Class Notes for September 8, 2007

Class 4 - Philosophical Ethics

Ethical Analysis

Step 1: Identify the ethically relevant facts
1. Who is the ethical agent (that is, the person who needs to make an ethical decision)?
2. What are the ethical agent's alternative actions
3. Who are the stakeholders (the persons who might be adversely affected by the agent's act)?
4. What are the consequences to the ethical agent and the stakeholders of each alternative action?

Step 2: Apply the ethics tests to each alternative, comparing the results to determine whether the alternative action is ethical, unethical, or ethically neutral.
1. Kantianism - does the alternative treat the stakeholders with respect, does it recognize the stakeholders' autonomy, and does it support the rights of others? Would you recommend that this alternative action become a universal rule?
2. Rule Utilitarianism - based on utilitarian arguments, does the alternative provide more harm than good to the greatest number of people?
3. Code of Ethics - (if the instructor provides you with a code of ethics for the particular analysis) this test applies a particular code of ethics, such as an ethics policy for a company, or the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (available at http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html).
4. Feasibility - lastly, is the alternative action viable within the following constraints: time, money, law, personal, and social / cultural / political? Remember, no space aliens will rescue the ethical agent from having to make a decision.

Step 3: Sort the alternatives into the spectrum of ethical-neutral-unethical and choose the alternative that is most appropriate and viable.

Captchas - Analysis of One of the Dilemmas in the Captchas Assignment

Al, a sales representative for KV Software, has an ethical dilemma about how to respond to the Request for Proposal question from Acme that asks about his company's experience with development of a certain type of software application. Al does not know how much weight the customer will give to the response, but because the question goes to the heart of the project, he has to assume that it will be important. His boss has directed him to provide a misleading answer. The ethical decision maker is Al. The stakeholders include himself, his company, and the customer, Acme Company. His alternatives are:
1. do not answer the question
2. answer completely.
3. misrepresent their experience.
4. answer by "dancing around" the issue

Kantianism requires a moral action to be based on universal principles (that is, applicable to not just this situation, but others like it) and that the principle treat people as ends and not means. Alternative #3 would clearly be unsupported as it would deceive Acme on an important point about KV Software's abilities, thus possibly inducing Acme to engage KV on a false premise. If Acme finds out about the lie before a contract is signed, Acme is likely to refuse the engagement on the basis of trustworthiness. If Acme finds out after, it likely has legal grounds to rescind on the basis of fraud. Alternative #2 would be supported, as it respects Acme's expectation that KV Software is telling the truth in its RFP response. Acme could decide to move forward with the engagement despite the lack of experience. Alternative #1 is could prompt Acme to ask the question again, thereby requiring a response other than silence, or Acme could decide that the question and answer are not material. Alternative #4 is like Alternative #1 to the extent that it fails to answer the question or is like Alternative #3 if it is so misleading as to amount to a lie.

Rule Utilitarianism requires a moral action be based on principles that, like Kantianism, can be made universal, but it emphasizes the consequence, requiring the "greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarianism requires "counting up" the number of affected stakeholders and the "cost", a challenging task even in this limited scenario. The conclusions about which alternatives are supported in this case are the same as for Kantianism, but for different reasons. A misrepresentation would adversely affect Acme Software but in the short term positively affect KV Software; but, in the long run, adversely affect KV Software if Acme either a) finds about the deception and takes action or b) KV cannot deliver because it lacked adequate experience and they fail to meet their revenue targets. Furthermore, if misrepresentation were allowed as a universal principle, no one could trust anyone and the social structure would fail (or at least the RFP process would be discontinued). Telling the truth would benefit Acme Software; and, while not necessarily creating a benefit to KV Software immediately, would prevent harm to the reputation of KV Software, thus benefiting its employees and shareholders. Furthermore, honesty as a policy has universal application.

In conclusion, both ethical philosophies would require Al to refrain from misrepresenting KV Software's experience when answering the RFP question and from making a misleading statement. Neither would prohibit Al from failing to respond, but, from a practical standpoint would probably only prompt the question again, thus giving rise to the dilemma again. Both ethical philosophies would support providing a complete and accurate response to the RFP question. Al, in his role as the responder to the RFP must make this decision, despite the advice from his manager to the contrary.