Séance 3 - SSH 3501: Ethical Dilemmas and Value-Based Resolution

La résolution de dilemme sur la base des valeurs: Perfectionnisme et pluralisme moral

Point de départ de l’analyse morale: Les intuitions morales

  • Several moral theories have been discussed to extract argumentation methods for ethical deliberation.
  • The goal is to link these arguments to values to resolve ethical dilemmas.

Plan de séance

  1. La résolution sur la base des valeurs
    • Le consensus par recoupement
    • Le dilemme éthique
    • Solutions parfaites et imparfaites
  2. Le problème du pluralisme moral et la solution contractualiste
  3. Les problèmes d’action collective

La résolution de problèmes sur la base de valeurs

Le consensus par recoupement
  • Example: Rose sells "extras" to clients, even if they lack value, to boost her salary.
  • Should Rose sell these unnecessary extras?
  • Ethical question: Should Rose convince clients to buy extras, exaggerating their benefits, or refrain from doing so?
  • Ethical reasoning here involves VALUES.
  • "VALEUR" refers to principles considered important.

Several values suggest Rose shouldn't sell extras:

  • Wasting client resources (valeur d’efficacité)

  • Not helping clients make the best decision (valeurs de satisfaction ou de bien-être)

  • Harming herself (long-term) by undermining company credibility (principe de non-nuisance)

  • Lacking integrity (valeurs d’intégrité ou d’honnêteté)

  • Using clients as means for her satisfaction (valeurs de respect, d’autonomie ou de non-instrumentalisation)

  • Considerations conséquentialistes: points i, ii, and iii.

    • Values of efficiency, well-being, and non-nuisance maximize well-being, utility, pleasure, or satisfaction.
    • The aim is to maximize utility or satisfaction for the majority.

  • Considerations déontologistes: points iv and v.

    • Prioritizing integrity, honesty, and respect for autonomy.
    • Favoring "universal" ethical principles, never to be violated.

  • The case of Rose demonstrates a consensus par recoupement, a way to resolve ethical problems.

  • A consensus par recoupement is when a conclusion is confirmed/corroborated by different, incompatible moral methods.

  • All moral methods disapprove of convincing clients to take extras.

  • Regardless of the moral method, Rose shouldn't convince clients to take extras.

Le dilemme éthique

  • Example: Bernard works in a company involved in collusion, which makes him uneasy. His boss pressures him to comply with practices like bid-rigging, threatening to fire him if he doesn't. This practice is common in the industry. If Bernard refuses to rig bids, he'll likely be fired, but the practice won't change.

  • What should Bernard do? Should he rig the bids?

  • If Bernard refuses:

    • He doesn't use clients (or the State) for his satisfaction: values of respect, autonomy, or non-instrumentalisation.
      • A déontologiste would recommend Bernard doesn't rig bids.
    • He is acting with integrity: valeur d’intégrité ou d’honnêteté

  • However, this choice has negative consequences:

    • Refusing to rig bids might seem beneficial to the client (satisfaction, well-being). But the industry practice won't change (efficacité). Bernard would lose his job (valeur de sécurité d’emploi).
    • A conséquentialiste might advise Bernard to obey his boss because:
      • The consequences for Bernard are negative: he loses his job.
      • The consequences for society/the State are minimal: his refusal won't change industry practices.

  • Bernard's situation isn't resolvable via consensus par recoupement; moral methods reach different conclusions.

    • Déontologisme deems engaging in such practices as always wrong, based on universal moral principles.
    • Conséquentialisme focuses on consequences, disregarding moral principles.
      • If Bernard refuses, there's little chance of changing practices; the positive consequences are nil, and the negative ones are significant. Obeying his boss is preferable.
Solutions parfaites et imparfaites
  • There are two types of solutions to ethical dilemmas:
    • La solution parfaite: at least one decision has no negative aspects, dominating other solutions in all scenarios; like Rose's case.
    • Consensus par recoupement often leads to "perfect" solutions.
    • La solution imparfaite: all decisions have negative aspects, as in Bernard's case.
      • Rigging bids lacks integrity and instrumentalizes the client (the State).
      • Not rigging bids risks his career.
  • How to decide? What about imperfect solutions?
  • Regardless of Bernard's decision, it involves a "résidu moral".
    • All decisions have negative aspects.
    • A dilemma may have a better solution, but it's not necessarily perfect. In Bernard's case, the dilemma, at best, has an imperfect solution: if Bernard rigs bids, the State loses; if he refuses, he personally loses.
  • In Bernard's example, from a value perspective, the best action is to not rig bids.
  • Yet, no one would say it's good for Bernard to lose his job for this reason.
  • This creates a résidu moral, a sacrifice to make to take the best overall action.
  • If the dilemma has only an imperfect solution, or if it's impossible to determine the best option, what's the role of ethics?
  • Don't expect ethics to perfectly undo all moral dilemmas.
  • Ethics specialists/practitioners also struggle to resolve these questions.
  • Ethics is relevant even when it can't resolve moral dilemmas.
  • Identifying a difficult ethical problem can be very useful: recognizing a problematic practice/grey area leading to a dilemma can help prevent rather than cure the issue.
  • Collective mechanisms can be implemented to minimize such situations:
    • How to avoid finding oneself in Bernard's situation?
    • What mechanisms can prevent these situations?
  • Rappel: étapes de la délibération éthique à court terme et long terme (Daoust et Mekhaël 2024, figure 7.2, p. 160)

Le problème du pluralisme moral et la solution contractualiste

  • Perfectionist theories promote a particular conception of the Good that everyone should follow.
  • However, in pluralistic societies (with diverse communities and views of the Good), regulating behaviors with a perfectionist vision becomes difficult.
  • The State cannot promote a specific vision, adopting a neutral stance.
  • An alternative is needed to guide actions.
Répondre au problème de l’opportunisme par la régulation des comportements
  • The contractualist approach is valuable because:
    • It doesn't involve conceptions of the Good, focusing on efficiency.
    • It provides incentives based on individuals' opportunistic rationality (encouragement, punishment, etc.) rather than combating it.
  • Objective: to have individuals choose the action that has the best effect for the collectivity
  • Rather than working on individuals' moral conscience by stating an action is good or bad, it seeks to influence behaviors to achieve an efficient society.
  • This approach solves problems related to collective action.

Les problèmes d’action collective

L‘opportunisme, des Grecs anciens à nous
  • Opportunistic behaviors have long been a problem for philosophers.
  • The sophists in ancient Greece taught young Athenians skills to manage life, mainly to win before the Assembly.
  • Thrasymachus, as depicted by Plato in Book I of The Republic, believed happiness requires obtaining everything one wants, when one wants it. The strongest can impose their will on the weakest, leading happier lives.
  • According to his teaching, rational behavior serves one's own interests first.
  • According to the sophists (as presented by Plato), happiness is accessible to opportunists—those who always act in their personal interest, regardless of the impact on the community.
  • If disobeying the law serves individual interest, one should do so (without getting caught!). Conversely, if obeying the law serves one's interest, one should obey it.
Jeux
  • Each team aims to score the most points.
  • Teams face an opponent randomly but don't know what the opponent will choose.
  • Choice: collaborate with the team or betray them.
    • Rules:
      • If both teams collaborate, they each score 3 points.
      • If one team collaborates and the other betrays, the collaborating team scores 0 points.
      • If one team betrays and the other collaborates, the betraying team scores 5 points.
      • If both teams betray each other, they each score 1 point.
Joseph Heath et la société efficiente
  • Joseph Heath, in La société efficiente, analyzes collective action problems.
  • Reasoning from a prisoner's dilemma, Heath believes societal dilemmas are accumulations of individually rational choices that lead to collectively inefficient outcomes.
  • Implementing collective measures to regulate human behaviors to solve these collective action problems can prevent inefficiencies.
  • For Heath, it's not about whether an action is good or bad.
  • He sets aside moral theories and definitions of good, seeking efficient actions.
  • Solutions to dilemmas lie in contractualist theories.
Dilemme du prisonnier
  1. Je compromets mon partenaire ; il garde le silence. Ma sentence : zéro.
  2. Nous gardons tous les deux le silence. Ma sentence : deux ans.
  3. Nous nous compromettons l’un l’autre. Ma sentence : huit ans.
  4. Je garde le silence ; mon partenaire me compromet. Ma sentence : dix ans.

"It is in your best interest to compromise your partner. Whether or not your partner testifies against you is beyond your control.
If they were to compromise you, it would be better for you to compromise them as well, so that you are at least acquitted of the charge of a minor offense.
But if they were not to compromise you, it would be better for you to compromise them, so that you are again acquitted of the charge of a minor offense.
Conclusion: you will always benefit from choosing to testify against your partner."

« So far, so good… Unfortunately, the police also mention that they will make the same offer to your partner. The reason why your situation is called the prisoner's dilemma is becoming clear. It is also in your partner's interest to compromise you.
Result: if you both aim to minimize your time in prison, you will betray each other and each of you will serve eight years in prison. If you both remain silent, you will get away with a sentence of only two years. Therefore, giving in to your desire to minimize your time in prison seems to lengthen, not shorten, the length of the sentence you will likely have to serve behind bars. »

Examples of individually rational action leading to ineffective results:
  • Street intersections
  • Overfishing
  • GHG production
  • Individual rational action… and collective inefficiency
    • Quotas
    • Traffic lights
    • "Green taxes", eco-fees, carbon tax, etc.
  • Through intervention (state or otherwise) such as taxes, fines, and increased surveillance, the incentive for the individual to make an advantageous choice is removed, and they are "forced" to make the most efficient choice, which produces the best result for all individuals, for the community.
  • These sets of rules are viewed by political philosophers as what is called: a social contract.
  • The social contract aims to regulate the behaviours of individuals in order to live in a harmonious society.
  • An example by Heath:
    1. Je double ; les autres s’en abstiennent, durée de mon déplacement : très bref
    2. Personne ne double, durée de mon déplacement : moyennement bref
    3. Nous doublons tous, durée de mon déplacement : moyennement long
    4. Je ne double pas - les autres le font, durée de mon déplacement : très long
      Action #1 is opportunistic. The social contract contains rules that encourage interested individuals not to adopt individually rational but collectively inefficient behaviours. Action #4 is a dupe
Dilemme de sécurité à grande échelle : la course à l’armement nucléaire
  1. Je construis des armes nucléaires ; les autres s’en abstiennent. Force comparative de mon pays : très élevée.
  2. Personne ne construit d’arme nucléaire. Force comparative de mon pays : plutôt égal, pas de risque de guerre nucléaire.
  3. Nous construisons tous des armes nucléaires. Force comparative de mon pays : plutôt égal, risque de guerre nucléaire
  4. Je ne construis pas d’arme nucléaire ; les autres le font. Force comparative de mon pays : très faible.
  • Incentives to choose option #2: international disarmament treaties, economic consequences imposed, etc.
  • Other examples are possible, especially in the face of climate change, e.g. international treaties to reduce pollution, carbon pricing, etc.
Comment réguler le comportement des ingénieurs ?
  • The professional system in Quebec aims to serve a fundamental mission for society: ensuring the protection of the public.
  • To do this, the regulation of engineers also involves a form of social contract. By joining the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, the engineer undertakes to respect a set of rules that guide their practice.
  • The code of ethics for engineers is a good example of regulating behaviours. It is a set of rules that engineers impose on themselves: a social contract.

Références

  • Platon. (327). La République. Livre 1.
  • Heath, J. (2001). La société efficiente. Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
  • Daoust, M.K. et Mekhaël, T. (2024 à paraitre). L’éthique et le génie québécois : Entre perfectionnisme institutionnel et délibération éthique. Presses de l’Université du Québec.