- Aristotle - inherent goodness
- Kant - Universal Principles
- Utilitarianism - Cost and Benefit
- Ethics of Care - No Universals, only particulars
Aristotle
Metaphysical truths are the foundation for ethics. This means that in ethics only a certain level of precision can be reached (not exact science).
For an action/decision to be ethical it must be done for the "right" reason because and only because it is the "right" thing to do. If the "right" thing is done for not the right reason then the person is not truly ethical.
The human conflict is split between our tendencies toward animal and divine natures. Animal nature being our instinct to survive and divine nature being our higher ability to think and reason. In addition to this we are creatures of habit. These are the forces that weigh on our ethical judgment.
Ethical action is not singular but built up over time as a pattern. Also, it is not genetic, for to act genetically(instinctively) is to do the easiest/best for yourself. It is the power of reason over anger, pity, pain, and pleasure. The basis for morality is in removing self-interest.
The application to technical writing is not so much in the content but in how and when to use technical communication.
Kant
His perspective can be defined as deontology, based on duty. It is not based on the consideration of results or of emotions. He calls this the Categorical Imperative.
Reasoning is our distinguishing feature as humans. Reasoning is absolute and universal (that is, all humans can and do do it). Ethics is based on reasoning and therefore ethics is universal and absolute.
He thinks that we should act as if our actions will become the law that everyone will follow, everywhere, for all of time. This wll ensure that we make ethical decisions. This is practically the equivalent of the Golden Rule.
The underlying assumption here is the universality of it. Would everyone actually independently rationalize the exact same thing? I think not.
Utilitarianism
This perspective emphasizes usefulness and greater good. It became popular at the same time as the industrial revolution because of the new focus on the masses. it is associated with a cost and benefit rationalization for outcomes.
It holds that the people directly involved with the situation should decide for themselves. This makes me wonder if maybe the only unethical actions are ones that people don't get to chose things for themselves.
In the example of the airplane crash, the passengers accepted risk by choosing to fly.
Feminist
As we move from modernism to postmodernism and everyone begins to challenge to conventional logic this is when feminism rises. It is an advocate of complex variety and diverse opinion.
This section claims that the scientific method is advantageous to men because it tries to disassociate emotion from logic and women are naturally more emotional. It nearly literally states that women don't like to use logic.
Should ethics take a stance of gender-indifference and assume they are exactly the same or should it try to comprehensively incorporate the complexities of the perceived differences?
Ethics of Care
Assumes that there is a critical difference in male and female moral thinking. The female view is more concerned with the relationship of various parts while the male counterpart is concerned with the abstract and impersonal approach.
This is of course itself a stereotype. I would like to have seen examples of how each would work differently if at all in the same situation.
The ethics of care deals with what would mutually satisfy all parties. In other words, it is a symbiotic relationship and this occurs all throughout nature.
Confucian
The Chinese culture is highly concerned with collective entities such as family. They tend to subordinate the individual. One's place in the world is defined through your relationships. Not all relationships are equal. The family is more important the work group and therefore will take priority in making decisions.
Virtue can only be obtained through doing. There are no absolutes, it is based on immediate realities of the situation. Virtues are no ambiguous and can be learned from studying past examples.
Levinas
Understanding ethics is about having encounter with "the other" (anyone not you). It is responsive and responsible to them. Once we know they are there then we know that we are not alone in the universe and also that we are not the center of it. We begin to understand them and understand ethical action through reciprocal communication with them.
Gert
Morality should be more concerned with the avoidance of evil rather than the obtainment of good because good has more level of degree and variation. This is done through action, not feelings. He lays out a few primary rules (fairly obvious) such as: don't kill, don't harm, don't steal. He gives an actual system that is easy for people to follow rather than abstract thought.
Conclusion
Ethics is about how best to live our lives. Do we have ethical awareness? What would I do and why in a certain situation. What would someone else do and why in the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment