Case Link: https://www.wired.com/story/lawsuit-claims-google-… “LAWSUIT CLAIMS GOOGLE BOARD COVERED UP SEXUAL MISCONDUCT No less than 400 words single spaceNO need introduction, conclusion. Just about ethical theoriesYou should say which 2 theories about your case (2 of the 7 ethical theories) you think should be used for your team’s chosen case. Give sentences saying why. Each of you should also say what you think the COMPARISON should say and why, you can also make suggestions for parts of the ARGUMENTS and for the TECH FIX. Giving your opinion counts. Not giving your opinion will mean you lose points. CAUTION 1: In choosing 2 theories, you want theories that give interesting contrast. The 2 theories should have different ethical outcomes for your case. Sometimes they’ve got the same outcome, but one theory just fits much better. But we want 2 opposing theories. Mix it up a bit, try a new theory.Ethical theories are in the file.
notes_to_all_ethical_theories_.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

NOTES TO ALL ETHICAL THEORIES
RIGHTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS…………………………………………………………………………………………5
PRIMA FACIE RIGHTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
RIGHTS (ARGUMENT Section of OUTLINE)……………………………………………………………………………13
UTILITARIANISM…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
UTILITARIAN (ARGUMENT section of OUTLINE)……………………………………………………………….22
KANTIAN ETHICS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22
KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE……………………………………………………………………………23
OUTLINE FOR KANTIAN ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………………..27
JUSTICE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28
7 JUSTICE CRITERIA…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32
OUTLINE FOR JUSTICE ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………32
JOHN RAWLS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33
OUTLINE FOR RAWLS ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………..36
VIRTUE ETHICS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
Some virtues………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37
Aristotle………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37
SOME VICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
OUTLINE FOR VIRTUES ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………………………….39
CARING ETHICS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40
WEAK CARING…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41
STRONG CARING……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
ARGUMENT OUTLINE FOR CARING THEORY………………………………………………………………….44
RIGHTS
RIGHTS are a justified claim to a certain kind of treatment from others, to
help from others or to be left alone by others.
We begin our understanding of ethical theories by first looking at RIGHTS
THEORY.
Today, we so clearly believe in rights that we seek no justification. we just have
rights. Rights theory maintains that rights are important in themselves. The
results that arise if rights are violated are not relevant. Consequences of
violating rights of others are not relevant. We understand that rights can be
beneficial to us, but those benefits are not the point. Even if you get no benefit,
you still have the right. Thus, rights are important in themselves and not
because of some factors or ethics outside of rights theory.
But our ethics of rights had to be formulated first. Rights theory had to begin
somewhere. Early rights theory was written as philosophers sought political and
legal rights for everyone. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke proposed
that we find in the natural state of man, some conditions or traits that can be
used to justify rights in the ethical sense. With that ethical justification, it would
be possible to argue for legal rights for everyone.
So, to begin, we look at Hobbes and Locke who tried to imagine what human
beings would be like in a state of nature, before governments and civilization,
and we note how this early philosophy guided rights theory embodied in
American thinking. We then look at more recent views on rights.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
One of the earliest thinkers to discuss rights. Hobbes was a political
philosopher. He was mostly concerned with governments and the relationship of
governments to society. Being a political philosopher was most relevant at his
time because Europe was then only beginning to realize that monarchy was not
the only form of government, and Hobbes had a great hand in bringing about
this realization. Under the monarchial system that prevailed in Europe, kings
were presumed to have ethical divine rights, rights given to kings by God. The
concept of ordinary people having individual rights was strongly advocated by
Hobbes.
In Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes maintained that
Man in a state of nature has the right to do what is necessary to protect
himself and to get what he can get however he can get it, everyman for
himself.
Imagine a primitive man living on a tropical island with fellow island natives.
Every day is a fight for existence, to get just a decent coconut for supper. In this
state of nature the strongest or the most devious gets the coconuts. But this is
not a desirable life for most, so men give up their natural right to those
[governments.] who contract [promise] to bring peace and protection.
DO NOT USE OR QUOTE HOBBES ON CASE STUDIES. Students read
Hobbes and misunderstand. Hobbes is saying that once upon a time in the days
of cavemen, before civilization, it was every man for himself. But we do not live
in a state of nature. We are not cavemen. We live in civilized society, we have
given up this “everyman for himself” rights scenario as soon as we are born in
society. “Everyman for himself” only applies to a world with complete disorder.
State of nature applies to primitive humans, maybe even before cavemen.
John Locke (1632-1704)
Locke disagreed with Hobbes about the conditions of primitive humans. Locke
maintained that there was never such a state of nature where every man is for
himself alone. Instead, Locke emphasizes that humans are social animals. The
most primitive man is part of a cooperating society. Such cooperation is how
humans as animals survived in nature. Quoting Locke in his 1690 Second
Treatise of Civil Government :
In a natural state all were equal and independent, and none had a right to
harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
Notice how this view is opposed to the Hobbesian state of nature. Also, for
Locke, Government does not over-ride society or individual rights, government
must be accountable.
One of the most important elements of Lockean rights is his view on property
and labor. Locke maintained:
When we mix our labor with the natural world, we blend part of ourselves with
that labor. That is how we come to own property, ethically. So, labor accounts
for most of the property value of an object, but these rights are limited by our
ability to consume & our ability to produce goods–to prevent goods from being
spoiled, or wasted. If we can labor to own more than we can use, then we no
longer have a right to that property. We cannot just let what we have go to
waste while other people do without because they cannot produce. But goods of
greater durability can be exchanged for those that spoil. Money is durable, so
we can exchange money for spoilable goods.
But once we begin to work earnestly and ethically accumulate more of these
valuable durable goods (money) than our neighbors, then we must have some
means of protecting these surplus durable goods so that others wont take them.
Government arises as a means to protect the durable goods that you have
exchanged for the fruits of your labor. In other words, once money comes into
use, government becomes necessary to protect property. Before money and
other such valuable durable goods (jewels, precious art, etc.) man kept what he
could use and no more. Because government arises to protect property of
governed, then:
Property precedes government and government cannot dispose of the
estates of the subjects arbitrarily.
UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
In 1776, we find a formulation of rights borrowed from philosophers such as
Hobbes and Locke, in our own Declaration Of Independence. This document
specifies:
INALIENABLE RIGHTS to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away or ignored. They are
rights you cannot give up. Inalienable rights are a cornerstone of Lockean rights
and prove very important to rights today.
Be aware, rights specified in the U.S. Constitution are legal rights. These rights
were originally formulated on the basis of ethical rights. You cannot use legal
rights to justify ethical rights. Instead, ethical rights are used to justify legal
rights. Using our constitutional rights to justify ethical rights is an unethical
perspective. If you want to say we should have a right because it is written in
our U.S. constitution, this is like saying that people outside of the U.S. do not get
or should not also get those rights. Indeed our constitution is irrelevant. When
discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. A legal
right is not an ethical right. Ethical rights are the reasons for legal rights. Legal
rights are not reasons for ethical judgments about rights.
Human Rights
Human rights are the rights internationally recognized by the United Nations.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, all human beings
have some basic moral rights, some of which are:
• right not to be killed
• the right not to be harmed
• the right to liberty (freedom of movement and benign action.)
In this course, we will not use this language of human rights. Instead, rights are
human rights, unless you look at animal rights. Animal rights rarely come up in
relation to computers, so we just will refer to rights.

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS
In contemporary ethics of rights, a distinction is made between negative
and positive rights.
NEGATIVE RIGHTS
Negative rights are rights to not be interfered with. Negative here refers to being
left alone, taking no action against us. Negative rights are rights to do what we
want or what we need to do, and nobody should stop us in doing what we need
to do as long as we do not interfere with the negative rights of others. These are
our freedom rights, such as:
1.right to practice religion we choose
2.right to move about from place to place
3.right to protect ourselves from danger
4.right to privacy
5.right to free speech
6.right to make our own sexual choices
7. right to seek work to provide for ourselves and our dependents.
8.right to seek information
9.right to buy, sell, trade
10.
right to offer services
POSITIVE RIGHTS
Positive rights are rights to help from others (almost always the government) so
that we can reasonably survive, such as:
• right to food, clothing, and shelter
• right to safety
• right to medical treatment
• right to information
It is important to recognize that these positive rights do not supersede our
negative rights. Government does not automatically provide us with food or
clothing. These are provided when we cannot get them for ourselves. Positive
here refers to getting something added to our lives, something that we cannot
add for ourselves for whatever reasons. In a perfect world, we would all be able
to always get the things we need for ourselves. In a perfect world, we would
only have negative rights. But things happen that require government to step in
and provide for us, thus our positive rights arise. After a hurricane, flood,
wildfire, earthquake or tornado, people lose their homes and most of their
property. They are given temporary shelter, food, etc until they can recover from
the disaster and build their lives again. A change of clothes, a place to bathe:
we desperately need these in times of disaster and at those times government
should provide them for us. This is our positive right. Clothing is one of the few
durable goods that are usually considered our personal property yet serve also
as a positive right. Government lets us keep clothes they give us because they
just don’t want it back. But they could indeed ethically ask us to give it back.
Property is not a positive right.
For example, in the USA victims of natural disasters are given FEMA trailers to
live in when their homes are destroyed. The FEMA trailers provide shelter. The
government supplied shelter because this is a basic positive right. But once
homes are rebuilt, they have to call FEMA to pick up the trailers because the
government did not give them property, just shelter. We do not have a positive
right to own a home. Property rights are negative rights or privileges. Property
rights are not positive rights. We have the negative right to get shelter, and have
that shelter be as permanent as we can get. This would be a kind of negative
right to try to get property. But actually getting property is a privilege of your
circumstance of being able to manage to get property without violating rights of
anyone else. Simply put, government does not owe you a home to keep.
Property is something we want, but we do not necessarily need to own to
survive.
For Locke, property is an important negative right. But by this he means, if you
work to get property, nobody should just decide to take it away from you, not if
you are innocent in how you got that property. In other words, if you got
property by doing actions that did not violate rights of others, then nobody
should be able to just take your property.
Ethically speaking, we do not have the right to make a profit.
Profit is a privilege, not a right. We do not have a negative right to not be
interfered with so that we can make a profit. We do not have a positive right to
help from the government so that we can make a profit. We have the negative
right to buy and sell, and, ethically speaking we might go as far as saying we
have the negative right to break even, but not to maximize profit.
In most countries, people have the legal right to keep profit. But when
discussing rights be careful not to confuse ethical rights with legal rights. A legal
right is not an ethical right. But just because we have no right to make a
profit, does not mean if we seek profit we are losing rights.
Many of the things we need to do to make profit are well within our ethical rights.
In almost all circumstances we have the right to offer goods for sale, to price
those goods, etc. There is nothing inherently unethical about profit. Profit is just
like a Christmas Bonus. You get that bonus in part if you merit it, but also in part
if you are lucky. You do not have a moral right to a bonus. But that does not
mean there is anything wrong with getting a bonus, it just means it is not much
relevant to ethics of rights. Please, just do not mention profit when doing
rights analyses. Profit is not relevant to rights. Do not say that we have no
right to make a profit. This is not relevant. Profit is a motivation for buying and
selling and offering services. You have a right to buy, sell, and offer services as
long as when you do, you do not violate rights of others. Your motivation for
doing business is not relevant.
IMPORTANT: MORE ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEGATIVE RIGHTS &
POSITIVE RIGHTS
So we understand that negative rights are rights to do what we want or what we
need to do. These are fairly clear. The right to privacy, right to free speech, right
to protect ourselves, right to make our own sexual choices, right to work to
provide food clothing & shelter for ourselves and our dependents.
Then how do we distinguish these negative rights from positive rights? When
our negative rights are very important, they may need assistance from
governments. This was the point of the social contract theories of Hobbes &
Locke. Governments help us by providing our rights when we cannot or they
help us by making it easier for all of us to see our rights are met. Any positive
right also has a negative right that mirrors it. The difference between negative
and positive rights is that for the positive rights governments help us.
EXAMPLE: We have the right to information.
This means that we have the negative right to seek information we need,
and nobody should interfere with our attempts to gather correct information.
But as we all know, there are many people who try to distort the facts, and
try to make it very difficult for us to get correct information. Right to
information is such an important right that it often is a positive right too. This
means that it is the duty of government to provide correct information to
citizens, and to punish those who gravely violate our right to correct
information. Notice that this right can conflict with our right to free speech.
Is it okay for people to lie and distort the truth? Do we violate their right to
free speech when we punish them? These are important considerations.
RIGHTS ENTAIL DUTIES.
Usually philosophers explain the link between rights and duties in a
reciprocating sense. If you have the right to free speech then you have the DUTY
to reciprocate that right to other people and let them speak freely to you.
But the relationship between rights and duties is actually more basic than
reciprocation. The best way to see this is to look at rights as a natural gift, and
gifts should not be treated like they are nothing. We have all of us gone through
the processes of getting gifts of Freedom and understand it in this basic sense.
We all grew up. As a child you had most of the positive rights: rights to food,
clothing, shelter, freedom from harm. But your negative rights were almost nil.
You did not have the right to freedom of movement. Everywhere you went you
had to have adult supervision. You had no rights to have sex or speak your
mind freely. Your positive right to information was also greatly curtailed. There
were just some things your parents did not want you to know about. But along
with being a virtual prisoner of your parents and teachers, you had very few
duties (responsibilities). Lack of responsibility is the special gift of childhood. As
you grew up, you were given rights: right to drink beer, right to have sex, etc.
But along with these rights came the responsibilities. You can drink now, but
should be responsible enough to handle that alcohol. You can have sex, but
must be responsible for having safe sex or have to deal with all the
consequences of unsafe sex. RIGHTS BRING DUTIES.
Positive Rights of Children
Children are very limited in their negative rights. They are so limited because
they are not yet able to reasonably and freely choose in many areas of consent.
Children do not have the negative right to all information. They do not have most
negative rights of sexual freedom. BUT, children have the most positive rights of
all humans. It is our duty to protect children, to keep them safe from sexual
coercion, to provide them with health care, education, a safe home, etc. It is not
only government that has a duty to provide children with positive rights, it is a
duty of parents, relatives, teachers, and all of us.
Robert Nozick (1938-2002)—Twentieth Century Rights
Robert Nozick is an extreme libertarian. Extreme libertarians hold that no one
has …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment