Ch#3 Framing the Problem

OSHA
• Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. www.osha.gov
• In 1977, OSHA issued an emergency
temporary standard requiring that level of air
exposure to Benzene in the workplace not
exceed 1 part per million(PPM)
 OSHA
• OSHA’s authority seemed clear in the
occupational safety and health act which
provides that “ no employee will suffer
material impairment of health or functional
capacity even if such employee has regular
exposure to the hazard dealt with by such
standard for the period of his working life”
• The law went on to state that “other
considerations shall be the latest available
scientific data and material in the field, the
feasibility of the standards and experience
gained under this and other health and safety
laws”
 Introduction
• Legal and Moral disagreements.
• We usually experience moral disagreement and
controversy within a context of agreement.
• Importance of getting clear about the
fundamental facts and concepts relevant to the
case at hand.
• People come to different moral conclusions
because they do not view the facts in the same
way.
 Determining the Facts
• The importance of facts in a moral controversy,
following three theses about factual issues:
• 1. Often, moral disagreements turn out to be
disagreements over the relevant facts.
• 2. Factual issues are sometimes very difficult to
resolve.
• 3. Once the factual issues are clearly isolated,
disagreement can reemerge on another and
often more clearly defined level.
 Application Issues
• If those who disagree are operating from
factual premises, there might well be
disagreement about whether certain concepts
apply in particular circumstances.
 Utilitarian Thinking
• Maximum happiness of maximum numbers.
• Human happiness is primary principle.
• Everything is good if it gives happiness.
• The greatest good for the greatest number
 UTILITARIAN THINKING
• Utilitarian approach in addressing moral
problems.
• Three prominent ways;
• The Cost–Benefit Approach (often used in
engineering)
• Greatest amount of good
• Greater aggregate good at the expense of a
vulnerable minority.
 Cont
• Cost–benefit analysis is sometimes referred to
as risk–benefit analysis
• Cost–benefit analysis involves three steps:
• Assess the available options.
• Assess the costs (measured in monetary
terms) and the benefits (also measured in
monetary terms) of each option.
• Make the decision that is likely to result in the
greatest benefit relative to cost.
• The course of action that produces the
greatest benefit relative to cost-benefit
analysis. (engineering perspectives).
• Sometimes it can be considered as straight
forward matter.
• A difficulty with the utilitarian standard is that
it sometimes favor the greater aggregate good
at the cost of vulnerable minority.
 The Act Utilitarian Approach
• Utilitarian approach to problems do not
necessarily require that values always be
rendered in strictly quantitative terms.
• Will this course of action result in more good
than any alternative course of action that
available?
• This act utilitarian approach is often helpful in
analyzing options in situations that call for
making moral decisions.
 The Act Utilitarian Approach
• 1. Identify the available options in this situation.
• 2. Determine the appropriate audience for the options,
keeping in mind the problems in determining the
audience.
• 3. Bear in mind that whatever option is selected, it sets
an example for others, and anyone else in relevantly
similar circumstances would be justified in making a
similar selection.
• 4. Decide which available option is likely to bring about
the greatest good for the appropriate audience, taking
into account harms as well as benefits. 
• This act utilitarian approach is often helpful in analyzing
options in making moral decisions.
 The Rule Utilitarian Approach
• One of the difficulties facing the act utilitarian
approach is that often there are serious
problems in trying to determine all of the
consequences of our actions.
• There are coordination problems that are best
resolved by having commonly accepted rules
that enable us to predict reliably what others
will do.
 Cont.
• An important question is, ‘‘Would utility be
maximized if everyone acted similarly?’’
• Rules that are justified by their utility.
• Rule utilitarian thinking is commonly
employed in this broader setting.
• broader concerns with the adoption or
support of appropriate rules, social policies, or
practices.
• A clear example is rules of the road. Traffic
lights, stop signs and other conventional signs
for the road safety and efficient ravel.
• Rules:
• Engineers may unilaterally substitute cheaper
parts for those specified in the contract.
• Engineers may not unilaterally substitute
cheaper parts for those specified in the contract.
 RESPECT FOR PERSONS
• Those actions or rules are right that regard
each person as worthy of respect as a moral
agent.
• From the standpoint of respect for persons,
the precepts of common morality protect the
moral agency of individual human beings.
– GOLDEN RULE APPROACH
– The Self-Defeating Approach
– The Rights Approach
 Golden Rule Approach
• Universalizability
 The Golden Rule Approach
• Putting yourself in others shoes.
• Does this approach solves the critical
problems?
• Does this approach seems to be adequate in
solving the analytical issues?
• What else do we need?
• Do we need to really put our selves in other
shoes?
 The Self-Defeating Approach
• Requirements of universalizability and
reversibility are vital steps in satisfying that
standard.
• Additional features of universalizability as they
apply to the notion of respect for persons.
• To proceed anyway, treating myself as an
exception to the rule is to pursue my own
good at the expense of others.
 The Rights Approach
• Respecting the moral agency of others requires
that we accord others the rights necessary to
exercise their agency and to pursuing their well-
being.
• What are rights?
• For every right we have, others have
corresponding duties of noninterference.
• For instance you have the right to live, others
have the duty not to kill you and vice versa.
 cont
• set of steps that could be taken:
1. Identify the basic obligations, values, and interests at
stake, noting any conflicts.
2. Analyze the action or rule to determine what options
are available and what rights are at stake.
3. Determine the audience of the action or rule (those
whose rights would be affected).
4. Evaluate the seriousness of the rights infringements
that would occur with each option, taking into account
both the tier level of rights and the number of violations
or infringements involved.
5. Make a choice that seems likely to produce the least
serious rights infringements.