SLIDE 1 – INTRODUCTORY SLIDE 幻灯片1-介绍性幻灯片

Ethical theories provide part of the decision-making foundation for Decision Making When Ethics Are In Play because these theories represent the viewpoints from which individuals seek guidance as they make decisions. Each theory emphasizes different points – a different decision-making style or a decision rule—such as predicting the outcome and following one’s duties to others in order to reach what the individual considers an ethically correct decision. In order to understand ethical decision making, it is important for students to realize that not everyone makes decisions in the same way, using the same information, employing the same decision rules. In order to further understand ethical theory, there must be some understanding of a common set of goals that decision makers seek to achieve in order to be successful. Four of these goals include beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy, and justice.
伦理学理论为决策提供了部分决策依据因为这些理论代表了人们在做决定时寻求指导的观点。每一种理论都强调不同的观点——不同的决策风格或决策规则——例如预测结果和遵循自己对他人的职责，以达到个人认为在道德上正确的决策。为了理解道德决策，重要的是让学生意识到，不是每个人都以同样的方式做出决定，使用同样的信息，采用同样的决策规则。为了进一步了解伦理学理论，必须有一些共同的一套目标，决策者寻求实现，以获得成功的理解。其中四个目标包括有益、最小伤害、尊重自主和正义。

SLIDE 2 - ETHICAL PRINCIPLES 幻灯片2-道德原则

Beneficence
The principle of beneficence guides the decision maker to do what is right and good.
This priority to “do good” makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an ethical
dilemma acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which states
that we should attempt to generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the
world. This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest amount of good because people benefit from the most good. This principle is mainly
associated with the utilitarian ethical theory discussed later in this set of notes.
Least Harm
Similar to beneficence, least harm deals with situations in which no choice appears beneficial. In such cases, decision makers seek to choose to do the least harm possible and to do
harm to the fewest people. Students might argue that people have a greater responsibility
to “do no harm” than to take steps to benefit others. For example, a student has a larger
responsibility to simply walk past a teacher in the hallway rather than to make derogatory
remarks about that teacher as he/she walks past even though the student had failed that
teacher’s class.
Respect for Autonomy
This principle states that decision making should focus on allowing people to be autonomous—to be able to make decisions that apply to their lives. Thus, people should have
control over their lives as much as possible because they are the only people who completely understand their chosen type of lifestyle. Ask students if they agree. Are there
limits to autonomy? Each individual deserves respect because only he/she has had those
exact life experiences and understands his emotions, motivations, and physical capabilities
in such an intimate manner. In essence, this ethical principle is an extension of the ethical principle of beneficence because a person who is independent usually prefers to have
control over his life experiences in order to obtain the lifestyle that he/she enjoys.
Justice
The justice ethical principle states that decision makers should focus on actions that are
fair to those involved. This means that ethical decisions should be consistent with the
ethical theory unless extenuating circumstances that can be justified exist in the case. This
also means that cases with extenuating circumstances must contain a significant and vital
difference from similar cases that justify the inconsistent decision. Ask students if they
describe what extenuating circumstances might be.
行善
仁慈的原则指导决策者做正确的事和善事。
这种“行善”的优先顺序提供了道德视角和可能的解决方案
困境是可以接受的。 该原则也与效用原则相关，其中规定
我们应该努力在世界范围内产生最大的善与恶的比例
世界。 这一原则规定，伦理理论应努力实现最大数量的善，因为人们从最大善中受益。 这个原则主要是
与本套笔记后面讨论的功利主义伦理理论相关。
伤害最小
与仁慈类似，最小伤害处理的是没有选择似乎有益的情况。 在这种情况下，决策者寻求选择尽可能减少伤害并采取行动
伤害最少的人。 学生可能会争辩说人们有更大的责任
“不造成伤害”胜过采取措施造福他人。 例如，一个学生有一个较大的
有责任在走廊里简单地走过老师而不是贬义
尽管学生没有通过该老师，但当他/她走过时对他/她的评论
老师的课。
尊重自主权
该原则指出，决策应侧重于让人们自主——能够做出适用于他们生活的决定。 因此，人们应该有
尽可能地控制自己的生活，因为他们是唯一完全了解自己选择的生活方式的人。 询问学生是否同意。 在那儿
自主权的限制？ 每个人都值得尊重，因为只有他/她拥有这些
准确的生活经历并了解他的情绪、动机和身体能力
以如此亲密的方式。 从本质上讲，这一伦理原则是仁慈伦理原则的延伸，因为独立的人通常更愿意拥有
控制自己的生活经历，以获得他/她喜欢的生活方式。
正义
正义伦理原则指出，决策者应该关注符合正义的行动。
对相关人员公平。 这意味着道德决策应该与
道德理论，除非案件中存在可以证明合理的情有可原的情况。 这
还意味着具有情有可原的情况的案件必须包含重要且重要的内容
与类似案例的差异证明了不一致决策的合理性。 询问学生是否
描述可能存在哪些情有可原的情况。

SLIDE 3 – FORMS OF ETHICAL THEORIES 幻灯片3——伦理学理论的形式

For individuals, the ethical theory they employ for decision making guidance emphasizes aspects of an ethical dilemma important to them and leads them to the most ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. Four broad categories of ethical theory include deontology, utilitarianism, rights, and virtues.
对于个人来说，他们所采用的伦理理论，作为决策指导，强调了对他们重要的伦理困境的各个方面，并根据伦理理论本身的指导方针，引导他们做出最符合伦理道德的解决方案。道德理论的四大范畴包括义务论、功利主义、权利和美德。

Deontology
The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. This means
that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because
upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. For instance, a deontologist
will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who adheres to
deontological theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the
individual’s set duties.
Deontology contains many positive attributes, but it also contains flaws. One flaw is that
there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s duties. For instance, a businessperson may decide that it is his/her duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this
appears to be something good, we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty.
Ask students what reasons they might provide for this behavior. Sometimes, a person’s
duties are in conflict. For instance, if the business person who must be on time to meetings is
running late, how is he/she supposed to drive? Is speeding breaking his/her duty to society to
uphold the law, or is the businessperson supposed to arrive at the meeting late, not fulfilling
the duty to be on time? Ask students how they would rectify the conflicting obligations to
arrive at an a clear ethically-correct resolution. Also ask students to bring into play the
consideration of the welfare of others as a result of the business person’s decision.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarian ethical theories are based on one’s ability to predict the consequences of an
action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the
one that is ethically correct. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and
rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism subscribes precisely to the definition of utilitarianism—a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal
feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism takes into account the
law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but
through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time.
Both act and rule utilitarianism have disadvantages. Although people can use their life
experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no one can be certain that his/her predictions
will be accurate. Uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian decision maker appear unethical as time passes, as the choice made did not benefit the most
people as predicted.
Another assumption that a utilitarian decision maker must make concerns his/her ability
to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. But,
comparing material gains, such as money, against intangible gains, such as happiness, is
very difficult since their qualities differ to such a large extent.
An act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the maximum good. Thus,
one individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater number of
people. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that
benefits a majority of people.
道义论
道义论类别的伦理理论认为，当伦理发挥作用时，人们在做出决策时应该遵守自己的义务和责任。 这意味着
一个人将履行对另一个人或社会的义务，因为
坚守自己的职责被认为是道德上正确的。 例如，义务论者
将始终信守对朋友的承诺并遵守法律。 一个坚持的人
义务论理论将产生非常一致的决策，因为它们将基于
个人的既定职责。
义务论包含许多积极的属性，但也包含缺陷。 一个缺陷是
决定个人职责没有任何理由或逻辑基础。 例如，商人可能认为他/她有责任始终准时参加会议。 虽然这
看起来是件好事，我们不知道为什么这个人选择将此作为他的职责。
询问学生他们可能会为这种行为提供什么原因。 有时候，一个人的
职责发生冲突。 例如，如果必须准时参加会议的商务人士是
迟到了，他/她应该怎样开车？ 是否超速违背了他/她对社会的责任
遵守法律，或者商人应该迟到，不履行职责
准时上班的义务？ 询问学生他们将如何纠正相互冲突的义务
达成明确、道德正确的解决方案。 还要求学生发挥
由于商人的决定而考虑他人的福祉。
功利主义
功利主义伦理理论基于一个人预测某事后果的能力。
行动。 对于功利主义者来说，为大多数人带来最大利益的选择就是
一个在道德上正确的人。 功利主义有两种类型：行为功利主义和
功利主义统治。 行为功利主义恰恰符合功利主义的定义——一个人做出对大多数人有利的行为，而不管个人的利益如何。
感受或法律等社会约束。 规则功利主义考虑到
法律并关心公平。 规则功利主义者寻求让大多数人受益，但
通过最公平、最公正的手段。 因此，规则功利主义的额外好处是它重视正义，同时也包含仁慈。
行为功利主义和规则功利主义都有缺点。 虽然人可以用一生
尝试预测结果的经验，没有人可以确定他/她的预测
将会是准确的。 不确定性可能会导致意想不到的结果，随着时间的推移，功利主义决策者会显得不道德，因为所做的选择并没有带来最大利益
人们如预料的那样。
功利主义决策者必须做出的另一个假设涉及他/她的能力
以类似的规模比较各种类型的后果。 但，
将物质收益（例如金钱）与无形收益（例如幸福）进行比较
非常困难，因为他们的素质差异很大。
行为功利主义决策者关心的是实现最大利益。 因此，
为了让更多人受益，可能会侵犯一个人的权利
人们。 换句话说，如果压迫个人会导致以下问题的解决方案，那么行为功利主义并不总是关心个人的正义、仁慈或自主。
造福于大多数人。

Still another source of challenge with act utilitarian decision makers occurs when an
individual faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences changes in
those conditions. The change in conditions may lead to a change in the original decision—being be nice to someone one moment and then dislike them the next moment
because the situation has changed, and liking the person is no longer beneficial to the
most people.
In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Recall the example of
the business person running late for a meeting. Suppose the business person happens
to be the CEO, who may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time as the members of the company will benefit from this decision. The CEO
may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he/she is running late.
Yet, the CEO believes that he/she should follow the law because this benefits society.
Simultaneously, he/she believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting
because it is a meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario.
Rights
In ethical theories based on rights, the rights established by a society are protected and
given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a
large population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they
have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may
borrow her laptop for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the
laptop now has a right to the laptop in the afternoon.
A major complication of this theory on a larger scale is that one must decipher what the
characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants
to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants
to enact, it must decide what the society’s goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in
order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another
ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in
America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the
Constitution. One of the goals of the Founding Fathers’ of America was to uphold this
right to freedom of religion.
Virtue
The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his/her character rather than by an action
that may deviate from his/her normal behavior. It takes the person’s morals, reputation,
and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by
a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person’s character and will
judge the friend accordingly. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good
standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be
able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply
forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation
for academic misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of
his/her consistent past of unethical behavior.
One weakness of virtue ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person’s
change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the
past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither
of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other
hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go
unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him/her.
行为功利主义决策者面临的另一个挑战是，当
个体面临一组可变的条件，然后突然经历变化
那些条件。 条件的变化可能会导致最初的决定发生改变——前一刻对某人好，下一刻就不喜欢他们
因为情况变了，喜欢这个人对自己已经没有好处了
大多数人。
在规则功利主义中，存在规则冲突的可能性。 回想一下这个例子
商务人士开会迟到。 假设业务人员发生
作为首席执行官，他可能认为按时参加重要会议在道德上是正确的，因为公司成员将从这一决定中受益。 首席执行官
如果他/她迟到了，他/她可能会遇到关于什么是道德正确的冲突想法。
然而，首席执行官认为他/她应该遵守法律，因为这对社会有利。
同时，他/她相信准时参加会议在道德上是正确的
因为这是一次对社会也有益的会议。 对于这种情况似乎没有道德上正确的答案。
权利
在以权利为基础的伦理理论中，社会确立的权利受到保护，并且
给予最高优先级。 权利被认为在道德上是正确和有效的，因为
大量民众支持他们。 个人也可以将权利授予他人，如果他们
有能力和资源这样做。 例如，一个人可能会说她的朋友可能
借用她下午的笔记本电脑。 被赋予借用能力的朋友
笔记本电脑现在已经拥有了下午笔记本电脑的权利。
从更大的范围来看，这一理论的一个主要复杂之处在于，我们必须破译什么是
权利的特征存在于社会中。 社会必须确定它想要什么权利
维护并给予其公民。 为了让社会确定它想要什么权利
为了颁布，它必须决定社会的目标和道德优先事项是什么。 因此，在
为了使权利理论有用，它必须与另一种理论结合起来使用
能够一致地解释社会目标的伦理理论。 例如在
美国人民有选择宗教的权利，因为这项权利在美国得到维护
宪法。 美国开国元勋的目标之一就是坚持这一点
宗教自由权。
美德
美德伦理理论通过他/她的品格而不是行为来判断一个人
这可能会偏离他/她的正常行为。 它需要一个人的道德、声誉、
在对被认为不道德的不寻常和不规则行为进行评级时，应考虑动机和动机。 例如，如果一个人抄袭了一段后来被检测到的段落
同伴，熟悉这个人的同伴就会了解这个人的性格和意志
相应地判断这个朋友。 如果抄袭者通常遵守规则并具有良好的
站在他的同事中，遇到抄袭段落的同行可能是
能够更宽容地评价他的朋友。 也许研究人员度过了一个深夜，只是
忘记适当地注明其来源。 反之，一个有名望的人
因为学术不端行为更有可能因抄袭而受到严厉的评判，因为
他/她过去一贯的不道德行为。
美德伦理理论的一个弱点是它没有考虑到一个人的
道德品质的改变。 例如，一位科学家可能在以下方面犯了错误：
老实说，过去可能有与信誉良好的科学家相同的深夜故事。 两者都不
这些科学家中的一些人故意剽窃，但这种行为仍然犯了。 在另一
一方面，研究者的性格可能会突然从道德转变为不道德
直到有大量针对他/她的证据出现之前，他/她才被注意到。