MORAL FRAMEWORKS

I. II. Introduction Ethical Theories A. Rights Ethics 1. Definition 2. Natural Rights VS Legal Rights 3. Positi e Rights VS Negati e Rights !. Li"ertarians #. Dut$ Ethics %. &tilitarianis' D. Virtue Ethics 1. Definition 2. Res(onsi"le Professionalis' a. (u"lic)s(irited alues ". (roficienc$ irtues c. tea'*or+ irtues d. self)go ernance irtues 3. Sa'uel ,lor'an s Alasdair -acInt$re E. Self)reali.ation Ethics 1. %o''unit$)/riented Version a. Personal %o''it'ent ". -oti es i. Proficienc$ -oti es ii. %o'(ensation -oti es iii. -oral -oti es 2. Ethical Egois' a. Argu'ents

III.

%onclusion

MORAL FRAMEWORKS
At its si'(lest0 ethics is a s$ste' of 'oral (rinci(les. It refers to standards of "eha ior that tell us ho* hu'an "eings ought to act in the 'an$ situations in *hich the$ find the'sel es)as friends0 (arents0 children0 citi.ens0 "usiness(eo(le0 teachers0 (rofessionals0 and so on. The$ affect ho* (eo(le 'a+e decisions and lead their li es. The ter' is deri ed fro' the 1ree+ *ord ethos *hich can 'ean custo'0 ha"it0 character or dis(osition. It is hel(ful to identif$ *hat ethics is N/T2 Ethics is not the same as feelings. ,eelings (ro ide i'(ortant infor'ation for our ethical choices. So'e (eo(le ha e highl$ de elo(ed ha"its that 'a+e the' feel "ad *hen the$ do so'ething *rong0 "ut 'an$ (eo(le feel good e en though the$ are doing so'ething *rong. And often our feelings *ill tell us it is unco'forta"le to do the right thing if it is hard.

Ethics is not religion. -an$ (eo(le are not religious0 "ut ethics a((lies to e er$one. -ost religions do ad ocate high ethical standards "ut so'eti'es do not address all the t$(es of (ro"le's *e face.

Ethics is not following the law. A good s$ste' of la* does incor(orate 'an$ ethical standards0 "ut la* can de iate fro' *hat is ethical. La* can "eco'e ethicall$ corru(t0 as so'e totalitarian regi'es ha e 'ade it. La* can "e a function of (o*er alone and designed to ser e the interests of narro* grou(s. La* 'a$ ha e a difficult ti'e

designing or enforcing standards in so'e i'(ortant areas0 and 'a$ "e slo* to address ne* (ro"le's. Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. So'e cultures are 3uite ethical0 "ut others "eco'e corru(t )or "lind to certain ethical concerns 4as the &nited States *as to sla er$ "efore the %i il 5ar6. 75hen in Ro'e0 do as the Ro'ans do7 is not a satisfactor$ ethical standard.

Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can (ro ide i'(ortant data to hel( us 'a+e "etter ethical choices. #ut science alone does not tell us *hat *e ought to do. Science 'a$ (ro ide an e8(lanation for *hat hu'ans are li+e. #ut ethics (ro ides reasons for ho* hu'ans ought to act. And 9ust "ecause so'ething is scientificall$ or technologicall$ (ossi"le0 it 'a$ not "e ethical to do it. If our ethics are not "ased on feelings0 religion0 la*0 acce(ted social (ractice0 or

science0 *hat are the$ "ased on: -an$ (hiloso(hers and ethicists ha e hel(ed us ans*er this critical 3uestion. The$ ha e suggested at least fi e different sources of ethical standards *e should use. These are called ethical theories. An ethical theor$ see+s to (ro ide a co'(rehensi e (ers(ecti e on 'oralit$ that clarifies0 organi.es0 and guides 'oral reflection. If successful0 it (ro ides a fra'e*or+ for 'a+ing reasona"le 'oral choices and resol ing 'oral dile''as;not a si'(le for'ula0 "ut rather a unif$ing *a$ to identif$ and integrate 'oral reasons. As one of their a((lications0 ethical theories ground the re3uire'ents in engineering codes of ethics "$ reference to "roader 'oral (rinci(les. In doing so0 the$ illu'inate connections "et*een engineering ethics and e er$da$ 'oralit$0 that is0 the 9ustified 'oral alues that (la$ a role in all areas of life.

Fi e !ypes of Ethical !heories Rights ethics sa$s *e ought to res(ect hu'an rights Duty ethics sa$s *e ought to res(ect indi iduals< rational autono'$ Utilitarianism sa$s that *e ought to 'a8i'i.e the o erall good0 ta+ing into e3ual account all those affected "$ our actions Virtue ethics sa$s that good character is central to 'oralit$ Self-realization ethics e'(hasi.es the 'oral significance of self)fulfill'ent. None of these theories has *on a consensus0 although each has (ro en attracti e to 'an$ (eo(le. At least in so'e of their ersions0 the$ *idel$ agree in their (ractical i'(lications.

Right Ethics
Rights are 'oral entitle'ents and alid 'oral clai's that i'(ose duties on other (eo(le. All ethical theories lea e so'e roo' for rights0 "ut the ethical theor$ called rights ethics is distincti e in that it 'a+es hu'an rights the ulti'ate a((eal;the 'oral "otto' line. =u'an rights constitute a 'oral authorit$ to 'a+e legiti'ate 'oral de'ands on others to res(ect our choices0 recogni.ing that others can 'a+e si'ilar clai's on us. At its core0 rights ethics e'(hasi.es res(ecting the inherent dignit$ and *orth of indi iduals as the$ e8ercise their li"ert$. According to the theor$ of 'oral rights0 hu'an "eings ha e certain funda'ental rights that should "e res(ected in all decisions. Si8 'oral rights should "e considered during decision 'a+ing2 !he right of free consent. Indi iduals are to "e treated onl$ as the$ +no*ingl$ and freel$ consent to "e treated. !he right to pri acy Indi iduals can choose to do as the$ (lease a*a$ fro' *or+ and ha e control of infor'ation a"out their (ri ate life. !he right of freedom of conscience Indi iduals 'a$ refrain fro' carr$ing out an$ order that iolates their 'oral nor's and religious nor's. !he right of free speech Indi iduals 'a$ critici.e truthful ethics or legalit$ actions of others. !he right to due process Indi iduals ha e a right to an i'(artial hearing and fair treat'ent. !he right to life and safety Indi iduals ha e a right to li e *ithout endanger'ent or iolation of their health and safet$

The idea of hu'an rights is the single 'ost (o*erful 'oral conce(t in 'a+ing cross)cultural 'oral 9udg'ents a"out custo's and la*s. #ut0 there is considera"le disagree'ent a"out *hat is 'eant (recisel$ "$ the ter' rights. "atural Rights #S Legal Rights "atural rights are rights *hich are 7natural7 in the sense of 7not artificial0 not 'an)'ade70 as in rights deri ing fro' deontic logic0 fro' hu'an nature0 or fro' the edicts of a god. The$ are uni ersal> that is0 the$ a((l$ to all (eo(le0 and do not deri e fro' the la*s of an$ s(ecific societ$. The$ e8ist necessaril$0 inhere in e er$ indi idual0 and can?t "e ta+en a*a$. ,or e8a'(le0 it has "een argued that hu'ans ha e a natural right to life. The$?re so'eti'es called moral rights or inalienable rights. Legal rights0 in contrast0 are "ased on a societ$?s custo's0 la*s0 statutes or actions "$ legislatures. An e8a'(le of a legal right is the right to vote of citi.ens. %iti.enshi(0 itself0 is often considered as the "asis for ha ing legal rights0 and has "een defined as the 7right to ha e rights7. Legal rights are so'eti'es called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturall$ and (oliticall$ relati e since the$ de(end on a s(ecific societal conte8t to ha e 'eaning. So'e thin+ers see rights in onl$ one sense *hile others acce(t that "oth senses ha e a 'easure of alidit$. There has "een considera"le (hiloso(hical de"ate a"out these senses throughout histor$. ,or e8a'(le0 @ere'$ #entha' "elie ed that legal rights *ere the essence of rights0 and he denied the e8istence of natural rights> *hereas Tho'as A3uinas held that rights (ur(orted "$ (ositi e la* "ut not grounded in natural la* *ere not (ro(erl$ rights at all0 "ut onl$ a facade or (retense of rights.

$laim Rights #S Li%erty Rights A claim right is a right *hich entails that another (erson has a dut$ to the right) holder. So'e"od$ else 'ust do or refrain fro' doing so'ething to or for the claim holder0 such as (erfor' a ser ice or su((l$ a (roduct for hi' or her> that is0 he or she has a claim to that ser ice or (roduct 4another ter' is thing in action6. In logic0 this idea can "e e8(ressed as2 7Person A has a clai' that (erson B do so'ething if and onl$ if B has a dut$ to A to do that so'ething.7 E er$ clai')right entails that so'e other dut$) "earer 'ust do so'e dut$ for the clai' to "e satisfied. This dut$ can "e to act or to refrain fro' acting. ,or e8a'(le0 'an$ 9urisdictions recogni.e "road clai' rights to things li+e 7life0 li"ert$0 and (ro(ert$7> these rights i'(ose an o"ligation u(on others not to assault or restrain a (erson0 or use their (ro(ert$0 *ithout the clai') holder?s (er'ission. Li+e*ise0 in 9urisdictions *here social *elfare ser ices are (ro ided0 citi.ens ha e legal clai' rights to "e (ro ided *ith those ser ices. A li%erty right or privilege0 in contrast0 is si'(l$ a freedo' or (er'ission for the right)holder to do so'ething0 and there are no obligations on other (arties to do or not do an$thing. This can "e e8(ressed in logic as2 7Person A has a (ri ilege to do so'ething if and onl$ if A has no dut$ not to do that so'ething.7 ,or e8a'(le0 if a (erson has a legal li"ert$ right to free s(eech0 that 'erel$ 'eans that it is not legall$ for"idden for the' to s(ea+ freel$2 it does not 'ean that an$one has to hel( ena"le their s(eech0 or to listen to their s(eech> or e en0 (er se0 refrain fro' sto((ing the' fro' s(ea+ing0 though other rights0 such as the clai' right to "e free fro' assault0 'a$ se erel$ li'it *hat others can do to sto( the'. Li"ert$ rights and clai' rights are the in erse of one another2 a (erson has a li"ert$ right (er'itting hi' to do so'ething onl$ if there is no other (erson *ho has a clai' right for"idding hi' fro' doing so. Li+e*ise0 if a (erson has a clai' right against so'eone else0 then that other (erson?s li"ert$ is li'ited. ,or e8a'(le0 a (erson has a liberty right to *al+ do*n a side*al+ and can decide freel$ *hether or not to do so0 since there is no o"ligation either to do so or to refrain fro' doing so. #ut (edestrians 'a$ ha e an o"ligation not to *al+ on certain lands0 such as other (eo(le?s (ri ate

(ro(ert$0 to *hich those other (eo(le ha e a clai' right. So a (erson?s liberty right of *al+ing e8tends (recisel$ to the (oint *here another?s claim right li'its his or her freedo'. &ositi e Rights #S "egati e Rights In one sense0 a right is a (er'ission to do so'ething or an entitle'ent to a s(ecific ser ice or treat'ent0 and these rights ha e "een called positive rights. =o*e er0 in another sense0 rights 'a$ allo* or re3uire inaction0 and these are called negative rights> the$ (er'it or re3uire doing nothing. ,or e8a'(le0 in so'e de'ocracies e.g. the &S0 citi.ens ha e the positive right to ote and the$ ha e the negative right not to ote> (eo(le can choose not to ote in a gi en election. In other de'ocracies e.g. Australia0 ho*e er0 citi.ens ha e a (ositi e right to ote "ut the$ don?t ha e a negati e right to not ote0 since non) oting citi.ens can "e fined. Accordingl$2 &ositi e rights are (er'issions to do things0 or entitle'ents to "e done unto. /ne e8a'(le of a (ositi e right is the (ur(orted 7right to *elfare.7 "egati e rights are (er'issions not to do things0 or entitle'ents to "e left alone. /ften the distinction is in o+ed "$ li"ertarians *ho thin+ of a negative right as an entitle'ent to 7non)interference7 such as a right against "eing assaulted. Li%ertarians Another influential ersion of rights ethics0 ho*e er0 denies there are *elfare hu'an rights. Libertarians "elie e that onl$ li"ert$ rights e8ist> there are no *elfare rights. @ohn Loc+e 41A32B1CD!60 *ho *as the first (hiloso(her to carefull$ articulate a rights ethics0 is often inter(reted as a li"ertarian. Loc+e<s ersion of hu'an rights ethics *as highl$ indi idualistic. =e ie*ed rights (ri'aril$ as entitle'ents that (re ent other (eo(le fro' 'eddling in our li es. The indi idualistic as(ect of Loc+e<s thought is reflected in the conte'(orar$ (olitical scene in the Li"ertarian (olitical (art$ and outloo+0 *ith its e'(hases on (rotecting (ri ate (ro(ert$0 dis'antling *elfare s$ste's0 and o((osition to e8tensi e go ern'ent regulation of "usiness and the (rofessions. Li"ertarians ta+e a harsh ie* of ta8es and go ern'ent in ol e'ent

"e$ond the "are 'ini'u' necessar$ for national defense0 a legal s$ste'0 and the (reser ation of free enter(rise. Loc+e thought of (ro(ert$ as *hate er *e gained "$ E'i8ing our la"orF *ith things;for e8a'(le0 co'ing to o*n lu'"er "$ going into the *ilderness and cutting do*n a tree. Toda$0 ho*e er0 our understanding of (ro(ert$ is far 'ore co'(le8. -an$ "elie e that (ro(ert$ is largel$ *hat the la* and go ern'ent s(ecif$ as to ho* *e can ac3uire and use 'aterial things. E en so0 Loc+e<s follo*ers tended to insist that (ro(ert$ *as sacrosanct and that go ern'ents continuall$ intruded on (ro(ert$ rights0 (articularl$ in the for' of e8cessi e ta8ation and regulation. ,inall$0 "oth li"ertarians and other rights ethicists can agree that fe* rights are a"solute0 in the sense of "eing unli'ited and ha ing no 9ustifia"le e8ce(tions. 5hen rights conflict *ith rights in (ractical situations0 there"$ creating ethical dile''as0 good 9udg'ent is re3uired in arri ing at reasona"le solutions a"out ho* to reasona"l$ "alance the rights.

'(!) E!*+$S
Dut$ ethics re erses the order of (riorit$ "$ "eginning *ith duties and deri ing rights fro' the'. Although the si'ilarities "et*een dut$ ethics and rights ethics are (ronounced0 historicall$ the$ de elo(ed as distinct 'oral traditions. This is also called Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics . The ter' deontolog$ co'es fro' the 1ree+ *ord deon0 'eaning dut$. The theor$ of deontolog$ states *e are 'orall$ o"ligated to act in accordance *ith a certain set of (rinci(les and rules regardless of outco'e.

Dut$ ethics sa$s that right actions are to res(ect the li"ert$ or autono'$ of List of important duty ethics 1. Do not +ill 2. Do not cause (ain 3. Do not disa"le !. Do not de(ri e of freedo' G. Do not de(ri e of (leasure A. Do not decei e C. Hee( $our (ro'ises I. Do not cheat J. /"e$ the la* 1D. Do $our dut$

those re3uired "$ duties indi iduals.

+mmanuel Kant 41C2!)1ID!6 I''anuel Hant0 the theor$<s cele"rated (ro(onent0 for'ulated the 'ost influential for' of a secular deontological 'oral theor$ in 1CII. =e argued that all such s(ecific duties deri ed fro' one funda'ental dut$ to res(ect (ersons. Persons deser e res(ect "ecause the$ are E moral agents ca(a"le of recogni.ing and oluntaril$ res(onding to 'oral dut$. Autonomy 'eans ha ing the ca(acit$ to go ern one<s life in accordance *ith 'oral duties. =ence0 res(ect for (ersons a'ounts to res(ect for their 'oral autono'$.

+mmorality occurs *hen *e reduce other (eo(le to 'ere 'eans to our ends and needs rather than as autono'ous agents *ho ha e their o*n goals. #iolent Acts 4i.e. 'urder0 ra(e0 torture6 are o" ious *a$s of treating (eo(le as 'ere o"9ects ser ing our o*n (ur(oses. 5e also ha e duties to oursel es0 for *e too are rational and autono'ous "eings. According to Hant the$ are2 1. Dut$ not to co''it suicide 2. Dut$ to de elo( our talents 3. A oid har'ful drugs that under'ine our a"ilit$ to e8ercise our rationalit$

Kant conflated three ideas, 1. &ni ersalit$ 2. %ategorical I'(erati es 3. A"solutis' Hant e'(hasi.ed that EDuties are uni!ersal . This 'eans that the$ a((l$ e3uall$ to all (ersons. This idea of uni ersal (rinci(le is often co'(ared to the 1olden Rule2 E Do unto others as you would have them do unto youF Hant also insisted that 'oral duties are E "ategorical #m$erati!es . As imperatives the$ are in9unctions or co''ands that *e i'(ose on oursel es as *ell as other rational "eings. As categorical the$ re3uire us to do *hat is right "ecause it is right0 unconditionall$ and *ithout s(ecial incenti es attached. In Hant<s idea of %&solutism' 'oral rules ha e no 9ustified e8ce(tions. -&rima facie duties. this ter' si'(l$ 'eans might have justified exceptions. -ost duties are (ri'a facie0 the$ so'eti'es ha e (er'issi"le or o"ligator$ e8ce(tions.

(!+L+!AR+A"+SM /. &rinciple of (tility

Rights ethics and dut$ ethics agree that so'e t$(es of actions are o"ligator$ for reasons independent of their conse3uences. In contrast0 utilitarianism sa$s the sole standard of right action is good conse3uences. There is onl$ one general 'oral re3uire'ent2 Produce the 'ost good for the 'ost (eo(le0 gi ing e3ual consideration to e er$one affected. 4The *ord utility is so'eti'es used to refer to good conse3uences and other ti'es to the "alance of good o er "ad conse3uences.6

At first glance0 the utilitarian standard see's si'(le and (lausi"le. Surel$ 'oralit$ in ol es (roducing good conse3uences; es(eciall$ in engineering. &tilitarianis' also see's a straightfor*ard *a$ to inter(ret the central (rinci(le in 'ost engineering codes2 EEngineers shall hold (ara'ount the safet$0 health and *elfare of the (u"lic in the (erfor'ance of their (rofessional duties.F After all0 welfare is a rough s$non$' for overall good 4utilit$60 and safet$ and health 'ight "e ie*ed as es(eciall$ i'(ortant as(ects of that good.

0. Kinds of 1ood

+ntrinsic good is good considered 9ust "$ itself. All other good things are instrumental goods in that the$ (ro ide 'eans 4instru'ents6 for gaining intrinsic goods. So'e utilitarians consider (leasure to "e the onl$ intrinsic good. #ut that see's counterintuiti e;there is nothing good a"out the (leasures of t$rants and sadists ta+e in inflicting suffering.

2. $lassic (tilitarians

%lassic utilitarianis'?s t*o 'ost influential contri"utors are @ere'$ #entha' 41G ,e"ruar$ 1C!I B A @une 1I326 and his student @ohn Stuart -ill 42D -a$ 1IDA B I -a$ 1IC36.

3ohn Stuart Mill "elie ed that ha((iness *as the onl$ intrinsic good0 and hence he understood utilitarianis' as the re3uire'ent to (roduce the greatest a'ount of ha((iness.1 -ill thought of ha((iness as2 4a6 a life rich in (leasures0 es(eciall$ the EhigherF (leasures of friendshi(0 lo e0 and intellectual endea ors0 'i8ed *ith so'e ine ita"le (ains> (lus
John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 8 May 1873)

4"6 a (attern of acti ities and relationshi(s that *e can affir' as the *a$ *e *ant our li es to "e.

@ohn Stuart -ill0 Utilitarianism, with ritical !ssays0 ed. Sa'uel 1oro it. 4Indiana(olis0 IN2 #o""s)-errill0 1JC16.

%lassical0 nineteenth)centur$ utilitarians such as -ill "elie ed in act4utilitarianism2 A (articular action is right if it is li+el$ to (roduce the 'ost good for the 'ost (eo(le in a gi en situation0 co'(ared *ith alternati e o(tions a aila"le. The standard can "e a((lied at an$ 'o'ent. Ket0 act)utilitarianis' see's Doing so is unfair0 "ut the o erall good is (ro'oted. ulnera"le to o"9ections. It a((arentl$ (er'its so'e actions that *e +no*0 on other grounds0 are (atentl$ i''oral.

Such difficulties lead 'an$0 (erha(s 'ost0 utilitarians to shift to an alternati e ersion of utilitarianis' that sa$s *e should 'a8i'i.e the good through follo*ing rules that 'a8i'i.e good conse3uences0 rather than through isolated actions. According to this ie*0 called rule4utilitarianism0 right actions are those re3uired "$ rules that (roduce the 'ost good for the 'ost (eo(le. #ecause rules interact *ith each other0 *e need to consider a set of rules. Thus0 *e should see+ to disco er and act on an optimal moral code;that set of rules *hich 'a8i'i.es the (u"lic good 'ore than alternati e codes *ould 4or at least as 'uch as alternati es6. 2

Rule)utilitarians ha e in 'ind societ$)*ide rules0 "ut the sa'e idea a((lies to rules stated in engineering codes of ethics. Thus0 an engineering code of ethics is 9ustified in
"In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." John !tuart "ill #$tilitarianism, %&&'(

ter's of its o erall good

conse3uences

4co'(ared to alternati e codes60 and so engineers should a"ide "$ it e en *hen an e8ce(tion 'ight ha((en to "e "eneficial.

Richard #. #randt0 A "heory of the #ood and the $ight 4/8ford2 %larendon Press0 1JCJ6.

3eremy 5entham is regarded as the founder of 'odern utilitarianis'. #entha'?s ersion of utilitarianis' *as hedonistic0 'eaning that he e aluated all conse3uences in ter's of the (leasure or (ain that the$ ga e. =e identified se en factors that should go into the calculation of the degree of pleasure or pain (roduced "$ an act. The$ *ere3 2 1. %ntensity 2. Duration 3. ertainty or uncertaint$ !. &ropin'uity 4closeness6 or re'oteness G. (ecundity0 'eaning its li+elihood to lead to 'ore (leasure if it is a (leasure or (ain if it is a (ain A. &urity0 'eaning its li+elihood of not "eing acco'(anied "$ (ain if it is a (leasure0 or (leasure if it is a (ain C. !xtent0 'eaning the nu'"er of (ersons affected.
Jeremy Bentham (15 February 1748 6 June 1832)

The *a$ to calculate the goodness of an act0 then0 *as to find all the (eo(le affected "$
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." Jeremy )entham #* +ragment on ,overnment, %--.(

the act and all the conse3uences for each one> to assign a alue to each conse3uence according to ho* 'uch (leasure or (ain it *ould (roduce0 using factors 1)A0 *ith the greatest (leasure gi ing the largest (ositi e alue> and to ta+e the su' o er all those affected of the su' of all the conse3uences for each one. 5hen choosing a'ong alternati es0 the one *ith the largest alue *as the one that

ought to "e chosen. ,or'all$0 if there are ) people affected "$ an act A and A has * conse'uences0 and if &l+i,j, is the alue of the pleasure (roduced "$ conse'uence j for

3@ere'$ #entha'0 An %ntroduction to the "heory of )orals and Legislation 4Ne* Kor+2 =afner Press0 1J!I6.

person i0 *hile &a+i,j, is the a"solute alue of the pain (roduced "$ conse'uence j for person i0 then the 'easure of the 7goodness7 of A is

This is called hedonistic 4or hedonic or felicific or utilit$6 calculus *hich is a 'ethod of *or+ing out the su' total of (leasure and (ain (roduced "$ an act0 and thus the total alue of its conse3uences. The hedonistic calculus used to deter'ine *hich course of action to ta+e follo*s the (attern of cost4%enefit analysis in ol ing fi e "asic ste(s2 1. Deter'ine the alternati e courses of action. 2. Deter'ine the conse3uences of each alternati e. 3. Assign alue to the conse3uences and i'(le'entation costs of each alternati e on the "asis of ho* 'uch ha((iness is destro$ed or (roduced. !. %alculate the net "enefit 4cost6 for each alternati e. G. %hoose the alternati e *hich o(ti'i.es net "enefits.

#+R!(E E!*+$S
Virtue ethics e'(hasi.es the role of one<s character and the irtues that one<s character e'"odies for deter'ining or e aluating ethical "eha ior. "haracter is the (attern of irtues 4'orall$ desira"le features6 and ices 4'orall$

undesira"le features6 in (ersons. Virtues are desira"le ha"its or tendencies in action0 co''it'ent0 'oti e0 attitude0 e'otion0 *a$s of reasoning0 and *a$s of relating to others. Vices are 'orall$ undesira"le ha"its or tendencies. The *ords virtue and vice sound a "it old) fashioned. 5ords for s(ecific irtues0 ho*e er0 re'ain fa'iliar0 "oth in engineering and in e er$da$ life;for e8a'(le0 co'(etence0 honest$0 courage0 fairness0 lo$alt$0 and hu'ilit$. 5ords for s(ecific ices are also fa'iliar2 inco'(etence0 dishonest$0 co*ardice0 unfairness0 dislo$alt$0 and arrogance. Aristotle 43I!B322 #%6 suggested that the 'oral irtues are ha"its of reaching a (ro(er "alance "et*een e8tre'es0 *hether in conduct0 e'otion0 or desire. #irtues are tendencies to find the reasona"le 4golden6 'ean "et*een the e8tre'es of too 'uch 4e8cess6 and too little 4deficienc$6 *ith regard to (articular as(ects of our li es. Thus0 truthfulness is the a((ro(riate 'iddle ground 4'ean6 "et*een re ealing all infor'ation0 in iolation of tact and confidentialit$ 4e8cess60 and "eing secreti e or lac+ing in candor 4deficienc$6 in dealing *ith truth. Again0 courage is the 'ean "et*een foolhardiness 4the e8cess of rashness6 and co*ardice 4the deficienc$ of self)control6 in confronting dangers.The 'ost i'(ortant irtue is practical wisdom0 that is0 'orall$ good 9udg'ent0 *hich ena"les us to discern the 'ean for all the other irtues. The 1ree+ *ord ar-te translates as either E irtueF or Ee8cellenceF0 an et$'ological fact that reinforces our the'e of ethics and e8cellence going together in engineering. The 'ost co'(rehensi e irtue of engineers is res(onsi"le (rofessionalis'. This u'"rella irtue i'(lies four 4o erla((ing6 categories of irtues2 (u"lic *ell)"eing0 (rofessional co'(etence0 coo(erati e (ractices0 and

 (ersonal integrit$. (u&lic-s$irited !irtuesare focused on the good of clients and the *ider (u"lic. The 'ini'u' irtue is nonmaleficence0 that is0 the tendenc$ not to har' others intentionall$. As =i((ocrates re(ortedl$ said in connection *ith 'edicine0 EA"o e all0 do no har'.F Engineering codes of (rofessional conduct also call for "eneficence0 *hich is (re enting or re'o ing har' to others and0 'ore (ositi el$0 (ro'oting the (u"lic safet$0 health0 and *elfare.Also i'(ortant is a sense of co''unit$0 'anifested in faith and ho(e in the (ros(ects for 'eaningful life *ithin (rofessional and (u"lic co''unities. 1enerosit$0 *hich 'eans going "e$ond the 'ini'u' re3uire'ents in hel(ing others0 is sho*n "$ engineers *ho oluntaril$ gi e their ti'e0 talent0 and 'one$ to their (rofessional societies and local co''unities. ,inall$0 9ustice *ithin cor(orations0 go ern'ent0 and econo'ic (ractices is an essential irtue in the (rofession of engineering. (roficiency !irtues are the irtues of 'aster$ of one<s (rofession0 in (articular 'aster$ of the technical s+ills that characteri.e good engineering (ractice. ,ollo*ing Aristotle0 so'e thin+ers regard these alues as intellectual irtues rather than distinctl$ 'oral ones. As the$ contri"ute to sound engineering0 ho*e er0 the$ are 'orall$ desira"le features. The 'ost general (roficienc$ irtue is co'(etence2 "eing *ell (re(ared for the 9o"s one underta+es. Another is diligence2 alertness to dangers and careful attention to detail in (erfor'ing tas+s "$0 for e8a'(le0 a oiding the deficienc$ of la.iness and the e8cess of the *or+aholic. %reati it$ is es(eciall$ desira"le *ithin a ra(idl$ changing technological societ$. )eam*or+ !irtues are those that are es(eciall$ i'(ortant in ena"ling (rofessionals to *or+ successfull$ *ith other (eo(le. The$ include collegialit$0 coo(erati eness0 lo$alt$0 and res(ect for legiti'ate authorit$. Also i'(ortant are leadershi( 3ualities that (la$ +e$ roles *ithin authorit$)structured cor(orations0 such as the res(onsi"le e8ercise of authorit$ and the a"ilit$ to 'oti ate others to 'eet alua"le goals. ,inall$6 self-go!ernance !irtues are those necessar$ in e8ercising 'oral

res(onsi"ilit$.So'e of the' center on 'oral understanding and (erce(tion2 for e8a'(le0 self) understanding and good 'oral 9udg'ent;*hat Aristotle calls (ractical *isdo'. /ther self) go ernance irtues center on co''it'ent and on (utting understanding into action2 for e8a'(le0 courage0 self)disci(line0 (erse erance0 conscientiousness0 fidelit$ to co''it'ents0

self)res(ect0 and integrit$. =onest$ falls into "oth grou(s of self)go ernance irtues0 for it i'(lies "oth truthfulness in s(eech and "elief and trust*orthiness in co''it'ents. Virtue ethics ta+es contrasting for's0 de(ending on *hich irtues are e'(hasi.ed. To illustrate0 *e *ill contrast Samuel Florman7s emphasis on conscientiousness and team4 wor8 irtues *ith Alasdair Mac+ntyre7s emphasis on wider loyalties to community.

Sa'uel ,lor'an is fa'ous for his cele"ration of the e8istential (leasures of engineering0 that is0 the dee(l$ rooted and ele'ental satisfactions in engineering that contri"ute to ha((iness. These (leasures ha e 'an$ sources. There is the desire to i'(ro e the *orld0 *hich engages an indi idual<s sense of (ersonal in ol e'ent and (o*er. There is the challenge of (ractical and creati e effort0 including (lanning0 designing0 testing0 (roducing0 selling0 constructing0 and 'aintaining0 all of *hich "ring (ride in achie ing e8cellence in the technical as(ects of one<s *or+. There is thedesire to understand the *orld;an understanding that "rings *onder0 (eace0 and sense of "eing at ho'e in the uni erse. There is the sheer 'agnitude of natural (heno'ena;oceans0 ri ers0 'ountains0 and (rairies;that "oth ins(ires and challenges the design of i''ense shi(s0 "ridges0 tunnels0 co''unication lin+s0 and other ast underta+ings. There is the (resence of 'achines that can generate a co'forting and a"sor"ing sense of a 'anagea"le0 controlled0 and ordered *orld. ,inall$0 engineers li e *ith a sense of hel(ing0 of contri"uting to the *ell)"eing of other hu'an "eings. In ela"orating on these (leasures0 ,lor'an i'(licitl$ sets forth a irtue ethics. In his ie*0 the essence of engineering ethics is ca(tured "$ the *ord conscientiousness, *hich co'"ines co'(etence and lo$alt$.-$ompetence. does not 'ean 'ini'all$ ade3uate0 "ut instead (erfor'ing *ith re3uisite s+ill and e8(erience. It i'(lies e8ercising due care0 (ersistence and diligence0 honest$0 attention to detail0 and so'eti'es creati it$. Loyalty 'eans ser ing the interests of organi.ations that e'(lo$ us0 *ithin the "ounds of the la*. &nli+e li"ertarians *ho fa or 'ini'u' go ern'ent regulation0 ,lor'an (laces great e'(hasis on la*s as setting the "asic rules go erning engineering. 5ithin a de'ocratic setting in *hich la*s e8(ress a (u"lic consensus0 econo'ic co'(etition a'ong cor(orations 'a+es (ossi"le

technological achie e'ents that "enefit the (u"lic. %o'(etition de(ends on engineers *ho are lo$al to their organi.ations0 rather than engineers Efiltering their e er$da$ *or+ through a sie e of ethical sensiti it$.F 5hereas ,lor'an defends the (riorit$ of duties to e'(lo$ers0 'ost (rofessional codes that re3uire engineers to hold (ara'ount the safet$0 health0 and *elfare of the (u"lic0 *hich does see' to i'(l$ Efiltering their e er$da$ *or+ through a sie e of ethical sensiti it$.F Such an e'(hasis on the good of co''unit$ is found in Alasdair -acInt$re<s e'(hasis on (u"lic) s(irited irtues in thin+ing a"out (rofessions.1J -acInt$re concei es of (rofessions as alua"le social acti ities0 *hich he calls social practices. A social practice is Ean$ coherent and co'(le8 for' of sociall$ esta"lished coo(erati e hu'an acti it$ through *hich goods internal to that for' of acti it$ are reali.ed in the course of tr$ing to achie e those standards of e8cellence *hich are a((ro(riate to0 and (artiall$ definiti e of0 that for' of acti it$.F To clarif$0 internal goods are good things 4(roducts0 acti ities0 e8(eriences0 etc.6 that are so essential to a social (ractice that the$ (artl$ define it. In engineering these goods are safe and useful technological (roducts;(roducts that can "e further s(ecified *ith regard to each area of engineering. Additional internal goods are personal goods connected *ith 'eaningful *or+0 such as (ersonal 'eaning in *or+ing as an engineer to create useful and safe (u"lic goods and ser ices. In contrast0 external goods can "e earned in or outside s(ecific (rofessions0 such as 'one$0 (o*er0 self)estee'0 and (restige. Although "oth internal and e8ternal goods are i'(ortant0 e8cessi e concern for e8ternal goods0 *hether "$ indi iduals or organi.ations0 threatens internal goods and under'ines social (ractices. 5hether in ,lor'an<s or -acInt$re<s ersion0 irtue ethics see's ulnera"le to the

criticis's that it is inco'(lete and too ague. The 'eaning and re3uire'ents of irtues need to "e s(elled out in ter's of at least rough guidelines or rules0 lest the irtues fail to (ro ide ade3uate 'oral guidance. ,or e8a'(le0 honest$ re3uires certain +inds of actions0 done fro' certain +inds of 'oti es. It i'(lies a dis(osition0 a'ong other things0 not to tell lies 4*ithout s(ecial 9ustification6 "ecause l$ing disres(ects (ersons and other*ise causes har'.

SELF4REAL+9A!+O" E!*+$S
Self)reali.ation ethics gi es greater (ro'inence to self)interest and to (ersonal co''it'ents that indi iduals de elo( in (ursuing self)fulfil'ent. As *ith the other ethical theories0 *e *ill consider t*o ersions0 this ti'e de(ending on ho* the self 4the (erson6 is concei ed. In a co''unit$) oriented ersion0 the self to "e reali.ed is understood in ter's of caring relationshi(s and co''unities. In a second ersion0 called ethical egois'0 the self is concei ed in a highl$ indi idualistic 'anner.

$ommunity4Oriented #ersion
The co''unit$)oriented ersion of self)reali.ation ethics sa$s that each indi idual ought to (ursue self)reali.ation0 "ut it e'(hasi.es the i'(ortance of caring relationshi(s and co''unities in understanding self)reali.ation. It e'(hasi.es that *e are social "eings *hose identities and 'eaning are lin+ed to the co''unities in *hich *e (artici(ate. /"he 0individual apart from the community is an abstraction. %t is not anything real, and hence not anything that we can reali1e2 % am myself by sharing with others. E8(ressed "$ ,. =. #radle$ 41I2A B 1J2!6 Indi iduals ar$ greatl$ in *hat the$ desire 'ost strongl$0 and also in their talents and irtues. Self)reali.ation ethics (oints to the highl$ (ersonal co''it'ents that 'oti ate0 guide0 and gi e 'eaning to the *or+ of engineers and other (rofessionals. These co''it'ents enter into the core of an indi idual<s character. As such0 the$ reflect *hat engineers care a"out dee(l$ in *a$s that e o+e their interest and energ$0 sha(e their identities0 and generate (ride or sha'e in their *or+. &ersonal commitments are co''it'ents that are not incu'"ent on e er$one;for e8a'(le0 s(ecific hu'anitarian0 en iron'ental0 religious0 (olitical0 aesthetic0 su(ererogator$0 and fa'il$

co''it'ents. The$ also include0 ho*e er0 co''it'ents to o"ligator$ (rofessional standards0 es(eciall$ *hen these are lin+ed to an indi idual<s "roader alue (ers(ecti e. Personal co''it'ents are rele ant in 'an$ *a$s to (rofessional life0 including one<s choice of career and choice of 9o"s. -ost i'(ortant0 the$ create 'eaning> there"$ the$ 'oti ate (rofessionalis' throughout long careers.

Moti es of &rofessionals
&roficiency motives0 and their associated alues0 center on e8cellence in 'eeting the technical standards of a (rofession0 together *ith related aesthetic alues of "eaut$. The undergraduate curriculu' for engineering is generall$ ac+no*ledged to "e 'ore rigorous and difficult than the 'a9orit$ of acade'ic disci(lines. ompensation motives are for social re*ards such as inco'e0 (o*er0 recognition0 and 9o" or career sta"ilit$. 5e tend to thin+ of these 'oti es and alues as self)interested0 and in a large degree the$ are. Ket 'ost (eo(le see+ 'one$ for additional reasons0 such as to "enefit fa'il$ 'e'"ers or e en to "e a"le to hel( others in need.

)oral motives include desires to 'eet one<s res(onsi"ilities0 res(ect the rights of others0 and contri"ute to the *ell)"eing of others. Such 'oti es of 'oral res(ect and caring in ol e affir'ing that other (eo(le ha e inherent 'oral *orth. ,or 'an$ engineers0 *e should add0 'oral 'oti ation and co''it'ents are inter*o en *ith s(iritual and religious ones. =ere are t*o e8a'(les. E,am$le -. Eg"ert Schuur'an is a Dutch %al inist engineer *ho has *ritten e8tensi el$ on technolog$. =ighlighting the dangers of technolog$0 he calls for redirecting technolog$ to ser e 'orall$ *orth$ ai's0 "oth hu'an li"eration and res(ect for the en iron'ent. =e and his coauthors of Res(onsi"le Technolog$ articulate nor'ati e (rinci(les for design. The$ include2 cultural a((ro(riateness 4(reser ing alua"le institutions and (ractices *ithin a (articular societ$6> o(enness 4di ulging to the (u"lic the alue 9udg'ents e8(ressed in (roducts and also their +no*n effects6> ste*ardshi( 4frugalit$ in the use of natural resources and energ$6> har'on$ 4effecti eness of (roducts together *ith colleagues and *or+ers6> and trust*orthiness 4deser ing consu'ers<trust6. E,am$le /. -ar+ Pesce is the one *ho in ented dial)u( net*or+ing. In 1JJ!0 Pesce and a colleague de elo(ed the Virtual Realit$ -odeling Language 4VR-L60 *hich allo*ed three)di'ensional 'odels to "e (laced on the 5orld 5ide 5e". E'(hasi.ing the i'(ortance of s(iritual attitudes in his *or+0 he 'a+es it clear that his "eliefs are neither orthodo8 nor associated solel$ *ith an$ one *orld religion. =e characteri.es his "eliefs as Ea 'Llange of a lot of different religious traditions0 including %hristian0 (re)%hristian0 #uddhist0 Taoist and so on0F integrated into a t$(e of E(aganis'0F *hich is Ea (ractice of har'on$0 a religion of har'on$ *ith $ourself and the en iron'ent.F31 =e is a*are that his contri"utions to technolog$ can "e used as tools of

co''unication or *ea(ons of do'ination. S(iritual attitudes see+ *a$s to allo* as(ects of the sacred into technolog$0 to find *a$s for technolog$ to 'a+e hu'an life 'ore interconnected through glo"al co''unication0 as *ell as attuned to nature0 and to allo* indi iduals to e8(ress the'sel es in 'ore "roadl$ creati e *a$s through the 5e".

Ethical Egoism
Ethical egois' is a 'ore indi idualistic ersion of self) reali.ation ethics that sa$s each of us ought al*a$s and onl$ to (ro'ote our self)interest. The theor$ is ethical in that it is a theor$ a"out 'oralit$0 and it is egoistic "ecause it sa$s the sole dut$ of each of us is to 'a8i'i.e our *ell)"eing. Self) interest is understood as our long)ter' and enlightened *ell)"eing 4good0 ha((iness60 rather than a narro*0 short) sighted (ursuit of i''ediate (leasures that lea es us frustrated or da'aged in the long run. Thus0 Tho'as =o""es 41GIIB1ACJ6 and A$n Rand 41JDGB1JI26 reco''ended a ErationalF concern for one<s long)ter' interests. Ne ertheless0 ethical egois' sounds li+e an endorse'ent of selfishness. It i'(lies that engineers should thin+ first and last a"out *hat is "eneficial to the'sel es0 an i'(lication at odds *ith the in9unction to +ee( (ara'ount the (u"lic health0 safet$0 and *elfare. As such0 ethical egois' is an alar'ing ie*. Are there an$ argu'ents to su((ort ethical egois': Rand offered three argu'ents. 1. 3he emphasi1ed the importance of self4respect, and then portrayed altruism toward others as incompatible with valuing oneself. She contended that acts of altruis' are degrading0 "oth to others and to oneself2 Ealtruis' (er'its no conce(t of a self)res(ecting0 self)su((orting 'an;a 'an *ho su((orts his life "$ his o*n effort and neither sacrifices neither hi'self nor others.F 2. "he world would be a better place if all or most people embraced ethical egoism. This argu'ent0 too0 contains an enor'ousl$ i'(ortant truth 4although unrestrained ca(italis' does not al*a$s 'a8i'i.e the general good6. Ne ertheless0 contrar$ to Rand0 this argu'ent does not su((ort ethical egois'. ,or notice that it assu'es *e ought to care a"out the *ell) "eing of others0 for their sa+e;so'ething denied "$ ethical egois' itselfM And once the general good "eco'es the 'oral touchstone0 *e are actuall$ dealing *ith a ersion of utilitarianis'. 3. "he 5rd is more complex and leads to a discussion of human nature and motivation. %t asserted that ethical egoism was the only psychologically realistic ethical theory. #$ nature0 hu'an "eings are e8clusi el$ self)see+ing> our sole 'oti es are to "enefit oursel es. -ore full$0 (s$chological egois' is true2 All (eo(le are al*a$s and onl$ 'oti ated "$ *hat the$ "elie e is good for the' in so'e res(ect. &sychological egoism is a theor$ a"out (s$cholog$0 a"out *hat actuall$ 'oti ates hu'an "eings0 *hereas ethical egois' is a state'ent a"out ho* the$ ought to act. #ut if (s$chological egois' is true0 ethical egois' "eco'es the onl$ (lausi"le ethical theor$. If "$ nature *e can

onl$ care a"out oursel es0 *e should at least ado(t an enlightened ie* a"out ho* to (ro'ote our *ell)"eing. Is (s$chological egois' true: Is the onl$ thing an engineer or an$one else cares a"out0 ulti'atel$0 their o*n *ell)"eing: Ps$chological egois' flies in the face of co''on sense0 *hich discerns 'oti es of hu'an decenc$0 co'(assion0 and 9ustice0 as *ell as the (roficienc$ 'oti es 'entioned earlier. It is difficult to refute (s$chological egois' directl$0 "ecause it radicall$ reinter(rets "oth co''on sense and e8(eri'ental data. #ut *e can sho* that 'ost argu'ents for (s$chological egois' are "ased on si'(le although seducti e confusions. =ere are four such argu'ents for (s$chological egois'. Argument /, 6e always act on our own desires7 therefore, we always and only see8 something for ourselves, namely the satisfaction of our desires. ;In re(l$0 the (re'ise is true2 5e al*a$s act on our o*n desires. #$ definition0 '$ actions are 'oti ated "$ '$ desires together *ith '$ "eliefs a"out ho* to satisf$ those desires. #ut the conclusion does not follo*. There are 'an$ different +inds of desires0 de(ending on *hat the desire is for;the o"9ect of the desire. 5hen *e desire goods for oursel es0 *e are self)see+ing> "ut *hen *e desire goods for other (eo(le 4for their sa+e60 *e are altruistic. The 'ere fact that in "oth instances *e act on our o*n desires does nothing to su((ort (s$chological egois'. Argument 0, &eople always see8 pleasures7 therefore they always and only see8 something for themselves, namely their pleasures. ;In re(l$0 there are different sources of (leasures. Ta+ing (leasure in see+ing and getting a good solel$ for oneself is different fro' ta+ing (leasure in hel(ing others. Argument 2, 6e can always imagine there is an ulterior, exclusively self4see8ing motive present whenever a person helps someone else7 therefore people always and only see8 goods for themselves. ;In re(l$0 there is a difference "et*een i'agination and realit$. 5e can i'agine that (eo(le *ho hel( others are onl$ see+ing fa'e0 "ut it does not follo* that the$ actuall$ are 'oti ated in this *a$. Argument :, 6hen we loo8 closely, we invariably discover an element of self4interest in any given action7 therefore people are solely motivated by self4interest. ;In re(l$0 there is an enor'ous difference "et*een the (resence of an ele'ent of self)interest 4asserted in the (re'ise6 and inferring the ele'ent is the onl$ 'oti e 4asserted in the conclusion6. -an$ actions ha e 'ulti(le 'oti es0 *ith an ele'ent of self)interest 'i8ed in *ith concern for others. 5e conclude that there are no sound reasons for "elie ing (s$chological egois'0 nor for "elie ing ethical egois'. Ne ertheless0 ha ing e'(hasi.ed that self)see+ing is not the onl$ hu'an 'oti e0 *e certainl$ ac+no*ledge that it is a er$ strong 'oti e. Indeed0 3uite (ossi"l$ (redo'inant egois' is true2 The strongest desire for 'ost (eo(le 'ost of the ti'e is self) see+ing.3A It is also (lausi"le to "elie e that 'ost acts of hel(ing and ser ice to others in ol e 'i8ed 'oti es0 that is0 a co'"ination of self)concern and concern for others.

&nli+e (s$chological egois'0 (redo'inant egois' ac+no*ledges hu'an ca(acities for lo e0 friendshi(0 and co''unit$ in ol e'ent. It also ac+no*ledges engineers< ca(acities for genuinel$ caring a"out the (u"lic safet$0 health0 and *elfare. Engineers are strongl$ 'oti ated "$ self)interest0 "ut the$ are also ca(a"le of res(onding to 'oral reasons in their o*n right0 as *ell as additional 'oti es concerned *ith the (articular nature of their *or+.

REFERE"$ES, -artin0 -i+e 50 et al. 42D1D6. EIntroduction to Engineering EthicsF. 2 nd ed. Ne* Kor+2 -c1ra*=ill. Rao0 Sree Ra'a 4Dece'"er 230 2D1D6. E-oral Rights A((roachF. Retrie ed2 No e'"er a((roach.ht'l

230

2D130

fro'

htt(2NN***.cite'an.co'N12JG2)'oral)rights)

ERightsF. Retrie ed2 No e'"er 230 2D130 fro' htt(2NNen.*i+i(edia.orgN*i+iN Rights Velas3ue.0 -anuel 42D126. EA ,ra'e*or+ for Thin+ing Ethicall$F. Retrie ed2 No e'"er 230 2D130 fro' htt(2NN***.scu.eduNethicsN(racticingNdecisionN fra'e*or+.ht'l