What should Jane do?

A consequentialist might use the utility principle to reason as follows:

• Act utilitarianism: act in such a way as to promote the greatest happiness.

• On the one hand, using the file sharing site would deprive the author of income:
• Result - Jane is happy but the author is unhappy.
• On the other hand, buying the book would deprive Jane of her $30.
• Result - Jane is unhappy but the author is happy.
• On this analysis Jane still cannot decide what to do - either way, one person is happy
and the other is unhappy.

• Rule utilitarianism: formulate a general rule that will promote the greatest happiness.
• If everyone used file sharing sites rather than buying books, then there would then be
no incentive for authors to write books, and consequently no more new books would
be written.
• This would make lots of people less happy:
• authors would not be able to earn a living
• readers would soon run out of books to read.
• Therefore RULE = do not use file sharing sites.
• Therefore, Jane should not use the file sharing site.

5/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM

 Lecture No. 1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: TELLING RIGHT FROM WRONG
AN INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL REASONING

A deontologicalist might use the golden rule to reason as follows:

• Jane should treat others as she would like to be treated herself.

• Using the file sharing site deprives the the author of income.
• If Jane were the author of the book she would not want to be deprived of her income.
• Therefore, Jane should not use the file sharing site.

This example shows how the use of principles allows ethical reasoning to be
carried out using logic, and in a way that can be made open to public scrutiny and
discussion. This contrasts with, for example, a simple appeal to religious authority.

6/6 Sheryl R. Morales, MEM