A Guide to Systematic Moral Analysis of Ethical Case Studies (Adapted from D. Elliott, Ethics in the First Person) Gert, a modern philosopher who studied common morality, identified ten moral rules that all rational humans naturally follow: 1. Don’t kill 2. Don’t cause pain 3. Don’t disable 4. Don’t deprive of freedom 5. Don’t deprive of pleasure 6. Don’t deceive 7. Keep your promise 8. Don’t cheat 9. Obey the law 10. Do your duty (i.e. your job) But there are situations in which principles governed by these rules may come into conflict (e.g. individual vs. communal freedom) or one rule must be broken in favor of preserving another (e.g. deception might be necessary in order to prevent murder). And sometimes a situation is complicated by multiple rule violations. In order to untangle ethically complex situations, we can follow a process called systematic moral analysis, which has two parts: conceptualization and justification. Conceptualization is the identification of an act as morally questionable and worthy of further analysis. In other words, conceptualization helps us determine whether any harm has been caused; to whom; and why. The following questions will help guide you through the process of conceptualization: TERMINOLOGY Moral agent: a competent, rational, conscious adult who is voluntarily choosing an action or inaction. Subjects of moral worth: entities outside of the moral community that deserve moral consideration (e.g., human corpses, human fetuses, some animals, the environment, art, and culture are subjects of moral worth). They ought not be caused harm without good reason but are not of value equal to those in the moral community. Moral community: all human beings between birth and death; those deserving of moral protections equal to what all others deserve. It is morally prohibited to cause a member of the moral community unjustified harm without good reason. Role-related responsibilities: the responsibilities that inhere in roles individuals play in the community (e.g. student, teacher, doctor, researcher, father). Individuals often have multiple role-related responsibilities and, at times, these can be in conflict.a. Is a member of the moral community or subject of moral worth being caused harm? b. Has a moral agent caused the harm? If so, is the agent morally responsible for the harm? (note that the agent can be at fault without being morally responsible) c. What are the agent’s role-related responsibilities? d. Was harm intended or could it have been predicted? Justification is the second stage of systemic moral analysis. It helps you determine whether the questionable action you identified through conceptualization is ethically permitted in this particular situation. The following questions will help guide you through the process of justification: a. Which harms are caused by a rule violation? Which could have been avoided? b. What are the positive outcomes of the rule violation? Which harms have been prevented? c. Are there any alternative actions or policies that would not violate moral rules? d. Could an individual meet his/her role-related responsibilities in a way that causes less or no harm to an individual? e. Does the rule violation stand the publicity
View Full Document
Unlocking...