DOC PREVIEW
UT CC 302 - Overview of Gert¹s Moral Rules_REVISED1 (3)

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Overview of Gert’s Moral RulesGert’s moral rules are, essentially, ten rules that people abide by in order to function and live together cooperatively. Widespread violations of the moral rules make it impossible to maintain a viable society. However, sometimes it simply isn’t possible to avoid breaking the rules. In order to uphold one moral obligation--in order to save a life, for example--it can be necessary and justifiable to break a different moral rule. A process of ethical reasoning allows us to weigh and evaluate the positive and negative potential outcomes of moral rule violations and helps us to figure out the best or most ethically appropriate action in a morally tricky situation. In order to go through this process, it is essential that we have a full and correct understanding of Gert’s moral rules.Things to remember:1. Moral rules apply to moral agents, that is, all individuals who are able to understand the rules and be held accountable for their actions. 2. Attempts at rule violations are the same as rule violations. THE TEN MORAL RULESDO NOT KILL: do not cause the death of another or the permanent loss of consciousness, even without causing death. A competent person may, however, make the decision to die without violating any moral rules.DO NOT CAUSE PAIN: pain includes physical and emotional/mental pain and such emotions as disgust, fear, and sadness. This rule gets tricky when someone causes pain unintentionally or in order not to deceive (e.g. a teacher awarding a student a poor grade; a doctor delivering a bad diagnosis). It is sometimes permissible to inflict pain with consent (e.g. when a doctor gives a patient a shot).DO NOT DISABLE: the deprivation of an individual’s ability. “Disability” includes the loss of physical or mental ability, as well as a loss of wish or will (e.g. giving drugs against one’s will). Causing a disability can be justified by the circumstances, for instance when a doctor amputates a leg to save a patient’s life.DO NOT DEPRIVE OF FREEDOM: this rule prohibits doing anything to someone without theirconsent (e.g. touching them) as well as depriving them of opportunities and resources. Freedom is, however, limited by laws concerning ownership. This moral rule refers to changes to a person’s environment rather than to the person directly. Problems sometimes arise in distinguishing between the loss of opportunity and losing a fair competition. DO NOT DEPRIVE OF PLEASURE: the prevention of continuing to do or experience what an individual was doing. This rule is very similar to the prohibition against causing pain. The distinction can be seen in the example of someone speaking loudly at a concert: this deprives one of pleasure but may not cause pain.DO NOT DECEIVE: this prohibition covers both verbal and non-verbal actions, including withholding information. It covers both intentional attempts to deceive as well as unintentional deceptions that result in other people holding false beliefs. It also covers the repetition of rumors that one knows to be false or has no reason to believe to be true and which significantly increase the probability that people will have false beliefs. Some behaviors involving personal appearance are excluded [e.g. it is not a moral violation to colorone’s hair].KEEP YOUR PROMISES: this is a requirement rather than a prohibition and relates to both formal (e.g. legal contracts) and informal promises. A promise is understood as a stated intention, with the awareness that the other person is counting on you to follow through on your intention. There is a close connection between deception and making false promises. False promises can be justified; and if the circumstances change sufficiently from the time when the promise was made, this might provide adequate justification for failing to keep it. An excuse or explanation for breaking a promise does not equate to justification.DO NOT CHEAT: cheating is the violation of rules in order to gain an advantage over others; it generally requires that there be no explicit penalties other than expulsion from the activity. When penalties are explicit, like a foul in basketball, the violation is accepted as a part of the game and the rule violation is no longer considered cheating. However, in some cases where clear penalties have been established (as in universities) the rule violation still counts as cheating because the community does not accept cheating as part of the game. Cheating is distinct from deception and breaking a promise (e.g. violation of an honor code) in that it does not necessarily involve deception or broken promises. If nobody else is affected by the cheating, it is not a moral matter. Cheating can also be illegal (e.g. insider trading). It does not seem possible to cheat unintentionally.OBEY THE LAW: this is a requirement even when laws are imperfect, though breaking an unjust law may be justified. A law is a rule that is part of the legal system known to all moralagents from that society and directly or indirectly influences behavior in a significant way. Legal systems differ from moral systems in that they have a formal procedure for resolving disagreements. Individuals can be held legally responsible even without knowledge that a law was broken or intention to break the law [e.g. parking illegally]. Breaking the law is similar to cheating.DO YOUR DUTY: perform the responsibilities that come with your roles (e.g. parent, student, teacher, doctor, farmer) as well as duties that arise from particular circumstances (e.g. someone in need of emergency assistance). This requirement to assist in a specific circumstance may be a result of an individual being in a unique position to do so and able to do so at a relatively low cost. A duty cannot require immoral action (e.g. one cannot be required to sell poison-laced cabbage). Certain kinds of role-related deception may be acceptable, such as the actions of an undercover agent attempting to prevent a terrorist attack. What specific deception is acceptable or justified is often a matter of disagreement. Likewise, there is strong disagreement about the extent to which moral agents have a responsibility to prevent any harm that they can (e.g. by using money to help


View Full Document

UT CC 302 - Overview of Gert¹s Moral Rules_REVISED1 (3)

Download Overview of Gert¹s Moral Rules_REVISED1 (3)
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Overview of Gert¹s Moral Rules_REVISED1 (3) and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Overview of Gert¹s Moral Rules_REVISED1 (3) 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?