Applied ethics

Applied ethics, also called practical ethics, is the application of ethics to real-world problems. Practical
ethics attempts to answer the question of how people should act in specific situations. For example, is it
ethical for a business owner to bluff during negotiations with another company? Or, is it morally
permissible for a doctor to engage in mercy killing when a terminal cancer patient begs to be put out of
her misery?

Some philosophers argue that real-world ethics should start with moral theory. But finding agreement
on which moral theory to apply can be difficult. With a practical approach to ethics, people don’t need
to agree on a moral theory. Instead, they can agree to solutions to ethical dilemmas by reviewing the
facts and related harms of a specific situation. This is one of the key strengths of applied ethics.

Theories under applied ethics

1. Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its
consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would
help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.

Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism.

A.Utilitarianism:

Utilitarian ethical theories are based on one’s ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a
utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the one that is ethically
correct.

There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

*Act utilitarianism subscribes precisely to the definition of utilitarianism.A person performs the acts that
benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws.

* Rule utilitarianism takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to
benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added
benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time.

Both act and rule utilitarianism have disadvantages. Although people can use their life experiences to
attempt to predict outcomes, no one can be certain that his/her predictions will be accurate.
Uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian decision maker appear unethical as
time passes, as the choice made did not benefit the most people as predicted.

Another assumption that a utilitarian decision maker must make concerns his/her ability to compare the
various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. But, comparing material gains, such
as money, against intangible gains, such as happiness, is very difficult since their qualities differ to such a
large extent.

An act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the maximum good. Thus, one individual’s
rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater number of people. In other words, act
utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if
oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benef i ts a majority of people.

Still another source of challenge with act utilitarian decision makers occurs when an individual faces one
set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences changes in those conditions. Th e change in
conditions may lead to a change in the original decision being be nice to someone one moment and then
dislike them the next moment because the situation has changed, and liking the person is no longer
beneficial to the most people.

In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Recall the example of the business
person running late for a meeting. Suppose the business person happens to be the CEO, who may
believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time as the members of the
company will benefit from this decision. The CEO may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically
correct if he/she is running late.

Yet, the CEO believes that he/she should follow the law because this benefits society.

Simultaneously, he/she believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting because it is a
meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the
consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example,
assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs,
a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save
four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce good for the greatest number. But
few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong,
it has obvious limitations

B.Hedonism : on the other hand, says something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or
avoids pain.It is the belief that pleasure, or the absence of pain, is the most important principle in
determining the morality of a potential course of action. Pleasure can be things like “sex, drugs, and rock
’n’ roll,” but it can also include any intrinsically valuable experience like reading a good book.

It is a type of consequentialism, and it has several forms. For example, normative hedonism is the idea
that pleasure should be people’s primary motivation. On the other hand, motivational hedonism says
that only pleasure and pain cause people to do what they do.

Egotistical hedonism requires a person to consider only his or her own pleasure in making choices.
Conversely, altruistic hedonism says that the creation of pleasure for all people is the best way to
measure if an action is ethical.

Regardless of the type of hedonism, critics fault it as a guide for morality because hedonism ignores all
other values, such as freedom or fairness, when evaluating right and wrong.

Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what
the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in
certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the
consequences are arguably good.

For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that
most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population.
Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However,
when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the
means.”

2. Dentology

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is often
associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral
laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This
approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.

Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the
costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to
follow set rules.

Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find
unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about
to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your
professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of
lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch,
thousands of people will die.

So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible
consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.
3. Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character.

This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By
practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral
character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice
when faced with ethical challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp
refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White
and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a
virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be
the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t. So, virtue ethics helps us
understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And, it gives us a guide for living life without
giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas.

One weakness of virtue ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person’s change in
moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have
the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally
plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change
from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a signif i cant amount of evidence mounts up
against him/her.

4. Egoism

In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s
own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The descriptive (or positive) variant
conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own
interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that
people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior. Altruism is the
opposite of egoism. The term “egoism” derives from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. Egoism
should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of one’s own
importance, or of one’s own activities.
A. Psychological egoism

Psychological egoism is the view that every action a person takes is ultimately motivated by self-interest.
It posits that even when people appear to act altruistically (helping others), they do so because it
benefits them in some way—whether directly or indirectly. This theory is a descriptive claim about
human behavior, meaning it attempts to explain how people actually behave, not how they should
behave (which is the concern of ethical theories).

Key Ideas of Psychological Egoism:

*self-interest as the root motivation: Every action, whether seemingly selfless or selfish, is driven by the
desire to fulfill one’s own needs, desires, or goals.

* Even acts of kindness or charity are self-serving: According to psychological egoism, when people help
others, they are often doing it because it makes them feel good, enhances their reputation, or reduces
their own discomfort (e.g., guilt or distress).

* self-benefit is always implicit: Psychological egoists argue that people may not be consciously aware
that they are motivated by self-interest. Their actions may seem to be for the benefit of others, but
deeper analysis shows that there is always a personal gain at the root.

Example: . Donating to Charity

People often donate money to charities, and it can seem like they are acting purely for the benefit of
others, particularly those in need.

Explanation: A psychological egoist might argue that the person donates money because it makes them
feel good about themselves (they might feel a sense of moral superiority). Alternatively, they might give
because they want to avoid guilt or social censure. In some cases, people donate to enhance their
reputation or be seen as generous by others. They may even expect some future benefit, such as social
recognition or tax deductions, which adds a personal gain to the action.

B. Ethical egoism

Ethical egoism is a normative theory in ethics that suggests individuals ought to act in their own self-
interest. Unlike psychological egoism, which is a descriptive theory explaining how people do behave
(claiming all actions are motivated by self-interest), ethical egoism prescribes how people should
behave, asserting that acting in one's own self-interest is morally right.

Key Concepts of Ethical Egoism:

* Moral Obligation to Self-Interest: According to ethical egoism, it is morally right for individuals to act in
ways that benefit themselves, even if those actions might not benefit others. The core of the theory is
that individuals should prioritize their own needs, goals, and well-being.

* No Obligation to Others: Ethical egoism does not necessarily require people to act in the interests of
others unless doing so benefits themselves. Unlike moral systems like utilitarianism or deontology,
which advocate helping others, ethical egoism maintains that the well-being of others is secondary to
one's own interests.
* Long-term Self-Interest: Ethical egoism is often understood to promote a rational form of self-interest,
meaning people should consider the long-term consequences of their actions rather than short-term
pleasure or gain. This encourages decisions that will result in the greatest benefit to the individual over
time.

* Rational Self-Interest: The theory emphasizes rationality—individuals should carefully evaluate their
actions and make decisions that align with their true self-interest, even if this requires sacrifice or effort
in the short term.

Types of Ethical Egoism:

¤ Individual Ethical Egoism: This version of ethical egoism holds that each person should act in their own
self-interest. It is a personal ethical code where individuals are morally obligated to pursue their own
good above all else.

¤ Universal Ethical Egoism: This version extends ethical egoism to everyone, suggesting that each person
should act in their own self-interest, but so should everyone else. In this framework, people are still
morally obligated to pursue their own self-interest, but they must also recognize that others have the
same right to act in their self-interest.

Example : Business Decisions

Imagine a CEO of a company deciding to cut costs by reducing employee salaries. The CEO may justify
this decision by saying that it is in the company's (and their) best interest, even though the employees'
financial well-being is harmed.

Explanation: From an ethical egoist's perspective, the CEO is morally right to prioritize the company's
profits and their own financial well-being (e.g., through bonuses, stock options, or job security). Their
self-interest, which could be long-term financial stability and success, justifies the decision. They are
under no moral obligation to protect the interests of their employees if doing so doesn't serve their self-
interest or the long-term goals of the company.