Pontifical and Royal UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS The Catholic University of the Philippines THE GRADUATE SCHOOL Thomas

Aquinas Research Complex Espaa, Manila

APPLYING ETHICAL THEORIES

In partial fulfillment On the requirements in GS 500 (ST. THOMAS ON CRITICAL THINKING)

Submitted to: Dr. El Mithra M. Dela Cruz

Submitted by: John Henry O. Valencia, RN, RM, MANc Master of Arts in Nursing Student

EXPLOITING A CALAMITY (Philippine Star, Wednesday, November 13, 2013, p.16)

As if the grievous toll from Super Typhoon Yolanda is not enough, some groups are adding to the suffering in the disaster areas. In Tacloban, looters and muggers are compounding the victimsmisery. The Philippine Red Cross and military personnel also reported that members of the communist New Peoples Army threatened relief workers and tried to seize the goods for delivery to evacuees from Tacloban. Residents are trying to leave Tacloban because even those with money cant find goods to buy for their day-to-day survival. The international community has poured in aid and the government has begun distributing relief goods. But because of the enormity of the disaster, relief operations have been slow and the goods cant reach victims quickly enough.

This cannot be solved by looking and taking relief goods from volunteer workers at gunpoint. Hundreds of government forces have been deployed to maintain peace and order in the typhoon-hit areas. QUESTION: Is looting justified in this situation? Explain.

ANSWER: Survival instinct is a genetic impulse, a natural behavior universal among all living organisms. However, can self-preservation be used to justify theft or acts of violence? Aristotle once made a case that there are some things which are always wrong he enumerates murder, adultery and theft to be examples. If we take the standard interpretation of his ethos, then the looting during calamities certainly counts as evil not to mention illegal. However, modern philosophers present a better interpretation, by saying that theft is only done if there was a deliberate intention to deprive the owner of an advantage or if the perpetrators committed the deed to unfairly advantage themselves. If we take that translation, then the victims hording food, water, medicine and first aid equipment are justified because they did so in order to survive. But unfortunately they were not the only ones; on this issue, video footages showed that a sizable number of people stole non2|Page

essential items such as jewelry, appliances, gadgets and toys from establishments. Surely no rational person would stand up for this kind of behavior. Opinions were aplenty in social media that these actions can still be tolerated because the looters would be able to sell these non-essential goods and in turn use the money to purchase essential goods. The only problem with that logic is that the establishments especially the medium and small-sized businesses would be making a loss and be disadvantaged as a result. This violates the more liberal interpretation of Aristotles ethos. Surely, Rolex watches amounting thousands of dollars is needed to buy food for an average family? Stealing may be an indecent act and one which discredits human dignity, but we can concede there are situations where it can be tolerated. However, it is very important to draw a moral line and know how far stealing can go before it is considered an injustice. First, the act of taking must be the only way to achieve the goal at hand. Second, the deed must occur for the purpose of preserving a greater good at hand in this case, that is ones health. Third, taking must treat those goods that preserve ownership according to their true value. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, looting was rampant as well but police were largely tolerant of it at first. Many ethicists drew an analogy that breaking into a pharmacy to obtain medicine to save a diabetic relative was the right thing to do. But the thieves quickly targeted gun stores soon after and robbery at gunpoint became common in the streets. Another theory that may justify that looting is not right in this situation is the Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative asks us to act in a way that we can will to be a universal law. In other words, it asks us to behave in a rational way that would be rational for anyone. If it is right for me to defend myself when attacked, then it is right for everyone to defend themselves in self defense. Robert Johnson describes the categorical imperative as a method to find out if an action is permissible using four steps:

3|Page

First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible. Applying this to the situation presented, Stealing is wrong whenever it would be inappropriate for someone to steal from us, such as when they want something without paying for it. However, if stealing is necessary to survive because no one is willing to share food, then it might be necessary to steal out of self-respect. Another theory is the Stoic Virtue Ethics. Simply put, Stoic virtue ethics is a theory that true moral beliefs and thoughts tend to lead to appropriate emotions and actions. However, Stoic virtue ethics traditionally has five parts: 1. It argues that virtue is the ultimate value that overrides all other values. 2. It defines virtue in terms of having true evaluative beliefs, emotions based on those evaluative beliefs, and behaving according to those evaluative beliefs. (Evaluative beliefs are value judgments, such as pleasure is preferable.) 3. It states that true (or well reasoned) evaluative beliefs and thoughts tend to give us appropriate emotions and actions. Positive evaluative beliefs lead to positive emotional responses and negative evaluative beliefs lead to negative emotional responses. 4. It states that we can know what is preferable from our instincts, which was given to us from God (Universal Reason). In particular, we have an impulse to care for others both emotionally and through action, which indicates the fact that caring for others is preferable. 5. It states that everything that happens is for the best because it was preordained by God (Universal Reason) and therefore there is no reason for us to have a negative emotional response.

4|Page

In the scenario, it is wrong to steal insofar as it is motivated by inappropriate beliefs and thoughts, such as, I need to have more money. It might be necessary to steal to act on sufficiently important rational preference, such as a preference to survive when stealing is needed to survive; but pleasure would not be an important enough preference worth promoting to warrant theft. For one thing we care for others and dont like others to suffer theft, and the expectation of pleasure would not override the importance of helping rather than harming others. And the last theory that might explain my stand is the theory of Rosss Intuitionism, Ross s theoretical understanding of morality explained in The Right and the Good was not meant to be comprehensive and determine right and wrong in every situation, but he doesnt think it is ever going to be possible to do so. He denies that there is one single overarching moral principle or rule. Instead, he thinks we can make moral progress one step at a time by learning more and more about our moral duties, and do our best at balancing conflicting obligations and values. And with this it only states that it is wrong to steal insofar as it causes people pain, but it might be morally preferable to steal than to die. Our duties to our children could also justify stealing when its the only option to feed them.

5|Page

SLIDING BACK (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Tuesday, November 12, 2013, p. A12)

The Philippines again faces the risk of being included in a US government list of socalled notorious markets where intellectual property (IPR) is not protected.

Each year, the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) prepares a so-called Special 301 Report that addresses significant concerns with respect to 95 of Americas trading partners, including the Philippines. In 2010, the USTR began publishing the notorious markets list separately from the annual Special 301 Report. This identifies selected markets, including online markets that are engaged in piracy and counterfeiting.

In separate filings submitted to the USTR, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) sought the Philippines inclusion in the physical piracy notorious markets list. The BSA is the leading global advocate for the software industry and has world-class companies like Apple and Microsoft as members. It noted that software piracy was by far the biggest form of copyright piracy in dollar terms, with the worldwide commercial value of illegally installed software at more than $63B in 2011.

Studies have noted that the Philippines had long recognized the significance of IPR protection, given the countrys pool of talents in science and technology, biotechnology, engineering, arts and music.

Despite all these, IPR infringements in the country remained a problem. Among the main IPR infringements cited were optical media piracy, copyright and trademark violations, and importation of counterfeit merchandise, software piracy and even cable television piracy.

QUESTION: Is the use of pirated software justified simply because licensed software is expensive? Prove your point.

6|Page

ANSWER:

As we know, software piracy or copyright infringement of software is an act of using unauthorized copy of computer software. With the advanced technology nowadays such as peerto-peer (p2p) file sharing, software piracy has become easier than ever before. However, what is software piracy an ethical behavior? Let us first analyze the ethical issue of software piracy by using the ethic theories such as Kantian theory, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism and social contract theory.

According to Kantianism, an action is considered ethical when it is willed to be a universal moral law. So lets consider the universal rule: Everyone should use pirated software. If everyone in the world uses pirated software, there would be no profit for the software companies to produce commercialized products. Therefore, eventually, these companies would not produce computer software anymore or they would produce free software only. That would result in people having no more software to pirate. Thus we can clearly see that there is a logical contradiction in this universal rule: Everyone should use pirated software. Therefore, according to Kantianism, it is not ethical to use pirated software. Furthermore, Kantianism also says that we should act in a way that we always treat ourselves and other people as the end itself rather than the means to an end. When people pirates software, they have already treated the companies producing these software as the mean to the end because these companies receive no reward for their effort of making these software. As a result, software piracy is an unethical act according to Kantianism.

If we look at it by using utilitarianism, software piracy is also not an ethical behavior. When a person use a pirated copy of a software, the company that make the software would experience a loss in their profit, which would in turn affecting all the people working in that company. On the other hand, the only one that benefit from the action is the person that use the pirated software as he saved some money. However, the person will not receive the full benefit from the software as he would not get the customer service provided by the software company. Thus, since there are more people affected by the act of using pirated software than the people that benefit from it, software piracy is not ethical according to act utilitarianism.

7|Page

Similarly, considering the rule utilitarianism theory, if everyone uses pirated software, it would most likely cause the software companies to go bankrupt as there is no profit to all their investments in making these products. That would ultimately result in all the people working at these companies to be out of job and become unemployed, which would affect the employees themselves as well as their family. Furthermore, the economy will also be negatively affected by the bankruptcy of those companies. On the other hands, people would be able to save some of their money by using the pirated copy of the software instead of buying it legally. However, people will not get the customer support for their software because they use the pirated copy of the software. As we can see, people are affected more heavily due to piracy compared to the extent of the benefit that piracy brings, thus the damage outweigh the benefit. Therefore, software piracy is also considered unethical by utilitarianism theory. Lastly, lets look at the social contract theory. According to the social contract theory, an action is ethical when it is made into a set of rules that rational people will agree to accept for the benefit of the community. If everyone would use pirated software, all the software companies would most likely go bankrupt, causing all their employees to lose their jobs and become unemployed. That would cause the unemployment rate to go up, affecting the community negatively. Therefore, the act of software piracy is unethical according to social contract theory.

In conclusion, based on the four ethic theories of Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism as well as social contract theory, software piracy is considered an unethical behavior. However, although most people know that software piracy is not ethical, there are still many who perform that act. So are there any reasons why people still pirate software despite knowing that it is not a good thing?

8|Page

REMOTE PARKING

Several car companies produce models with a remote parking assistance feature that allows a driver to pull a car close to a parking space, and then get out. After exiting the vehicle, the driver presses a button on his keychain that tells the car to park it automatically. This feature is very useful for parking in a narrow space and for parallel parking. The car uses a system of sensors that emit ultrasonic sounds to detect cars, the curb, and pedestrians. Many versions also include video cameras to monitor the location of the curb and any painted parking-space lines. A computer in the car uses this information to automatically pull the car into the space, while avoiding collisions.

Imagine the following scenario: A driver pulls up next to a parking space, checks to make sure the space is clear, presses the button to start automatic parking, and then walks away. After the drivers back is turned, a small child runs into the space and is seriously injured. Who is primarily morally responsible for the childs injury? ANSWER:
Sometimes good judgment can compel us to act illegally. Should a self-driving vehicle get to make that same decision?

If a small tree branch pokes out onto a highway and theres no incoming traffic, wed simply drift a little into the opposite lane and drive around it. But an automated car might come to a full stop, as it dutifully observes traffic laws that prohibit crossing a double-yellow line. This unexpected move would avoid bumping the object in front, but then cause a crash with the human drivers behind it. Should we trust robotic cars to share our road, just because they are programmed to obey the law and avoid crashes? But there are important differences between humans and machines that could warrant a stricter test. For one thing, were reasonably confident that human drivers can exercise judgment in a wide range of dynamic situations that dont appear in a standard 40-minute driving test; we

9|Page

presume they can act ethically and wisely. Autonomous cars are new technologies and wont have that track record for quite some time. With regards to the scenario presented, there will be three possible persons responsible on the childs injury namely; the car company who built the vehicle, the driver and the owner of the car and lastly, whom I think is the primary responsible was the mother of the child. Let me explain the reason why they are responsible. First was the Car Company, they are morally responsible in such a way that they should foresee such scenarios before putting this car on the market. As a car company they have the moral responsibility as well as social responsibility to do no harm as stated on the principle of non-malificence. They should probably install an automatic stop on the cars machine when its infrared detected someone crossing its way. But this responsibility of the Company was very little to be noticed and to be addressed. The second was the Car Driver, it was clearly stated on the scenario that the driver pulls up next to a parking space, checks to make sure the space is clear, presses the button to start automatic parking, and then walks away. It is right that the driver checks clearly the space but he should not walk away as long as the car was not yet done taking its place on the car park. And lastly the primary responsible was the mother of the child. As a parent, we have a responsibility to take care of our child and not leave them alone on such area like a car park.

10 | P a g e