Main Points in Ethics in Toulmin and Jonsen - Book Report/Review Example

? Ethics Case Study Case study Main Points The Place of reason in Ethics is an endeavor to employ the methods of phenomenological analysis in ethical rationality. Toulmin and Jonsen primary concern is the clarification of the nature of moral logic and the logic that goes along with it. In the abuse of Casuistry, the authors argue that ethics should endeavor to establish good moral arguments and to differentiate them from bad ones. The central notion in theory and practice is what entails good rationale of a particular action. It is argued that moral reasoning is inductive in that good reasons for a particular behavior are related to pragmatic evidence. Appeals are usually made to evidence as offering a logical reason for the adoption of particular laws of morality and living1. Key Ideas for support There are three strategies to the issue of moral decision making, imperative, subjective and objective. The objective strategy is erroneous in that it fails to offer an explicit method by which agreement may be reached as regards the allocation of values. A good example of this is the moral claim it is good which is very different to an empirical description such as it is raining. It is self evident that it would be illogical to make an assessment of a moral claim based on its properties. The subjective approach is wrong in that it argues that upon the reaching of agreement concerning the morality of a situation then it is only sentiments and attitudes which will result into difference. While attitudes and sentiments are important, reasons for support of a decision also have to be evaluated. The imperative approach is wrong in that it contends moral decisions to result from moral commands without giving reasons. Moral reasons which usually relate to duty to the self and the community ought to be the standard upon which moral decisions are made. Most Illuminating Toulmin and Jenson assert that moral decisions are made on the basis of deliberation of moral reasons which are also obtained from societal observances rather than from the consequences of an act. Reasonableness in a society that is ethical entails the consideration of the effect of an action on community members. An act is to be considered as entailing moral reasoning if all people accept it as so2. In moral reasoning, it is not enough to simply look upon the meaning of moral reasoning as isolated terms. Puzzling Moral just like science has processes and procedures which are used to determine the validity. Moral reasoning should thus be studied in the context of discourse analysis. Moral laws and principles that are to be justified must thus be passed through these processes to determine their validity. Processes which have been proven time and again to be workable in that they result into avoidance of suffering for the individual and the community should form the moral code of the society. The principle bases upon the fact that it is more practical to establish the actions that will result to suffering for the person and the community than to establish actions that will lead to happiness. The authors equate scientific hypothesizing to moral reasoning in that moral reasoning uses procedures the same way somebody would make use of a map to find their destination. Case study 2 Main Points In truthfulness deceit and trust the main points that the author put forth are concerned with the lying and its effect on the deceiver and the deceived. It is asserted that deceit is a powerful force in making people act contrary to their will. They assert that lying normally increases the feeling of power in the person who has been lied to while making the person who was deceived feel helpless. Deception leads astray the person who has been deceived by constricting their options or by making them lose faith in choices made. Deception is compared to violence as they both are said to have the same effects and occur as a result of similar circumstances3. Key Ideas for Support People who have been deceived usually become resentful, and disappointed in the people who deceived them. Lying leads to the loss of freedom for both the deceiver and the deceived. The deceived will be forced to lose his determinism since he has to reconsider previous decisions made based upon the lies told. Lying also harms the liar in that he loses his freedom since his name is maligned if found out. He also lives in fear of being found out. Lying also robs the deceiver of his freedom since he has to find reasons to justify his deception4. On the other hand nobody ever questions the motive of truth. It is a fact that even liars would not want to be lied to and hence the act of deception is usually undertaken against the will. Most Illuminating The most illuminating idea in the essay concerned the drawing of parallels between violence and deception. Violence just like deception is employed by people as a means not only for achieving the objective of coercion, but also in the pursuit of defending themselves and as a survival means. The person who lies while causing harm to the community does so because of a need to protect himself from consequences of telling the truth. This is very similar to a person who unleashes violence in order to survive from perceived danger5. It is also quite illuminating to establish that the deceiver usually causes harm to himself by lying since he loses his integrity and the trust of people in him yet his outlook is to completely ignore this fact. Puzzling The veracity principle is puzzling when looked at in contrast to the rest of the article. The view point of the deceived has explicitly shown he undesirability of lies and deception. Aristotle states very clearly that deception is mean and culpable and that statement that are of truth tend to be more acceptable than lies unless there are special circumstances involved. The statement would seem to negate all the things that have been said concerning the negativity of lying since it makes allowance for deception in some instances. The premise taken as it is would result to many lies and deception being visited upon people on the premise of habit, carelessness or good intentions not being thought out before execution. Deception under special circumstances is particularly difficult to support since special circumstances are a question of opinion which vary from person to person. Case study 3 Main Points Milton Friedman is of the opinion that in business, it is not possible for corporations to be socially responsible. Social responsibility can only be ascribed to people who must be differentiated from the corporation. While social responsibility is not a function of the corporation, it is the chief executive officer of the business who is charged with ensuring that a business is socially responsible and not the corporation in totality. According to Milton, the business executive is charged with ensuring that the business is run according to the wishes of the owners6. The executive is to ensure that profit is maximized while the fundamental principles of morality held by society are upheld. Key Ideas for Support It is good to take into account that the business executive while performing his corporate duties, may in some instances ascribe to social responsibilities which may not be in line with those of his employers. An action by the chief executive of the corporation which is ethical by his perspective, if not in the best interests of the corporation is tantamount to a misuse of employers’ resources entrusted to him. The owners of the company and the clients should reserve the right on how they wish their corporation to be run. The corporate executive thus has a role both of acting in the public interest while at the same time looks after the interest of the employers7. A business executive whose actions result to loss making for the corporation and a consequent reduction in the price of its stocks risks the loss of both clients and employers. The chief executive then has the fundamental role of engaging in actions that would benefit the corporation while at the same time cater for public interest. Most Illuminating The most illuminating part of Milton’s essay is the assertion by Milton that even as the corporation executive has a responsibility to the society to do good for public interest, his primary duty is to employers and owners of the business. The chief executive of the corporation has a social responsibility to the owners of the business to ensure that their investment is safe. Friedman reinforces the free market view that desires should no be subjected to ethical scrutiny8. If owners want profit it should be given, if clients desire health threatening foods, they should be allowed to purchase them. Finally it is important to note that Milton does not invoke agency as a reason for questionable moral practice but rather stresses on the importance of the chief executive conforming to the fundamental rules of society in the execution of his duties to the employers. Puzzling Friedman in his discussion of societal accountability displays a lack of rigor and analytical laxity. In the starting sentence, Friedman talks of societal responsibilities but in the second one his argument is simply on responsibility. The distinction has a lot of implication since it is implied that as corporations are not ethical people, they are not obligated to responsibility. The puzzling part of Friedman’s argument is that he does not make an explicit distinction between societal and ethical responsibility. While it has to be acknowledged that corporations have no moral obligations, it is illogical to conclude that they also do not have societal obligations. The law of social contract asserts morality as a set of rules which govern the relations between people. All logical people will as such adopt such rules for mutual benefit if they are followed by others as well. Case study 4 Main Points Sandel makes an analysis of the Utilitarian and liberal views with regard to military service. Sandel makes an analysis of the morality of hiring or drafting for military duty. His main concern is the rightness of conscription and compensation. He then studies the practice of paying surrogate mothers. This is analyzed from the point of the Liberal and Utilitarian perspectives9. The market is then looked at as a business in which the public use themselves as merchandise in the provision of services for monetary gain. Key Ideas for Support Sandel looks at conscription from the perspective that it robs people of choice and the sense of civic duty and thus he compares it to slavery. The utilitarian perspective studies conscription from the perspective of the affected people. If a deal is reached that is mutually consented upon by both people then the deal is moral. While the Libertarian view would consider the act of surrogating to be right since it is informed by two consenting adults, it must be acknowledged that surrogate mothers mainly come for the underprivileged that are forced by circumstance to sell their bodies to those who are privileged. The same could be said of the exchange of services in the market since people who sell their bodies and services in the market are also forced by circumstances rather than free will. The end does not justify the means in this instance since people are used as commodities for the sake of productivity which defeats the fundamental right of choice. Most Illuminating It is quite compelling that the public views the state with its requisite laws and policies as a dominion of compulsion and perceive the market place comprised of voluntary exchange as the dominion of liberty and independence10. This public view is warped for the opposite is exactly true. While a lot has changed with regard to conscription very little has changed in the market place. The present day military does not force conscription but it still forces people to pay people to fight for them in the form of taxes. The conscription into the military is just like what goes on in the market place since it is still the underprivileged and the uneducated who sign up for military service in order to earn a living. It is also illuminating that we consider the market place to be free yet it is not by any definition a dominion of freedom. The concept of willing and consensual buyer and seller does not take into account why consent is given by the surrogate. In most instances consent of the surrogate is as a result of under privilege and circumstances. Puzzling It is puzzling that the libertarians have let the utilitarian control the making of regulations while limiting the freedoms of the people in market economies that are anything but free. The public are subjugated as manual workers and merchandise in the same manners as the surrogates and the soldiers are. It is puzzling that the libertarians are quiet when freedom is being denied to the public in such a manner. More should however have been said concerning the corporations which are most responsible for taking away the rights of the public. Conscription, military service and surrogacy do not represent the whole of pervasive manipulation and more could have been done by Sandel. Bibliography Bok, Sissela, Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33. Friedman, Milton, 'The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits', in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55. Jonsen, Albert and Stephen Toulmin, 'Theory and Practice', in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 23-45. Sandel, Michael, 'Hired Help / Markets and Morals' in Justice: What's the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102. Read More