Differences between the two theories

KOHLBERG	GILLIGAN
I.      Ethics of rules and rights	Ethics of care
II. Studies based on well educated,   white male’s only, tending male bias.	Studies included females and colored peoples
III. Application of abstract rules ranked in the order of importance	Application of context-oriented reasoning.
IV. Studies were hypothesized for both the genders even though the study was conducted mostly on males	Study was conducted on both genders and it was found, men based their reasoning on ‘justice’ and women based theirs on ‘care’

CONSENSUS & CONTROVERSY

CONSENSUS:

The conductor of a music orchestra has authority over the musicians and his authority is respected by them by consensus as otherwise the music performance will suffer. Hence the authority and autonomy are compatible.

On the other hand, tension arises between the needs for autonomy and the need for concerns about authority. The difference between the two should be discussed openly to resolve the issue to the common good. 

CONTROVERSY:

•     All individuals will not arrive at same verdict during their exercising their moral autonomy.     

•       Aristotle noted long ago that morality is not as precise and clear-cut as arithmetic.   

•  Aim of teaching engineering ethics is not to get unanimous conformity of outlook by indoctrination, authoritarian and dogmatic teaching, hypnotism or any other technique but to improve promotion of tolerance in the exercise of moral autonomy.

MODELS OF PROFESSIONAL ROLES

Promotion of public good is the primary concern of the professional engineers. There are several role models to whom the engineers are attracted. These models provoke their thinking, attitudes and actions.

1. Savior:

The engineer as a savior, save the society from poverty, illiteracy, wastage, inefficiency, ill health, human (labour) dignity and lead it to prosperity, through technological development and social planning. For example, R.L. Stevenson.

2.  Guardian:

He guards the interests of the poor and general public. As one who is conversant with technology development, is given the authority befitting his expertise to determine what is best suited to the society. For example, Lawrence of Arabia (an engineer).

3.  Bureaucratic Servant:

He serves the organization and the employers. The management of an enterprise fixes its goals and assigns the job of problem solving to the engineer, who accepts the challenge and shapes them into concrete achievements. For example, Jamshedji Tata.

4.  Social Servant:

It is one who exhibits social responsibility. The engineer translates the interest and aspirations of the society into a reality, remembering that his true master is the society at large. For example, Sir M.Viswesvarayya.

5.  Social Enabler and Catalyst:

One who changes the society through technology. The engineer must assist the management and the society to understand their needs and make informed decisions on the desirable technological development and minimize the negative effects of technology on people and their living environment. Thus, he shines as a social enabler and a catalyst for further growth. For example, Sri Sundarlal Bahuguna.

6.  Game Player:

He is neither a servant nor master. An engineer is an assertive player, not a passive player who may carry out his master’s voice. He plays a unique role successfully within the organization, enjoying the excitement of the profession and having the satisfaction of surging ahead in a competitive world. For example, Narayanamurthy, Infosys and Dr. Kasthurirangan, ISRO.

THEORIES ABOUT RIGHT ACTION

Several ethical theories have been developed over different times, each of them stressing certain ethical principles or features.  Each stresses a view and many a times, we find that these theories converge and reinforce the ethics, in deciding upon the actions and justifying the results.

Utilitarian Theory

The term Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. They suggested that the standard of right conduct is maximization of good consequences. Good consequences mean either ‘utilities’ or the ‘balance of good over evil’. This approach weighs the costs and benefits. Right actions are the ones that produce the greatest satisfaction of the preferences of the affected persons. In analysing an issue in this approach, we have to:

(a) Identify the various courses of action available to us.

(b) Ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each.

(c) Choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number. The act utilitarian theory proposed by J.S. Mill (1806-73) focuses on actions, rather than on general rules.  An action is right, if it generates the most overall good for the most people involved. The rule utilitarian theory, developed by Richard Brandt (1910-97), stressed on the rules, such as ‘do not steal’, ‘do no harm others’, ‘do not bribe’, as of primary importance. He suggested that individual actions are right when they are required by set of rules which maximizes the public good. The act utilitarian theory permitted a few immoral actions. Hence, there was need to develop rule utilitarian theory to establish morality and justice, in the transactions. For example, stealing an old computer from the employer will benefit the employee more than the loss to the employer. As per Act, utilitarian this action is right. But rule utilitarian observes this as wrong, because the employee should act as ‘faithful agent or trustee of the employees’.  In another example, some undisciplined engineers are terminated with the blame for the mistakes they have not committed. The process is unfair although this results in promotion of overall good.

Duty Ethics Theory

A. The duty ethics theory, proposed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) states, that actions are consequences of performance of one’s duties such as, ‘being honest’, ‘not cause suffering of others’, ‘being fair to others including the meek and week’, ‘being grateful’, ‘keeping promises’ etc. The stress is on the universal principle of respect for autonomy i.e., respect and rationality of persons. As per Kant we have duties to ourselves, as we are rational and autonomous beings. We have a duty not to commit suicide; a duty to develop our talents and a duty to avoid harmful drugs. Kant insisted that moral duties are categorical imperatives. They are commands that we impose on ourselves as well as other rational beings. For example, we should be honest because honesty is required by duty. A businessman is to be honest because honesty pays — in terms of profits from customers and from avoiding jail for dishonesty.

B. On the other hand, the Duty ethics theory, as enunciated by John Rawl, gave importance to the actions that would be voluntarily agreed upon by all persons concerned, assuming impartiality. His view emphasized the autonomy each person exercises in forming agreements

with other rational people. Rawl proposed two basic moral principles;

(1) Each person is entitled to the most extensive amount of liberty compatible with an equal amount for others, and

(2) Differences in social power and economic benefits are justified only when they are likely to benefit everyone, including members of the most disadvantaged groups. The first principle is of prime importance and should be satisfied first. Without basic liberties other economic or social benefits cannot be sustained for long. The second principle insists that to allow some people with great wealth and power is justified only when all other groups are benefited.  In the business scenario, for example, the free enterprise is permissible so far it provides the capital needed to invest and prosper, thereby making job opportunities to the public and taxes to fund the government spending on the welfare schemes on the poor people.

C.W.D. Ross, the British philosopher introduced the term prima facie duties, which means duties might have justified exceptions. In fact, most duties are prima facie ones; some may have obligatory or permissible exceptions. Ross assumed that the prima facie duties are intuitively obvious (self-evident), while fixing priorities among duties. He noted that the principles such as ‘Do not kill’ and ‘protect innocent life’ involve high respect for persons than other principles such as, ‘Do not lie’ (less harmful). This theory is criticized on the fact, that the intuitions do not provide sufficient guideline for moral duty. He has listed various aspects of Duty Ethics that reflect our moral convictions, namely:

1. Fidelity: duty to keep promises.

2. Reparation: duty to compensate others when we harm them.

3. Gratitude: duty to thank those who help us.

4. Justice: duty to recognize merit.

5. Beneficence: duty to recognize inequality and improve the condition of others.

6. Self-improvement: duty to improve virtue and intelligence.

7. Non-malfeasance: duty not to injure others.

Rights Theory

Rights are entitlement to act or to have another individual act in a certain way. Minimally, rights serve as a protective barrier, shielding individuals from unjustified infringement of their moral agency by others. For every right, we have a corresponding duty of non-interference.

A.  The Rights approach to ethics has its roots in the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who focused on the individual’s right to choose for oneself.  According him, what makes human beings different from mere things is, that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose. Other rights he advocated are:

1.The right to access the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

2. The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

3. The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

4. The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

B. In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral, we must ask, does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious is the violation, the more wrongful is the action.

The rights theory as promoted by John Locke states that the actions are right, if they respect human rights of every one affected.  He proposed the three basic human rights, namely life, liberty, and property. His views were reflected in the modern American society, when Jefferson declared the basic rights as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

C. As per A.I. Melden’s theory based on rights, nature mandates that we should not harm others’ life, health, liberty or property.  Melden allowed welfare rights also for living a decent human life.  He highlighted that the rights should be based on the social welfare system.

D. Human rights: Human rights are explained in two forms, namely liberty rights and welfare rights. Liberty rights are rights to exercise one’s liberty and stresses duties on other people not to interfere with one’s freedom. The four features of liberty rights (also called moral rights), which lay the base for Government Administration, are:

1. Rights are natural in so far as they are not invented or created by government.

2. They are universal, as they do not change from country to country.

3. They are equal since the rights are the same for all people, irrespective of caste, race, creed or sex.

4. They are inalienable i.e., one cannot hand over his rights to another person such as selling oneself to slavery. The Welfare Rights are the rights to benefit the needy for a decent human life, when one cannot earn those benefits and when those benefits are available in the society.                         

E. Economic rights: In the free-market economy, the very purpose of the existence of the manufacturer, the sellers and the service providers is to serve the consumer. The consumer is eligible to exercise some rights. The consumers’ six basic rights are: Right to Information, Right to Safety, and Right to Choice, Right to be Heard, Right to Redressal and Right to Consumer Education. A few rights are absolute, i.e., unlimited and have no justifiable exceptions.

For example, rights ethicists view that the rights have not been violated if the people purchase a (technological product) hang glider and they get injured by flying them carelessly or under bad weather conditions. But human rights imply that one not to be poisoned or killed by technological products, whose dangers are not obvious or wantonly hidden. They imply a right to be informed, when the purchase was made, of the possible dangers during use or service (obtaining informed consent).

Rights ethics is distinctive in that it makes human rights the ultimate appeal — the moral bottom line. Human rights constitute a moral authority to make legitimate moral demands on others to respect our choices, recognizing that others can make similar claims on us. Thus, we see that the rights ethics provides a powerful foundation for the special ethical requirements in engineering and other professions.