Introduction to Ethics,
Ethical Theories & Professional Ethics

The four features of a moral system according to Gert are: Public (rules are known to all), Informal (no formal judges — not like legal systems), Rational (based on logical reason), and Impartial (applies equitably to all). "Legal" is NOT one of them — in fact, morality is explicitly informal, distinguishing it from law.

Gert's four features: Public (everyone knows the rules), Informal (no formal enforcement authority like law), Rational (based on logical reason accessible to all), and Impartial (rules apply equally to everyone). Option (a) is wrong because morality is informal, not formal.

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality — a rational examination into people's moral beliefs and behaviour. Morality is the system; ethics is the study of it. It is broader than law, religion, or professional codes alone.

All ethical theories share three things: identifying what it means to do right, assuming free choice, and contributing to human well-being. However, not all ethical theories derive from religion — only the Divine Command Theory does. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Social Contract Theory etc. are secular philosophical theories.

Beneficence is the principle that guides decision-makers to do what is right and good. Option (a) describes the Least Harm principle; option (b) describes Respect for Autonomy; option (d) describes the Justice principle.

A moral system has two components: Rules of Conduct (directives at the micro level and social policies at the macro level) that guide actions, and Principles of Evaluation (standards like justice, fairness, respect for others) that justify those rules.

Subjective Relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it — each person decides right and wrong for themselves. The Categorical Imperative is Kant's universal moral law. The Difference Principle belongs to Rawls.

A key criticism of Subjective Relativism is that it blurs the distinction between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do. It also makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people and allows decisions based on something other than reason, making it not a workable ethical theory.

Cultural Relativism = right if one's culture approves. Subjective Relativism = right if the individual approves. Divine Command = right if God commands it. Utilitarianism = right if it produces the greatest happiness.

Cultural Relativism is not workable because it has significant weakness as a tool for ethical persuasion: it suggests no universal moral guidelines exist, and it gives tradition more weight than reasons or facts. It also creates personal bias and could lead to chaos.

Advantages of Cultural Relativism include: promotes cooperation and respect, creates equality, preserves human cultures, and allows personal moral codes based on societal standards. It does NOT produce universal rules (that is a disadvantage) and it actually fuels personal bias.

Divine Command Theory is based on faith and the belief that God exists. It focuses on obeying God's commands rather than reasoning through consequences or duties. Followers accept that all moral judgment is derived from God's direct commandments — hence the emphasis on obedience over reasoning.

Divine Command Theory states: "what is in accordance with God's command is moral and what is contrary to that command is immoral." Holy books contain God's directions, which serve as guides to distinguish moral from immoral actions.

Utilitarianism (Bentham & Mill) holds that an action is right if it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of persons affected. This is the Principle of Utility (Greatest Happiness Principle). It focuses entirely on consequences, not intentions.

Utilitarianism is consequence-based. What makes behavior right or wrong depends wholly on the outcomes — not on the intention (Kantianism focuses on intention/duty), not on character (Virtue Ethics), and not on law.

Act Utilitarianism is criticized because: (b) it may justify immoral actions (like breaking a promise) if they maximize net happiness, and (c) it ignores our innate sense of duty and rules. For example, if breaking a promise produces 1001 units of good vs. keeping it at 1000, Act Utilitarianism would endorse breaking the promise — which seems wrong. Option (a) describes Kantianism, not Utilitarianism.

Both Rule Utilitarianism and Kantianism are rule-based theories. Rule Utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of an action depends on whether it follows a rule that produces the greatest good. Kantianism holds that an action is right if the principle behind it can be universalized. Both focus on the rule guiding the action, not just the individual act's consequences.

Breaking a promise to produce greater happiness illustrates the conflict. Act Utilitarianism says: break the promise if it produces more good in this specific case. Rule Utilitarianism says: follow the rule "keep promises" because the rule itself produces more happiness when universally followed. Option (d) describes Rule vs. Act but from Rule Utilitarianism's own admission of occasional unjust outcomes.

Both theories are rule-based, but their derivation differs: Rule Utilitarian follows a moral rule because its universal adoption results in the greatest happiness (consequence-based justification). Kantian follows a moral rule because it aligns with the Categorical Imperative — treating all humans as ends, never merely as means (duty-based justification).

The 1st Formulation: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This is the universalizability test — if everyone did it, would it still make sense? The 2nd Formulation is about treating people as ends. Option (b) is the Golden Rule, not Kant.

This is a tricky question. Options (a), (b), and (d) are all genuine implications of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Option (c) is actually misleading — using humans as research subjects IS something Kantianism would oppose, but the phrasing says "cannot morally be treated as research subjects because this treats them as means rather than only as ends." The Categorical Imperative says never treat people as means only — research subjects can be treated with dignity while still participating. This makes (c) the one that is NOT a strict implication.

Kant's 1st formulation requires that moral rules be universalizable. A rule that cannot be universalized would lead to self-defeating, inconsistent behavior. For example: universalizing "always lie" would make the very concept of lying meaningless (no one would believe anyone), defeating the purpose of lying. Moral rules must work universally without contradiction.

The 2nd Formulation: "Act so that you treat both yourself and other people as ends and never only as means to an end." This means every interaction must respect others as rational beings — you cannot use people merely as tools to achieve your goals.

Treating someone merely as a means undermines their autonomy and dignity as a rational being, which is directly contrary to the 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed human reason is extremely valuable, and to respect others we must never use them purely for our own purposes.

Perfect duty: absolute, unconditional, no exceptions (e.g., "Do not lie"). Imperfect duty: morally obligatory but flexible in how/when fulfilled (e.g., "Help others"). In a conflict between perfect and imperfect duties, the perfect duty prevails. In a conflict between two perfect duties, Kantianism provides no clear solution.

For Kant, autonomy means acting according to laws that rational beings give themselves through reason. This is central to the Categorical Imperative — true moral freedom is not doing whatever you want, but giving yourself rational moral laws and following them.

Using the 1st formulation: if the rule "claim credit for work done by someone else" were universalized, reports would no longer be credible indicators of a student's knowledge — professors would stop giving credit for them. The rule is self-defeating when universalized, therefore it is morally wrong. Also, under the 2nd formulation, Carla treats the professor as a mere means to passing the course.

Social Contract Theory (Hobbes, Rawls) holds that moral and political obligations arise from an agreement among rational people to live in society. It is about the legitimacy of authority and moral rules based on collective agreement for mutual benefit — not individual happiness (Utilitarianism), not universal reason alone (Kantianism), not character (Virtue Ethics).

Key criticisms of SCT include: (1) no one literally signed the social contract, (2) some actions have multiple characterizations, (3) conflicting rights problems, and (4) may unjustly treat those who cannot uphold the contract. But the most commonly cited critique is that it assumes rational, self-interested individuals — which is an idealized assumption that may not reflect real human behavior.

Rawls' Difference Principle allows inequalities only if they: (1) are associated with positions everyone has fair opportunity to achieve, and (2) benefit the least-advantaged members of society. It allows for inequalities only if they serve a just purpose for the most vulnerable — not to maximize total happiness.

A negative right is one that another can guarantee simply by leaving you alone to exercise it (no action required from others — just non-interference). Free expression = others just don't interfere. A positive right obligates others to do something on your behalf — like free education (someone must provide it) or healthcare (someone must deliver it).

Both SCT and Kantianism are based on universal moral rules. The difference is in how those rules are derived: Kantianism says a rule is right if it can be universalized (1st formulation) and respects rational beings (2nd formulation). SCT says a rule is right if rational people would collectively accept it because of its benefits to the community.

Virtue Ethics is character-based — instead of asking "what rule should I follow?" (Kantianism) or "what produces the best outcome?" (Utilitarianism), it asks "what would a virtuous person do?" It focuses on the moral character traits of the decision-maker such as honesty, courage, and integrity.

Deontology (Kantianism) focuses on following universal rules and duties, but it is least capable of telling you how to become a moral person (character development). It tells you what to do, not who to be. Virtue Ethics is specifically designed to prescribe what character traits one should cultivate to become moral.

Virtue Ethicist asks: "Is lying compatible with being an honest, courageous, good person?" (character-based). Rule Utilitarian asks: "Does the rule 'do not lie' generally produce the most happiness when followed universally?" (rule/consequence-based). Option (b) confuses the Rule Utilitarian with an Act Utilitarian.

According to both Kantianism and Social Contract Theory, if an action violates a moral rule, it shouldn't be done — the end does NOT justify the means. In contrast, Utilitarianism (especially Act Utilitarianism) would allow the end to justify the means if total happiness is maximized. This is actually a point from the course slides: "a utilitarian process weighs expected benefits and harms…the question is no longer 'Should we do it?' but 'How much of it can we do without harm?'"

In the Agency model, the professional acts as the agent and does exactly what the client tells them (like a stockbroker executing a buy order). In the Paternalistic model, the professional makes all decisions. In the Trust model, both client and professional share decision-making with mutual trust.

In the Paternalistic model, the professional makes all decisions and the client revokes all decision-making authority (the professional knows best). This is contrasted with the Agency model (client directs everything) and the Trust model (shared decision-making).

The moral foundation of the employer-employee relationship is that: (1) the relation is contractual, (2) individuals should be treated with respect and not merely as a means, and (3) neither party should take advantage of the other. This aligns with Kantian ethics — treating persons as ends, not merely as means.

A professional code of ethics: symbolizes professionalism, defines standards for external relations, protects the group's interests, codifies members' rights, expresses ideals, and offers guidance in "gray areas." It is NOT a law (it cannot be passed by legislative bodies and does not encourage lawsuits), and it is NOT an exhaustive algorithm for every ethical situation.

Ethical codes are not laws — they are subjective and not legally binding. A key limitation is that they may be written ambiguously, which allows selective enforcement. They also cannot provide a complete ethical framework and do not cover every ethical question that might arise. Ethics requires deliberation and good judgment, not a simple checklist.

Ethical codes are subjective and not legally binding. They are not passed by public legislative bodies, not intended to encourage lawsuits, and cannot be enforced with the same authority as laws. This makes enforcement far more complex — there are no clear penalties, and it is possible for ethical principles to conflict with each other, requiring deliberation.

The central dilemma of whistleblowing: it aims to promote justice and protect the public, but the whistleblower typically suffers retaliation (labeled a troublemaker, estranged from colleagues, career harm, legal consequences). This tension — doing the right thing at great personal cost — is the core ethical dilemma.

Factors that inhibit internal reporting include: (1) unavailable resources, (2) hostile and unethical organizational culture (people who speak up are seen as traitors or non-team players), (3) toxic leadership, and (4) lack of organizational justice. When organizations punish internal reporting, bad practices typically get worse until someone goes external.

External whistleblowing (going to the press or government agency) can mean serious problems for the organization: bad publicity, ruined careers of accused managers, eroded team spirit through mutual suspicion, and disruption of the organization's social fabric. The typical corporate response is to condemn it and call it disloyal.

The five whistleblower typologies (Heumann et al.): The Altruist (motivated by desire to protect the public good), The Avenger (retaliation), Organization Man (loyalty to org), The Alarmist (fear/urgency), The Bounty Hunter (financial reward). The Altruist has the most morally admirable motivation.

The three types of exclusive moral responsibility: (1) Role responsibility — borne because of assigned job duties (e.g., bookkeeper must pay bills on time). (2) Causal responsibility — assigned because you caused something to happen. (3) Legal responsibility — assigned by law. Moral responsibility is NOT exclusive — unlike these three, it can be shared.

Option (c) is the clearest conflict: the engineer is legally bound by an NDA (cannot disclose), but has an ethical obligation to warn the public of a security flaw. This is a direct conflict between legal and ethical responsibility. Options (a) and (b) show tension within professional roles, not a direct legal/ethical conflict.

The paternalistic model (professional makes all decisions for client's "own good") is best justified by Utilitarianism — limiting individual freedom can be justified if it leads to the greatest overall good. Kantianism would actually OPPOSE paternalism because it disrespects client autonomy. Social contract theory would favor equality between parties.

The Agency model gives full decision-making power to the client. The ethical dilemma: the professional must follow client instructions even when unethical — they have no authority to refuse or apply their own professional judgment. This creates a tension between professional ethics and client service.

The ethical response is to refuse to compromise security and escalate. A professional has an obligation to protect users and society (Society-Professional relationship). Complying with a request that introduces serious vulnerabilities violates professional ethics. Option (b) is deceptive. Option (a) is passive compliance. The professional must take a stand and use internal reporting channels.

Chris violated the principle of honesty and disclosure — he should have told the corporation that Robin is his domestic partner so they could make an informed, unbiased judgment. Clause 2.4 of ACM Code: be honest and trustworthy. Not disclosing the conflict of interest treats the corporation as a means to benefit his partner, violating transparency obligations.

To create an ethical culture: (1) create management structures that allow concerns to be raised and resolved, (2) implement policies that visibly protect and incentivize internal reporting, (3) make ethics part of core organizational values, (4) leaders must model integrity, and (5) use principle-based ethics rather than purely utilitarian decision-making.

Social Contract Theory: morality is a set of rules that governs our actions toward each other, which rational people have accepted on the condition that others will follow them for mutual benefit. Secretly installing monitoring software breaks the mutual trust that rational workers would agree to — the supervisor should have informed employees. No one in the workplace social contract would agree to secret surveillance.

Virtue Ethics focuses on character traits. In this scenario, the engineer needs: Honesty (to acknowledge and expose the wrongdoing), Courage (to speak up despite the risk of termination), Integrity (to act consistently with her moral principles), and Responsibility (to protect users who are being harmed). These are the virtues a good professional cultivates.