§4 Practice: Applied Ethics

Ethical theories are not just museum pieces; they are sets of tools we use to dismantle complex problems in the real world. To be a Reasonable Person, you must practice applying these frameworks to modern dilemmas.

4.1 Predictive Policing and Racial Justice

Modern law enforcement often uses algorithms to predict where crimes are likely to happen and who is likely to commit them. However, if the historical data used to train the algorithm is biased (e.g., higher arrest rates for certain groups due to over-policing rather than higher crime rates), the algorithm may simply automate that bias.

• The Deontological Critique: A Kantian might argue that predictive policing violates the Categorical Imperative because it treats individuals not as autonomous beings responsible for their own current actions, but as “data points” in a category. It fails to treat people as “ends in themselves” by judging them on what others in their demographic have done.

• The Utilitarian Defense: A supporter might argue that if the algorithm effectively reduces crime and saves lives, the “Greatest Good” is served, even if it results in some groups being scrutinized more heavily.

• The Argument from Fairness: Philosophers like John Rawls (using the “Veil of Ignorance”) would ask: “If you didn’t know which race you would be born as, would you agree to a system that uses these algorithms?” If the answer is no, the system is fundamentally unjust.

4.2 The Moral Status of Reproductive Rights

The debate over abortion is a classic clash between competing moral “duties” and “rights.”

• The Pro-Life Argument (Deontology): Often rests on the Divine Command Theory or a Kantian duty to protect life. If a fetus is considered a person, then there is a universal duty not to kill, regardless of the consequences for the mother.

• The Pro-Choice Argument (Utilitarianism/Care Ethics):

  • Utilitarianism: Focuses on the well-being of the pregnant person and the future child. If the person is not ready to be a parent, forcing them to give birth could lead to a lifetime of suffering for both.

  • Care Ethics: Looks at the specific relationship and the bodily autonomy of the mother. It argues that a person has a “right to care” for their own life and future, and that no abstract rule should force a person to sacrifice their body for another’s potential.

4.3 Virtue Ethics and the “Cold-Hearted Benefactor”

Imagine a billionaire who donates $50 million to build a hospital, but only because they want the publicity and a tax write-off. They actually hate helping people.

• The Consequentialist (Utilitarian) View: “The hospital exists and people are being cured. The action is Moral because the outcome is positive.”

• The Virtue Ethicist View: “The person is not virtuous. While the result is good, the person is acting out of greed and vanity, not generosity. Because they lack the ‘habit’ of kindness, they haven’t achieved Eudaimonia (flourishing).”

• The Stohr Critique: Philosopher Karen Stohr argues that while the money helps, the “cold-heartedness” of the benefactor matters because morality is about how we relate to one another as human beings, not just how we move resources around.

§4 Summary Table: Applying the Tools

CHAPTER 13: Final Recap

Critical thinking in morality moves us from “I feel this is wrong” to “I can explain why this is wrong using reason.”

• Morality is about “ought,” while Law is about “must” (§1).

• Consequentialism looks at the end of the road; Deontology looks at the road itself (§2).

• Virtue Ethics asks who you are; Care Ethics asks who you are connected to (§3).

• Applied Ethics is where we test these tools against the messy reality of 21st-century life (§4).