Professor Dr.D.

Jayakumar

UNIT II - ENGINEERING ETHICS

“ENGINEERING ETHICS is:

• the study of moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and organizations involved
in engineering and
• the study of related questions about moral ideals, character, policies and relationships of
people and organizations involved in technological activity.
TRAINING IN PREVENTIVE ETHICS
• Stimulating the moral imagination
• Recognizing ethical issues
• Developing analytical skills
• Eliciting a sense of responsibility
• Tolerating disagreement and ambiguity

IMPEDIMENTS TO RESPONSIBILITY
• Self-interest.
• Fear.
• Self-deception.
• Ignorance.
• Egocentric tendencies.
• Microscopic vision.
• Groupthink.

QUESTIONABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICES

• Trimming – “smoothing of irregularities to make data look extremely accurate and precise”
• Cooking – “retaining only those results that fit the theory and discarding others”.
• Forging – “inventing some or all of the research data…”
• Plagiarism – misappropriating intellectual property.
• Conflicts of interest (such as accepting gifts.)
– actual
– potential
– apparent
CLEARLY WRONG ENGINEERING PRACTICES
• Lying
• Deliberate deception
• Withholding information
• Failing to adequately promote the dissemination of information
• Failure to seek out the truth
• Revealing confidential or proprietary information
• Allowing one’s judgment to be corrupted

SENSES OF EXPRESSION OF ENGG. ETHICS

1. Ethics is an activity and area of inquiry. It is the activity of understanding moral values,
resolving moral issues and the area of study resulting from that activity.
2. When we speak of ethical problems, issues and controversies, we mean to distinguish them
from non moral problems.
3. Ethics is used to refer to the particular set of beliefs, attitudes and habits that a person or
group displays concerning moralities.
4. Ethics and its grammatical variants can be used as synonyms for ‘morally
correct’. VARIETIES or APPROACHES OF MORAL ISSUES
MICRO-ETHICS emphasizes typically everyday problems that can take on significant
proportions in an engineer’s life or entire engineering office.
MACRO-ETHICS addresses societal problems that are often shunted aside and are not addressed
until they unexpectedly resurface on a regional or national scale.
MORAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING
(SOME EXAMPLES)
4.1. An inspector discovered faulty construction equipment and applied a violation tag,
preventing its use. The supervisor, a construction manager viewed the case as a minor abrasion
of the safety regulations and ordered the removal of the tag to speed up the project. When the
inspector objected to this, he was threatened with disciplinary action.
4.2. An electric utility company applied for a permit to operate a nuclear power plant. The
licensing agency was interested in knowing what emergency measures had been established for
humans safety in case of reactor malfunctioning. The utility engineers described the alarm
system and arrangements with local hospitals for treatment. They did not emphasize that this
measures applied to plant personnel only and that they had no plans for the surrounding
population. When enquired about their omission, they said it was not their responsibility.
4.3. A chemical plant dumped wastes in a landfill. Hazardous substances found their way into the
underground water table. The plant’s engineers were aware of the situation but did not change
the method of disposal because their competitors did it the same cheap way, and no law
explicitly forbade the practice.
4.4. Electronics Company ABC geared up for production of its own version of a popular new
item. The product was not yet ready for sale, but even so, pictures and impressive specifications
appeared in advertisements. Prospective customers were led to believe that it was available off
the shelf and were drawn away from competing lines.

TYPES OF INQUIRIES

1. NORMATIVE INQUIRY
These are about ‘what ought to be’ and ‘what is good’. These questions identify and also justify
the morally desirable norms or standards.
Some of the questions are:
A. How far engineers are obligated to protect public safety in given situations?
B. When should engineers start whistle blowing on dangerous practices of their employers?
C. Whose values are primary in taking a moral decision, employee, public or govt?
D. Why are engineers obligated to protect public safety?
E. When is govt justified in interfering on such issues and why?

2. CONCEPTUAL INQUIRY:
These questions should lead to clarifications on concepts, principles and issues in ethics.
Examples are:
A) What is ‘SAFETY’ and how is it related to ‘RISK’
B) ‘Protect the safety, health and welfare of public’-What does this statement mean?
C) What is a bribe?
D) What is a ‘profession’ and who are ‘professionals’?
3. FACTUAL (DESCRIPTIVE) INQUIRIES
These are inquiries used to uncover information using scientific techniques. These inquiries get
to information about business realities, history of engineering profession, procedures used in
assessment of risks and engineers psychology.

Why study ENGINEERING ETHICS

ENGINEERING ETHICS is a means to increase the ability of concerned engineers, managers,
citizens and others to responsibly confront moral issues raised by technological activities.
MORAL DILEMMMA
There are three types of complexities.
1,. VAGUENESS: This complexity arises due to the fact that it is not clear to individuals as to
which moral considerations or principles apply to their situation.
2. CONFLICTING REASONS: Even when it is perfectly clear as to which moral principle is
applicable to one’s situation, there could develop a situation where in two or more clearly
applicable moral principles come into conflict.
3. DISAGREEMENT: Individuals and groups may disagree how to interpret, apply and balance
moral reasons in particular situations.
Steps in confronting MORAL DILEMMAS:
i) Identify the relevant moral factors and reasons.
ii) Gather all available facts that are pertinent to the moral factors involved.
iii) Rank the moral considerations in the order of their importance as they apply to the
situation.
iv) Consider alternative course of action, tracing the full implications of each, as ways of
solving dilemma.
v) Talk with colleagues, seeking the suggestions and perspectives of the dilemma.
vi) Arrive at a carefully reasoned judgment by weighing all the relevant moral factors and
reasons in light of facts.
MORAL AUTONOMY
• This is viewed as the skill and habit of thinking rationally about ethical issues on the basis
of moral concerns independently or by self-determination.
• Autonomous individuals think for themselves and do not assume that customs are always
right.
• They seek to reason and live by general principles.
• Their motivation is to do what is morally reasonable for its own sake, maintaining
integrity, self-respect, and respect for others.
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the
penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and
willingly accepts the penalty… is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr. in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963.

A person becomes morally autonomous by improving various practical skills listed below:
i) Proficiency is recognizing moral problems and issues in engineering.
ii) Skill in comprehending, clarifying and critically assessing arguments on opposing sides of
moral issues.
iii) The ability to form consistent and comprehensive viewpoints based upon consideration of
relevant facts.
iv) Awareness of alternate responses to issues and creative solutions for practical difficulties.
v) Sensitivity to genuine difficulties and subtleties
vi) Increased precision in the use of a common ethical language necessary to express and also
defend one’s views adequately.
vii) Appreciation of possibilities of using rational dialogue in resolving moral conflicts and the
need for tolerance of differences in perspective among orally reasonable people.
viii) A sense of importance of integrating one’s professional life and personal convictions
i.e. maintaining one’s moral integrity.
KOHLBERG’S THEORY
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
• Pre-conventional Level
Whatever benefits oneself or avoids punishment. This is the level of development of all young
children. -Avoid punishment & Gain Reward
• Conventional Level
Uncritical acceptance of one’s family, group or society are accepted as final standard of
morality. Most adults do not mature beyond this stage. -1.Gain Approval & Avoid Disapproval
& 2. Duty & Guilt
• Post-conventional Level
Motivation to do what is morally reasonable for its own sake, rather than solely from ulterior
motives, with also a desire to maintain their moral integrity, self-respect and the respect of other
autonomous individuals. They are ‘Morally autonomous’ people. -1. Agreed upon rights & 2.
Personal moral standards
GILLIGAN’S THEORY
 Pre-conventional Level
This is the same as Kohlberg’s first level in that the person is preoccupied with self centered
reasoning, caring for the needs and desires of self.
 Conventional
Here the thinking is opposite in that, one is preoccupied with not hurting others and a
willingness to sacrifice one’s own interests in order to help or nurture others (or retain
friendship).
 Post-conventional Level
Achieved through context-oriented reasoning, rather than by applying abstract rules ranked in a
hierarchy of importance. Here the individual becomes able to strike a reasoned balance between
caring about other people and pursuing one’s own self-interest while exercising one’s rights.
Differences between the TWO THEORIES

KOHLBERG GILLIGAN
I. Ethics of rules and rights Ethics of care

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

HEINZ’S DILEMMA
The famous example used by Kohlberg was called “Heinz’s dilemma”. A woman living
in Europe would die of cancer unless she was given an expensive drug. Her husband, Heinz,
could not afford it. But the local pharmacist, who had invented the drug at only one tenth of the
sale price refused to sell it to Heinz who could only raise half the required money from
borrowings. Desperation drives Heinz to break into the pharmacy and steal the drug to save his
wife.
When respondents were asked whether and why Heinz should or should not steal a drug to save
his wife from a life-threatening illness. The responses of the individuals were compared with a
prototypical response of individuals at particular stages of moral reasoning. Kohlberg noted that
irrespective of the level of the individual the response could be same, but the reasoning could be
different.
For example, if a child reasoning at a ‘preconventional’ level might say that it is not right to steal
because it is against law and someone might see you.
At a ‘conventional’ level, an individual might argue that it is not right to steal because it is
against law and laws are necessary for society to function.
At a ‘postconventional’ level, one may argue that stealing is wrong because is against law and it
is immoral.
CONSENSUS AND CONTROVERSY
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 engg 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.
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.
PROFESSIONS AND PROFESSIONALISM
Engineers normally imagine that they are servants to organizations rather than a public guardian.
Responsibility to the public is essential for a professional.
Who is a professional?
• Obviously a member of a profession.
What is a profession?
‘JOB’ or ‘OCCUPATION’ that meets the following criteria from which a person earns his
living.
 Knowledge – Exercise of skills, knowledge, judgment and discretion requiring
extensive formal criteria.
 Organization - special bodies by members of the profession to set standard codes of
ethics,
 Public good-The occupation serves some important public good indicated by a code of
ethics.
Who is a professional engineer?
• Has a bachelor’s degree in engineering from an accredited school
• Performs engineering work
• Is a registered and licensed Professional Engineer
• Acts in a morally responsible way while practicing engineering
Differing views on Professionals
“Only consulting engineers who are basically independent and have freedom from coercion can
be called as professionals.” -Robert L.Whitelaw
“Professionals have to meet the expectations of clients and employers. Professional restraints are
to be imposed by only laws and government regulations and not by personal
conscience.” -Samuel Florman
“Engineers are professionals when they 1) attain standards of achievement in education, job
performance or creativity in engineering and 2) accept the most basic moral responsibilities to
the public as well as employers, clients, colleagues and subordinates.”
-Mike Martin & Roland Schinzinger
MOTIVES FOR PROFESSIONALISM
 A desire for interesting and challenging work and the pleasure in the act of changing the world.
 The joy of creative efforts. Where a scientist’s interest is in discovering new technology,
engineers interest is derived from creatively solving practical problems.
 The engineer shares the scientist’s job in understanding the laws and riddles of the universe.
 The sheer magnitude of the nature – oceans, rivers, mountains and prairies – leads engineers to
build engineering marvels like ships, bridges, tunnels, etc., which appeal to human passion.
 The pleasure of being in the presence of machines generating a comforting and absorbing
sense of a manageable, controlled and ordered world.
 Strong sense of helping, of directing efforts towards easing the lot of one’s fellows.
The main pleasure of the engineer will always be to contribute to the well-being of his fellow-
men.
MODELS OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
1. SAVIOR: The representative engineer is a savior who will redeem society from poverty,
inefficiency, waste and the drudgery of manual labour.
2. GUARDIAN: Engineers know, the directions in which and pace at which, technology should
develop.
3. BUREAUCRATIC SERVANT: The engineer as the loyal organization person uses special
skills to solve problems.
4. SOCIAL SERVANT: Engineers, in co-operation with management, have the task of
receiving society’s directives and satisfying society’s desires.
5. SOCIAL ENABLER AND CATALYST: Engineers play a vital role beyond mere
compliance with orders. They help management and society understand their own needs and to
make informed decisions.
6. GAME PLAYER: Engineers are neither servants nor masters of anyone. They play
by the economic game rules that happen to be in effect at a given time.
TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORIES
S.NO TYPES BASED ON

1 Virtue ethics Virtues and vices

2 Utilitarianism Most good for most people

3 Duty ethics Duties to respect persons

4 Rights ethics Human Rights

VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue Ethics
• Focuses on the type of person we should strive to be
• Actions which reflect good character traits (virtues) are inherently right
• Actions which reflect bad character traits (vices) are inherently wrong
• Virtue ethics are tied more to individual behavior than to that of an organization (e.g.
business, government)

Virtue Too much Too less

(Golden mean between extremes)
Courage Foolhardiness Cowardice
Truthfulness Revealing all in violation of tact Being secretive or lacking
and confidentiality in candor
Generosity Wasting one’s resources Being miserly
Friendliness Being annoyingly effusive Sulky or surly

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
 Being morally responsible as a professional.
 Most basic and comprehensive professional virtue.
 Creation of useful and safe technological products while respecting the autonomy of
clients and public, especially in matters of risk taking.
This encompasses a wide variety of the more specific virtues grouped as follows:
1. SELF DIRECTION VIRTUES:
Fundamental virtues in exercising our moral autonomy and responsibility. e.g. self
understanding, humility, good moral judgment, courage, self discipline, perseverance,
commitments, self-respect and dignity
2. PUBLIC SPIRITED VIRTUES:
Focusing on the good of the clients and public affected by the engineers’ work by . not directly
and intentionally harming others i.e. ‘nonmaleficence’.
Benificence, sense of community, generosity are other virtues falling in this category.
3. TEAMWORK VIRTUES:
Enables professionals to work successfully with others. E.g. collegiality, cooperativeness, the
ability to communicate, respect for authority, loyalty to employers and leadership qualities.
4. PROFICIENCY VIRTUES:
Mastery of one’s craft that characterize good engineering practice e.g. competence, diligence,
creativity, self-renewal through continuous education.
MORAL INTEGRITY

Moral integrity is the unity of character on the basis of moral concern, and especially on the basis
of honesty. The unity is consistency among our attitudes, emotions and conduct in relation to
justified moral values.
SELF-RESPECT
1. Valuing oneself in morally appropriate ways.
2,. Integral to finding meaning in one’s life and work
3. A pre-requisite for pursuing other moral ideals and virtues.
4. Self-respect is a moral concept of properly valuing oneself but self-esteem is a
psychological concept of positive attitude towards oneself.
Self-respect takes two forms.
1. Recognition self-respect is properly valuing oneself because of one’s inherent moral worth,
the same worth that every other human being has.
2. Appraisal self-respect is properly valuing ourselves according to how well we meet moral
standards and our personal ideals.
VARIOUS SENSES OF RESPONSIBILITY

Responsibility ascribed by i) virtue, ii) obligations, iii) general moral capacities of people, iv)
liabilities and accountability for actions and v) blameworthiness or praiseworthiness.
1. By virtue: A person is said to be a responsible person when we ascribe a moral virtue to the
person. We expect that the person is regularly concerned to do the right thing, is conscientious
and diligent in meeting obligations. In this sense, professional responsibility is the central virtue
of engineers.
2. By obligation: Moral responsibilities can be thought of as obligations or duties to perform
morally right acts.
3. By general moral capacity: When we view a person as a whole rather than one with respect
to a specific area, we are actually thinking about the active capacity of the person for knowing
how to act in morally appropriate ways e.g. the capacity of children grow as they mature and
learn.
4. By accountability: Responsibility also means being accountable, answerable or liable to
meet particular obligations. The virtue of professional responsibility implies a willingness to be
accountable for one’s conduct.
5. By being blameworthy: When accountability for a wrongdoing is at issue, responsible
becomes a synonym for blameworthy. When right conduct is the issue, the context is
praiseworthiness

CAUSAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Causal Responsibility: consists simply in being a cause of some event. E.g. lightning as being
responsible for a house catching fire.
Legal Responsibility: consists simply in being a cause for harm that was so unlikely and also
unforeseeable that no moral responsibility is involved.
UTILITARIANISM

• That which produces the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people (e.g.
Democracy)
• Tries to achieve a balance between the good and bad consequences of an action
• Tries to maximize the well-being of society and emphasizes what will provide the most
benefits to the largest group of people
• This method is fundamental to many types of engineering analysis, including risk-benefit
analysis and cost-benefit analysis
Drawbacks:
1. Sometimes what is best for the community as a whole is bad for certain individuals in the
community
2. It is often impossible to know in advance which decision will lead to the most
good Organizing Principles to Resolving Ethical Issues
3. Utilitarian thinking
– a standard that promotes those individual actions or rules that produce the greatest total amount
of utility to those affected.
– A code that enjoins engineers to promote the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Preference utilitarianism
– promote those conditions that allow each individual to pursue happiness as he or she conceives
it.
– Two conditions necessary for this: freedom and well-being.
– Practically, for engineers, this advocates cost/benefit
analyses. Problems with Utilitarianism
• Difficult to quantify benefits for ALL those affected.
• “Greatest good” difficult to apply to an all-inclusive population.
• Someone gets “shafted” – approach justifies perpetrating injustice on individuals, i.e.,
someone gets left out.
• Three approaches:
1. Cost/benefit – quantifiable approach. Maximize positive utilities (benefits) against negative
utilities (costs).
2. Act utilitarian – “Will the course of action produce more good than any alternative course
of action that I could take”?
3. Rule utilitarian – “Would utility be maximized if everyone did the same thing in the same
circumstances”? Adoption of commonly accepted rules.
1. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
1. Assess the available options
2. Assess the costs and benefits of each option for the entire audience affected
3. Make the decision that is likely to result in the greatest benefit relative to cost.

2. ACT-UTILITARIANISM:
(professed by John Stuart Mills)
1. Focuses on individual actions, rather than general rules.
2. An act is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people involved in the
particular situation.
3. Rules may be broken whenever doing so will produce the most good in a specific situation.
4 Happiness is the only ‘intrinsic’ good and all others are ‘instrumental’ goods that serve as
the means of happiness.

3. RULE-UTILITARIANISM:
(professed by Richard Brandt)
1. This regards moral values as primary.
2. We should follow the rules and avoid bribes, even when those acts do not have the best
consequences in a particular situation, because the general practice of following rules and not
bribing produce the most overall good
3. Rules should be considered in sets called ‘moral codes’. A moral code is justified when
followed, would maximize the public good more than alternative codes would.
DUTY ETHICS (Immanuel Kant’s view)
Contends that certain acts (or duties) should be performed because they are inherently ethical
such as:

be honest,

keep promises,

do not inflict sufferings on other

people, be fair,

make reparation when you have been unfair,

how gratitude for kindness extended by others

seek to improve own intelligence and

character, develop one’s talents,

don’t commit suicide.

Duties, rather than good consequences, is fundamental.

Individuals who recognize their ethical duties will choose ethically correct moral
actions These duties should meet Kant’s 3 conditions i.e.
1. It should express respect for persons,

People deserve respect because they have capacity to be autonomous and for exercising
goodwill.
 Goodwill is the conscientious and honest effort to do what is right according to universal
principles of duties.

Moral motives and intentions play a prominent role in duty ethics rather than utilitarianism.
2. It is an universal principle

Duties are binding on us only if they are applicable to everyone. They must be
universalisable.
3.It expresses command for autonomous moral agents. Duties prescribe certain actions
categorically, without qualifications or conditions attached. Valid principles of duties
are Categorical Imperatives. They contrast with non-moral commands called Hypothetical
Imperatives which are conditional.

The above ▬► ‘RESPECT for PERSONS’

Drawback of Kant’s duty ethics: It has failed to be sensitive to how principles of duty
can conflict with each other thereby creating Moral dilemmas.
Rawls Development on Kant’s Duty Ethics
Rawls argues that all rational people would agree to abide by 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 most disadvantaged groups.
RIGHTS ETHICS (JOHN LOCKE – 1632-1704)
• Everyone has inherent moral rights
• Everyone has rights that arise from EXISTING (i.e. right to Life, maximum
individual Liberty, and human Dignity are Fundamental Rights).
• Other rights arise as a Consequence.
• Duties arise because people have rights, not vice versa.
• Any act that violates an individual’s moral rights is ethically unacceptable.
• Rights ethics was highly individualistic.
• Rights are primarily entitlements that prevent other people from meddling in one’s life.
These are referred to as Liberty Rights or Negative Rights that place duties on other people not
to interfere with one’s life.
e.g. Individuals do not have rights to life because others have duties not to kill them. Instead,
possessing the right to life is the reason why others ought not to kill them.
Drawbacks
• How do we prioritize the rights of different individuals?
• Rights ethics often promote the rights of individuals at the expense of large groups/society
A.I.Melden’s version of Rights Ethics

Human rights are intimately related to communities of people.

This version is known as POSITIVE WELFARE RIGHTS and is defined as rights to

community benefits for living a minimally decent human life.
EVALUATION OF ETHICAL THEORIES

We are basically not interested in which of the ethical theories is the best. It is believed that there
are areas in which each theory complements others by how they differ.
Procedure for General Evaluation:
1. The theory must be clear and formulated with concepts that are coherent and applicable.
2. It must be internally consistent in that none of its tenets contradicts any other.
3. Neither the theory nor its defense can rely upon false information.
4. It must be sufficiently comprehensive to provide guidance in specific situations of interest to
us.
5. It must be compatible with our most carefully considered moral convictions about concrete
situations.
CUSTOMS and ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Relativism:

Distinction between “morals” (“treatment of others”) and “mores” (“harmless customs”)

Cultural (Descriptive) Relativism:

Factual Claims: “x is considered right in society y at time t” and “is considered wrong in
society z at time t”

Empirical Conclusion: Moralities are relative

This is either true or false (anthropology –a study of mankind , its customs, beliefs, etc.can
figure it out)
Normative (Ethical) Relativism:

Normative Claim: “What is considered right in society x at time t is right for that society”
 A particular culture cannot be judged from outside of that culture.

‘Ethical Relativism’ says that actions are morally right when they are approved by law and
custom.

They are wrong when they violate laws and custom.

Ethical egoism tries to reduce moral reasons to matters of self interest, ‘ethicalrelativism’
attempts to reduce moral values to laws, conventions and customs of particular societies.
Consequences of Normative Relativism

We cannot say other “morals” are inferior to our own society’s

We decide the value of our actions based only on what our particular society thinks

We should show a lot of tolerance for different customs and outlooks in a society in which
we live in. It means that customs can have moral significance in deciding how we should act.
This view is called ‘ethical pluralism’.

Reasons for Acceptance Of Ethical Relativism

The reasons professed for acceptance of ethical relativism is threefold.
1. Laws seem so tangible and clear-cut. They provide a public way ending seemingly endless
disputes about rights and wrongs. But many times, moral reasons seem to be at variance with
laws e.g. apartheid laws.
2. Moral standards vary dramatically from one culture to another. The only kind of objectivity
possible is limited to a given set of laws in a given society. Acknowledging this relativity of
morality encourages the virtue of tolerance of differences among societies.
3. Moral judgments should be made in relation to factors that from case to case, usually making
it impossible to formulate rules which are simple. Customs and laws are usually morally relevant
factors that should be taken into account.

RELIGION and DIVINE COMMAND ETHICS

Ethics and Religion:
Moral issues and religious belief are related in several positive ways.

First, they are shaped over time from the central moral values of major world religions.

Second, religious views often support moral responsibility by providing additional

motivation for being moral.

Third, sometimes religions set a higher moral standard than is conventional.

Societies often benefit from a variety of religions that make prominent particular virtues,
inspiring their members to pursue them beyond what is ordinarily seen as morally obligatory.
Divine Command Ethic:
 This says that an act which is right is commanded by god and the one which is wrong is
forbidden by God.

The difficulty in this is to know precisely what God’s commands are and in knowing
whether God exists.
We can view that moral reasons are not reducible to religious matters, although religious belief
may provide an added inspiration for responding to them.
Uses Of Ethical Theories
1. Ethical theories aid in identifying the moral considerations or reasons that constitute a
dilemma.
2. They provide a precise sense of what kinds of information are relevant to solving moral
development.
3. They sometimes, offer ways to rank the relevant moral considerations in order of
importance and provide a rough guidance in solving moral problems.
4. The theories help us identify the full moral ramifications of alternative courses of
action, urging a wide perspective on the moral implications of the options and providing a
systematic framework of comparing alternatives.
5. The theories augment the precision with which we use moral terms and they provide
frame works for moral reasoning when discussing moral issues with colleagues..