Define "Ethics"

Should you be asked to define "ethics," a lot of synonyms and contextually-related terms and phrases may pop to mind (assuming you even care to venture a response).

 

I've given the topic a ton of ongoing thought since getting my Master's in Ethics & Policy Studies (EPS) in 1998 at the age of 52. EPS was an interdisciplinary curriculum comprising Western Philosophies, Jurisprudence (incl. ConLaw), ECON, PolySci, and—in my case,—Public Health (specifically, Drug Abuse Policy).

 

Just finished a couple of delightful, intriguing books by Dr. Susan Liautaud.

 

I will certainly give these well-written-and-argued books 5-star reviews on Amazon, notwithstanding a few picks.

e.g., I'm a bit of a pedant with respect to the provision of material and adequately precise definitions in complex technical arguments, e.g.,

• Define "evidence"
• Define "expert"
• Define "science"

Dr. Liautaud finally gets around to a sort of a definition of "ethics" near the end of her first book:

You and I began this narrative journey by defining ethical decision-making on the edge. Every year, I send my students off with a forward-looking definition of ethics that spotlights the messiness, imperfection, truth, and recovery. It is this:

Above all, ethics are about creating the story we want for our lives and all the lives we are privileged to touch, by applying principled decision-making, no matter how close we are to the edge. Ethics require an unflinching commitment to truth and humanity. Ethics are recording the story that we will be proud for others to uncover as our view of a life well lived—however the facts may unravel, however we may succeed or fail, whatever luck we may or may not experience, while learning from, but leaving unedited, the inevitable human moments when we don’t live up to this definition.

The Power of Ethics: How to Make Good Choices in a Complicated World (p. 218). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition. 

apropos, from a 2018 post of mine:

I've alluded to this a couple of times:

I reached out to these folks, and gently pointed out that their "Ethical Framework" pdf download document had no definition of "ethics." The email reply I got blew me off -- "we all know what we mean, we're not gonna get bogged down in abstract academic jargon."

Right. In Silicon Valley-speak, just "Don't Be Evil" while you "Fail Fast and Break Stuff" in your Agile Scrums.

Dudes, I'm not talkin' obtuse ivory tower "Dialectical Hermeneutics,"or hypothetical "gotcha" moral dilemma "Trolley Problems," etc, just a common-sense primer of sufficient detail. e.g., from a book I got onto via Science Based Medicine: 

Ethical Frameworks and Principles 
Ethical considerations of any problem or issue can be divided into two major categories: (a) nonconsequentialist and (b) consequentialist approaches. 1 Nonconsequentialism considers that the action (or even just the motivation behind an action) is the crucial ethical factor. In other words, the action itself is more important than the actual outcome (consequence) of the action. By contrast, consequentialism holds that outcomes (as opposed to actions) should be the crucial determinants of ethical decisions…

Principlism 
The inherent subjectivity of ethics presents a problem: even when reflexive and uncritical responses (such as the ‘gut reactions’ of tabloid readers) are excluded, along with religious outlooks, medical ethicists still do not all agree on which ethical principles are best. 

It was in response to this reality that an approach to ethical analysis known as principlism was developed. Principlism attempts to factor in both nonconsequentialist and consequentialist approaches. The standard version is based on four core principles:

(1) Respect for autonomy (a nonconsequentialist principle—but one that utilitarianism also supports). 
(2) Nonmaleficence (‘first, do no harm’—a nonconsequentialist principle). 
(3) Beneficence (increase overall utility—a consequentialist principle; it is essentially utilitarianism). 
(4) Justice (fairly distribute benefits, risks and costs—a nonconsequentialist principle). 

Principlists apply this approach to an ethical case by examining how each of the four principles (in turn) applies to the issues raised by the case. It is quite common for medical ethics committees to use this method to reach decisions. Principlism can be very useful as a structured ‘checklist’ method to address ethical problems and therefore finds favour amongst laypeople or non-ethically trained professionals, who predominate on ethics committees…

Ernst, Edzard. More Harm than Good?: The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Kindle Locations 83-208). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

That entire chapter is excellent. One need not, however, even go to that much trouble. Any quick Google search will get you tons of relevant, succinct definitional information on the topic of Ethics.

Below, a good, accessible, inexpensive resource:

I still have all of my many grad school texts, but I keep this in my Kindle as a handy refresher.

It was emphasized to us in grad school early on that "Ethics" was not about some lookup cookbook of "right/wrong," but rather a frequently arduous process of rational moral deliberation comprising evidence (including accrued wisdoms), logic, and -- yes -- "values" fused in honest attempts to derive just decisions and policies.

 

Another relevant 2018 topical post—"Information Ethics."

 

And, is there such a thing as a "Science of Deliberation?" 

Way more to come.  For now, an hour with the author, in her own words.

 

 

UPDATE

 

I watched the entire hour of the above. Pretty good discussion of the issues and methods as Susan sets them forth in her books. This is probably not practical, but I'd have liked to have viewed a substantial bit less Zoom chat "talking heads" in favor of some deftly placed graphics overlays—even if mostly bullet list Powerpoint-type deck cards. I think it'd be helpful for those who've yet to read her books (which I unreservedly recommend your doing).

A RELATED SUSAN LIAUTAUD INITIATIVE

OK, I remain a tad clueless as to what is meant by "innovative ethics."

 

But, continue to drill down for contextual clues.

Our Ethos

HUMANITY
: We respect humanity. Effective ethics tethers us to our humanity as technology and science blur the boundaries between human and machine and global risks spiral to inhuman scale.
INNOVATION
: We are a laboratory and platform for ethics innovation. Effective ethics happens along with, or prior to, the science and technology. It is a partner in progress not an impediment to innovation or a clean-up act for its unwanted consequences.
CREATIVITY: 
We seek ethical wisdom everywhere from the arts to astronomy. Effective ethics is creative and solution-oriented: a forward-looking catalyst for positive change and “first evers” not a backward-looking limitation.
TRUTH
: We seek and support truth. Effective ethics rigorously and relentlessly insists on verifiable truth and questions bias, subjectivity, and context.
COMMITMENT
: We are “all in.” Effective ethics requires commitment not compromise--even in the most challenging situations.
REALITY: 
We do real world ethics. Effective ethics has concrete impact on real people in real situations. It is not an abstract or theoretical matter.
TRANSPARENCY: 
We share all our learning (whether revealing success or failure). Effective ethics requires transparency and exchange of ideas. It is a public good for shared benefit not a private possession.
CHALLENGE: 
We humbly tackle today’s most challenging ethics topics. Effective ethics requires collaboration and cross-pollination. We invite you to join us… and to challenge us.

"Innovation," "incubation..." Man, that is SO Silicon Valley. "We're Making the World a Better Place."

 

UPDATE: LOOKING BACK SOME 17 MONTHS

 

SOME TOPICAL ERRATA BEARING ON "CRITICAL THINKING"

apropos of "The Power of Ethics."

Some things that bedevil our thinking, particularly as it goes to persuasion and influence:

There is no first-person singular present-tense active voice usage of the word "wrong." No one ever says "I AM wrong."

 

[props to Kathryn Schulz]  Our aggregate default is that we're right about everything. To the extent that we continue to survive, that's an understandable assumption—as it pertains to minor, inconsequential issues, anyway, and it inexorably tilts us toward "confirmation bias."

 

Our education system mostly tells us there's one "right answer" to every question—lurking amid a boatload of "wrong ones."

 

And, those who quickly alight on the "right answer" get reinforced and nurtured as they move through the system.

 

Being wrong is not a synonym for being "stupid" or ignorant. 

Neither is "ignorant" a synonym for "stupid." But it's mostly epithetically spun that way

Humans "reason" to WIN the argument.

 Should truth happen along the way, so much the better. (See "Why Do Humans Reason?" by Sperber & Mercier) Evolutionary adaptive utility, "The Pen is Mightier Than The Sword."

He/She with the best story WINS!

Trial Lawyering 101. Prior to writing and movable type, stories were the whole ballgame. Hence, our evolved affinity.

Once you decide that X is right or wrong / good or bad, you cannot unring that bell.

A staple look-before-you-leap admonishment of mine back when I was teaching "Critical Thinking."

If, when it's all said and done, your logic is impeccable, and your facts and evidence are bulletproof, yet you remain unpersuasive, what have you really accomplished?''

Another classroom staple of mine. That one was "exceeding my brief" as it were, but my Sups never noticed or cared. Anyway, my overall teach-to-the-text priority focus as a piddly Adjunct necessarily had to be "OK, here's how this stuff works. Take it or leave it."

 

BACK TO ZOE

 

Once you finish her book you will have a firm grip on just why.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT the individual genetic and developmental differences that impact the sensory portions of our nervous systems, it’s remarkable that we can agree on a shared reality at all.  Linden, David. Unique(p. 253). Basic Books. Kindle Edition

A lot to think about and discuss here. "Truth?" Yeah.

SUSAN'S SECOND BOOK

The Six Forces Driving Ethics

Throughout this book, you will have seen references to six forces that I believe influence the ethics of every choice we make…

Banish the binary: Ethics are not a “yes or no” or “do it or don’t do it” choice. Some ethics failures are indeed straight-up unacceptable: racism, sexual misconduct, and disregarding science-based evidence about Covid-19. But most questions we face require navigating a gray zone…

Scattered power: Today, power is no longer concentrated only in the hands of a few; it’s more scattered than ever. Think of the power you have with your cell phone—to contribute to a political campaign or tutor a child across the country… or incite violence. The challenge today is to reconnect power to ethical responsibility… and to recognize that we each have a role…

Contagion: Ethics are contagious—for good or for ill. But we often focus so much on the unwanted behavior (fraud, social media data privacy, not wearing masks) that we ignore the factors that drove the spreading of the behavior—leaving them to fester and spur further trouble…

Pillars of ethics: Transparency and (un)informed consent are two long-standing pillars of ethical decision making. They depend on understanding what’s at stake in our decisions (short- and longer-term) but are crumbling in today’s complex, technological world…

Blurred boundaries: Blurred boundaries are everywhere today: human and machine, human and animal, and increasingly work and home. We are in uncharted, sometimes uncomfortable, territory as we think about the role of robots in society (receptionists, caring for the elderly, nannies, driverless cars), looking to animals for medical treatment (growing organs in pigs for human transplant), and beyond. We must keep humanity front and center and assure that humans take responsibility for the blur… and for reclarifying boundaries.

Compromised truth: Ethics hinge on truth. There is no such thing as post-truth or alternatively factual ethics. Today, truth is under threat in unprecedented ways from denial of science and other factual information to distrust of experts to algorithmic distortion of our news feeds and social media bubbles shielding us from diverse views. This compromised truth removes our choices from reality…

Liautaud, Susan. The Little Book of Big Ethical Questions (pp. 277-280). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition. 

OK, LET'S BACK UP TO THE OUTSET OF SUSAN'S FIRST BOOK

Core considerations for contemplating pending ethically-sound decisions.

Question #1:
What are my guiding principles?
Who are you, as an individual or an organization? What do you stand for?

Our principles define our identity and tell the world what to expect from us, as well as how we expect others to behave. Principles apply to ethics choices in all aspects of our lives… The Power of Ethics (p. 24).

Question #2:
Do I have the information I need to make this decision?
And what important information lies in the gap between the information you should know and the information you can know?

Entrepreneurs increasingly launch new products before we can fully assess the ways they might be used or misused, or before the creators fully comprehend the power and capability of the technologies behind them. We, as consumers, employees, and parents then use these new technologies before fully understanding their opportunities and risks. In between the two, regulators fail to keep pace. The complexity of technology has increased the complexity and unpredictability of information we must consider in order to make thoughtful ethical decisions before we launch, use, or regulate innovations. (p. 27)

Question #3:
Who or what stakeholders matter to my decision?
Who or what could influence, or be affected by, your decision?

I define a stakeholder as any person, organization, object, or factor that could influence, or be affected by, a decision or situation. We often think stakeholders are only human beings, but stakeholders can also be inanimate objects if they have an impact on (or are impacted by) our choices. Even the digital assistant in your kitchen is a stakeholder if it gives you information (“It’s 35 degrees Fahrenheit outside”) that influences your decisions (I should put on a coat). Stakeholders can be a company, a policy, an algorithm, a chat bot, a test score, fake news, an edited gene, a government organization, and more. They can make positive or negative contributions to your decisions, and you can affect them positively or negatively. (p. 30)

Question #4:
What are the potential consequences of my decision in the short, medium, and long term?
Have you considered the immediate and future impact of your decision at the time of the decision?

The framework requires us to a look at the short-, medium-, and long-term consequences of our decisions at the time they are being made. We should then do regular framework check-ins, so we can monitor consequences over time and keep up with evolving developments… (p. 32)

Dr. Liautaud's four-facet overarching framework combined with the Six Forces criteria provide a rather comprehensive (yet broadly accessible) decision model for ethically sound small-d "democratic" decisionmaking. 

 

The stakes have never been higher.

 

After re-reading the foregoing assertion several times, I've warmed to it (at first blush I'd found it perhaps a tad hyperbolic in places). Humanity is up to its aggregate eyeballs in existential alligators. No one's coming to our rescue.

 

Recall my list:

We have much pressing moral work to do.

 

More to come...

__________