Unit 1 concepts and overview

Ethics has always been a rather complex word -- or concept, rather -- to understand as, in the past, I have thought that ethics were different depending on the individual; that is, if a person thought that ethics had to do with their feeling of right and wrong or whatever, then that was their ethical code; if another person thought that ethics had to do with their religion, then that was their personal ethical code, and so on… However, after the first lecture, I understand that ethics is not either of those things (or other), and it does not change depending on the individual. The lecture stated that ethics is two things: "well-based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do…" and, secondly, ethics is about "the study and development of one's ethical standards."

While ethics do not change depending on the individual, it is interesting to note from chapter one that there is no "analytical method" sufficient for any ethical choice if a person (policymaker in the example) is not a sensible person (Bluhm & Heineman 2007, p. 4). Today, we have an abundance of new issues that need to be dealt with from an ethical perspective that have never needed to be dealt with before. There has been a lot of research and studies done on the typical whistle-blowing and lying, as noted in chapter one, but there are so many new issues like cloning and stem-cell research and the manipulation of genes (2007, p. 4) that are becoming more and more pressing because the possibility of all those things is very real in this day and age, while in the past they may have been only a figment of the scientific imagination. The main point here is that public policy is social and political (Bardach 2008, xv).

Chapter one notes the typical methods of ethical analysis: Kantianism (deontology), utilitarianism (consequentialism), and prudent pragmatism (Bluhm & Heineman 2007, p. 4). The book states that prudent pragmatism is by far the best ethical formulation of public policy as it "reflects both the American disdain for disembodied abstractions and our recognition that the world of values is multifaceted and untidy 2007, (p. 22).

Today it seems like the most popular method of ethical analysis is utilitarianism. The fundamental ideal of utilitarianism is that the greatest good is the greatest amount. This is one of the fundamental aspects of democracy. Utilitarianism seems all about trying to detach the individual from the action. Kantianism would argue against this, saying that an action can't be a moral action unless the motives themselves are moral (Fischer & Miller 2006, p. 36).

To act in an utilitarian way means that we act so as to always consider the social benefit of the act. This is to say that to live life in a way that always benefited others it to live a very ethical life. So, to be ethical in a utilitarian manner means that we must also act so that we are benefiting as may people as we can, and if we do that, that means that we are living an ethical life -- or a life of virtue.

On the contrary, for Kant, to live a moral life is to live a life that is lived almost completely because of obligation (Moran, Rein & Goodin 2008, p 354). Someone can still do something that is their duty, but that doesn't mean that what they do isn't immoral. A simple example would be if a person owed money: in Kantian morality, if a person paid back the money simply because they owed it and they felt it was their moral obligation to do so, this would be moral; however, if a person paid back money only because they thought that it would help them out if they ever needed to borrow money again, this would be immoral.

Kantian morality -- or the ethical system that we call "deontological" (Bluhm & Heineman 2007, p. 26) -- has to do with whether or not "its rules do not allow us to specify what is good independently from what is right. Deontology holds that some acts are inherently right or wrong, quite apart from their consequences" (2007, p. 26). This means that telling the truth is a principle that has to be observed whatever its consequences are.

In prudent pragmatism, a person must develop virtues -- especially the virtue of moderation, "that is, acting according to the mean" (Bluhm & Heineman 2007, p. 28). This means that people must always have a certain feel for what could come -- the "varying circumstances" (2007, p. 28), so to speak. Chapter three states that it is not by knowing all these rules that people become good people, but it is by knowing what rules apply to certain situations.

The good physician is not one who knows abstractly that white meats are healthful but does not know what meats are light. He is rather the one who knows from his experience that chicken [a white meat] is good for the patient and prescribes it, even though he may not know the general rule about white meats (Aristotle 1941, p. 1029; Heineman & Bluhm 2007, p. 28).