1 ethics in or november 2003 j. n. hooker carnegie mellon university

Ethical theory: Utilitarian ethics 1

Ethics in ORNovember 2003

J. N. Hooker

Carnegie Mellon University


Outline Ethical theory

Utilitarian, Kantian, Aristotelian, & cross-cultural Employment ethics Professional ethics

What it is, OR/MS, teaching Intellectual property

Legal and ethical aspects Your issues


Along the way… Will examine some issues:

What is wrong with cheating on an exam? Is it OK to break an employment contract to take

a better job? Should one teach to maximize ratings on course

evaluations? What is the ethical status of intellectual property?

Will look at some mathematical modeling of ethics.


Ethical theoryUtilitarian ethics


Origin of utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham applied utilitarianism to criminal justice in Britain. Punishment should maximize utility, not exact

retribution. What is utility? You decide. Just stick with your

definition. For example, deterrence and rehabilitation may be

more effective than retribution.

The idea is to be consistent. Utilitarianism is a formal conditional of rationality.


Measuring utility It is hard to measure pleasure, happiness, etc. But one can have more or less of it.

When utilities cannot be compared, there is no obligation.

Utility functions can perhaps be calibrated with lotteries, etc.

Utilitarianism reduces ethics to single-criterion maximization.


Policy Utilitarianism Utilitarianism can impose counterintuitive

obligations. The inconvenience of my voting outweighs the

infinitesimal benefit of one additional vote. Utilitarianism therefore instructs me to stay home

on election day.


Policy utilitarianism Utilitarianism is better conceived as dictating a

utility-maximizing policy. So utilitarianism applies to policy makers: corporate

boards or officers, government officials, etc. In the case of voting:

My voting will increase utility at the margin if the optimal set of people vote.

voterseligiblesubject to

)(maximize

S

Su


Rule utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism requires individuals to

follow the optimal policy. In a failed state where voting is meaningless and

dangerous, rule utilitarianism requires me to vote. Policy utilitarianism does not apply to individual

decisions.


Rule utilitarianism Another problem...

Identical persons

Optimal

Number voting

Utility

Socialutility Individual

utility

Totalutility

Persons asked to vote may be identical to some not required to vote.Required to vote


Utilitarianism and distributive justice Everyone has equal weight when summing

utilities. Yet utilitarianism can endorse unequal

distributions if they maximize total utility. Low minimum wage, high CEO salaries, etc. Give lion’s share of resources to those who can

best use it. Talented, well-born, etc.


Utilitarianism and distributive justice Bentham’s response: principle of decreasing

marginal utility implies some degree of equality. Concentration of resources in a few people may

result in less overall utility. Check it out mathematically. Let

xi = resources allotted to person i.

cixip = utility created by allotment xi, where 0 ≤ p ≤ 1.

R = total resources available.


Utilitarianism and distributive justice p = 1 implies most talented person (largest ci) gets all

the resources; p = 0 implies most egalitarian case. The optimization problem is

Associate Lagrange multiplier with constraint and obtain for each i

Rx

xc

ii

i

pii

subject to

maximize

1 pii xpc


Utilitarianism and distributive justice The optimal allocation of resources xi and fraction ui of

utility is

As p → 0, allocation becomes proportional to ci. So the most egalitarian distribution utilitarianism allows is to

allot persons resources and utility in proportion to their abilities to generate utility.

Even if the optimal allocation is usually just, it seems unlikely that it is necessarily just.

j

pj

pi

i c

cRx )1/(1

)1/(1

j

pj

pi

i c

cu

)1/(1

)1/(1


Utilitarianism and distributive justice(c1,…,c20) = (11,…,30)

Distribution of Utility, n=20

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Fra

cti

on

of

tota

l u

tili

ty

p=0.9

p=0.8

p=0.7

p=0.5

p=0

Ethical theory: Kantian ethics 16

Ethical theoryKantian ethics


Strengths of Kantian ethics Applies to individual decisions. Accounts for distributive justice. Based only on a formal condition for

rationality.


Basic premises One always acts for a reason (i.e., according

to a maxim). That is, one always acts to achieve some end.

If a reason justifies an action for me, it justifies the same action for anyone.


Basic premises I stay home from the polls because voting is

inconvenient. If this is sufficient reason for me, it is

sufficient reason for anyone. If not, perhaps it is because some people enjoy

voting. Then part of my reason is that I don’t enjoy

voting. My maxim is, “Let me stay home if voting is

convenient and I don’t enjoy it.”


Generalization test But my maxim is actually: Don’t vote if

Voting is inconvenient. I don’t enjoy it. Others who find voting inconvenient and

unenjoyable will vote anyway. This cannot be the rationale for my action

because it is inconsistent. Sufficient reasons for me must be sufficient

reasons for anyone.


Generalization test What is wrong with cheating on an exam?

My cheating presupposes that most people don’t cheat, even though they have the same reasons to cheat I have. If they cheated, grades would have no meaning and

cheating would be impossible. My maxim is, “Let me cheat when it benefits me and

when other people whom it benefits will not cheat.”

This is not a consistent rationale for cheating.


Free rider principle Free rider principle is a special case.

Nonvoter is a free rider on system supported by citizenship of others.

Cheater is a free rider on system supported by honesty of others.


A rule of thumb Avoid action that undermines a practice it

presupposes. Cheating, practiced generally, undermines the

grading system it presupposes. Letting others do the voting, practiced generally,

undermines the voting behavior it presupposes.


A rule of thumb But don’t be misled: it is OK to fight crime, even

though if everyone did this, it would undermine the crime it seems to presuppose.

One must look at the reasons for action. The maxim might be, “Fight crime if crime exists.” The existence of crime is a consistent rationale for

fighting crime. It does not presuppose that others will not fight crime

if it exists.


Improvement over rule utilitarianism I don’t have to vote in a failed state in which

nobody votes. My maxim is, “Don’t vote if voting is futile.” The futility of voting is a consistent rationale for

not voting. It is does not presuppose that others will vote

even though voting is futile.


Moral Agency Why must actions have reasons? Western worldview must distinguish action from

mere behavior. A mosquito’s behavior is explained only by cause-and-

effect and so is not action. Human actions are moral agents when their behavior can

also be plausibly explained as based on reasons. This solves freedom & determinism dilemma.

Ethics can be applied to complex robots, beings from another planet.


Moral Agency Unethical action is not action at all.

Has no coherent explanation in terms of reasons. No consistent rationale explains my cheating on exam.

Behavior with only a “psychological” explanation is not action and therefore unethical. I don’t vote because I am angry at the government. I don’t vote because of some sublimated impulse, etc.

Unethical behavior destroys one’s agency and abdicates one’s freedom.


Rawlsian theory John Rawls characterized Kantian decision

making as taking place behind a “veil of ignorance.” People decide what to do without knowing who

they are. The reasons for the action must be valid

regardless of the agent’s identity. This is another way of stating that reasons for me

must be reasons for anyone.


Rawlsian theory This is different from maximizing expected

utility. A CEO (deliberating behind the veil of

ignorance) may approve a massive layoff because she is unlikely to be one of the redundant workers.

This is not good enough for Rawls. She must find the reasons for the layoff equally

valid if she herself is terminated.


Rawlsian theory Rawls infers a theory of distributive justice.

Policy makers must find their decisions to be justifiable even if they are in the lowest class.

Policy must never improve the lot of an upper class at the expense of a lower class.


Rawlsian theory According to Rawls, this results in a

lexicographic criterion. Act so as to maximize the welfare of the lowest class,

then the second lowest class, etc.

In general,lexmax f1(x), … , fn(x)

subject to x S

where fi (x) = utility of person with ith lowest utility.


Rawlsian theory Recall the distribution problem in which

xi = resources allotted to person i.

ci xip = utility created by allotment xi , where 0 ≤ p ≤ 1.

R = total resources available.

In this simple case, the lexmax equalizes utility across the population.


Rawlsian theory The lexmax allocation of resources xi and fraction

ui of utility is

compared to the utilitarian solution

j

pj

pi

i c

cRx

/1

/1

nui

1

j

pj

pi

i c

cRx )1/(1

)1/(1

j

pj

pi

i c

cu

)1/(1

)1/(1


Rawlsian theory

Utilitarian Distrbution of Utility, n=20

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Frac

tion

of to

tal u

tility p=0.9

p=0.8

p=0.7

p=0.5

p=0

Total Utility

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0

p

Uti

lity Utilitarian

Rawlsian

Ethical theory: Aristotelian ethics 35

Ethical TheoryAristotelian Ethics


More than ethics Aristotelian ethics proposes more than a

necessary condition for ethical behavior. It talks about one’s purpose in life. In Western culture, it exists in tension with

Judeo-Christian tradition, which also addresses purpose. Kantian theory captures much of the ethical content of

Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

Both traditions derive ethics from their larger views.


Teleological explanation Teleological explanation is central to

Aristotelian ethics. Make sense of things by giving them a

purpose in a system. For example, assign a purpose to organs of the

body. Assign a purpose to forest or sea in an ecosystem.


How to be good Ethics: how to be good.

Good = performs one’s function well. A good tool performs its function well. A good person does the same.

No concept of moral obligation. It’s all about self-actualization. Realizing one’s potential (naturalistic ethics).

Must identify purpose or function of things, including people. It’s this or a meaningless farce: take your choice.


Virtues The function of a thing is what it is uniquely

qualified to do. The heart’s function is to pump blood. A human being’s function is to bring uniquely

human qualities to the world (virtues). Courage, honor, loyalty, (applied) intelligence,

aesthetic sensibility, sophrosyne. Otherwise, Aristotle doesn’t know why we are here.

Ethical theory: Cross-cultural ethics

40

Ethical theoryCross-cultural ethics


41

Consistency vs. care Western ethics based on rationality &

consistency (efficiency, justice). Human beings are autonomous moral agents –

isolated individuals in a secular world. Westerners see their viewpoint as universal.

Elsewhere, consistency is less important Different conceptions of human nature –

pantheistic, communitarian, etc. Idea of care is often important.


42

Corruption Corruption = an activity that undermines a cultural

system. For example: Purchasing agent.

May award contracts based on transparency, or based on personal connections.

In the West, cronyism is corrupting. There is conflict of interest (company vs. agent).

In relationship-based system, cronyism is foundation for trust. There is no conflict of interest. Company wants trusted

suppliers.


43

Corruption Corrupting behavior depends on the system. Bribery:

corrupts rule-based transparency in the West. corrupts guānxì in China. can be functional in Korea.


44

Corruption Lawsuits:

are functional in USA. corrupt group harmony in Japan. are corrupting in USA when abused.

Nepotism: undermines transparency in West. supports family-based system in China.

Employment ethics 45

Employment ethicsKeeping an employment contract


Employment example A graduating student wants to break an

employment contract to take a more attractive job.

The student has acted in good faith so far. Stopped job hunting after accepting the first offer.

The employer acted in good faith. Was unaware that student was committed, or Had reason to believe the student was

uncommitted.


Policy utilitarianism At the individual level, breaking the contract

is optimal. But this is suboptimal at a higher level.

College career services often require both students and employers to honor their agreements or lose access to services.


Kantian approach Possibility of breaking an employment

contract presupposes that most people keep contracts. There is no consistent rationale for breaking a

contract merely for convenience. Part of the rationale for doing so must be that

others don’t do the same.


Kantian approach Perhaps certain exceptions are consistent with

overall practice. Must be able to find a consistent rationale that

explains a choice to break the agreement. Merely yielding to peer pressure is not a choice

and is unethical.


Kantian approach An inconsistent rationale:

I stopped job hunting after taking the job and received an unsolicited offer of a better job from an employer who was unaware that I was committed.

Presupposes that others do not act on this rationale. Contracts are meaningless if employers can hire committed

students simply by not asking whether they are committed. A possibly consistent rationale:

I stopped job hunting after taking the job and received an unsolicited offer of a better job from an employer who had reason to believe that I was uncommitted.

This must in fact be a plausible rationale for my decision to break the contract. I would keep the contract if the employer did not have reason

to believe I am uncommitted.


Aristotelian approach Honor is a virtue.

Keep your word. Developing intellectual potential is a virtue.

Take the new offer. In this case, must balance two virtues.

Ability to find proper balance (sophrosyne) is an irreducible virtue.


Aristotelian approach The fundamental goal is integrity

(wholeness). Actions must be consistent with who you are—

i.e., consistent with your purpose. You must be able to “live with” your actions. Make choices that least alienate you from your

humanity.

Professional ethics: What is it? 53

Professional ethicsWhat is it?


What is a professional? A professional:

is an expert. uses expertise responsibly. professes.


Why have professions? Professionalism provides certification when

expertise is not immediately obvious. A cashier’s incompetence is obvious at the end of

the day. An accountant’s incompetence can do much

damage before it becomes evident. So we have an accounting profession, with

certification.


Professional obligations Since professions exist to create expectations,

a professional’s obligation is to meet them. Professional obligations are questions of fact,

not ethics. What is expected? What is consistent with the mission of the

profession?


Professional obligations Other obligations, not specifically

professional, pose ethical questions: What general ethical obligations apply in the

context of a professional’s work? What should be the mission of the profession? Should one practice the profession at all?


Professional obligations Example: should a physician give a

nonapproved but effective drug to a cancer patient? Professional obligation: No. Physicians are

expected to observe the law. General ethical obligation: Perhaps yes. Mission of the profession: Should medicine create

an expectation of abiding by the law? Probably. Practicing the profession: Should the physician

risk decertification?


Professional obligations Key question: Should professionals make decisions

or just present the options? Stockbroker, lawyer: Give advice but carry out the

client’s wishes. Physician, teacher, engineer: Use professional

judgment even if contrary to client’s wishes. Decline to prescribe drug or perform surgery. Teach unpopular material. Resist cost savings that would make bridge unsafe.

Professional ethics: OR/MS 60

Professional ethicsOR/MS


Is OR/MS a profession?See: Saul Gass, Promoting ethics in OR, Workshop on Promoting Ethics in OR, INSEAD, April 2003.

ORSA & TIMS debated the desirability of professional certification.

ORSA “One of the purposes of the society shall be…

establishment and maintenance of professional standards of competence for work known as operations research.”

1971 Ad Hoc Committee on Professional Standards.


Is OR/MS a profession? T. Caywood, Guidelines for the practice of

operations research, Operations Research 19 (1971): 1123-1137.

Proposed guidelines for the practice of OR: Scientific approach (open, explicit, objective) Careful problem formulation Sensitivity analysis Complete reporting, including problem formulation Rigor and fairness in analysis Recognition of failure in follow-up


Is OR/MS a profession? 1983 Committee on Ethics and Professional

Practice. Neither ORSA nor TIMS adopted

professional standards or a code of ethics.


Is OR/MS a profession? INFORMS

From Constitution: “The Institute will strive to… promote high professional standards and integrity in all work done in the field.”

INFORMS has adopted neither a code of ethics nor practice guidelines.

Perhaps guidelines would be premature…


Is OR/MS a profession? OR/MS is too little known for expectations to

have developed. INFORMS has not given high priority to

creating expectations. Perhaps Tom Cook will fix this.


Scientific advisors OR/MS specialists are part of a general class

of scientific advisors. A OR/MS specialist is an attorney-at-science.

Scientific advisors are more like stockbrokers or lawyers than physicians, teachers or engineers. Not in a position to make decisions. Expected to give advice but leave decisions to the

client.


OR/MS codes Should not emulate engineering codes (IEEE,

IIE, ASME, even ACM), since engineering is not analogous to OR/MS.

There are some existing OR/MS codes. Military Operations Research Society (USA) Fellowship for Operational Research (UK) Operations Research Society of Japan


Professional ethicsTeaching

Professional ethics: Teaching 69

Teachers as professionals Customer model is inadequate for

teacher/student relationship Teachers are more like physicians. There is an inherent information asymmetry. Teachers should choose materials/methods even

when they do not please students.


Teachers as professionals There is a continuum of responsibility.

3rd grade teacher: makes all the decisions. Pupils bear no responsibility.

Executive education: more like customer model. Instructor is an information provider, not a teacher. The customer is always right but takes responsibility

for the choice of product (caveat emptor).

Undergraduate, MBA, PhD: somewhere in between.


Course evaluations Relic of 1960s consumerism.

The implication is that students are customers to be pleased, and course evaluations determine whether they are pleased.

But customer model is inadequate. If students learn the wrong material, the teacher is

responsible, not the student.


Course evaluations Course evaluations have legitimate uses.

They can identify shortcomings in the course that are not obvious to the instructor.

Happy students may learn more. But teaching to maximize course ratings

violates professional responsibility. Administrators should not judge teachers by

course ratings.


Course evaluations Kantian argument

If teachers simply tried to please students, there would be no teaching profession. Rationale for maximizing ratings must presuppose

that teachers in general don’t simply try to please students.

In practice, instructors may maximize ratings subject to certain educational constraints. Specific policy must have a plausible and consistent

rationale.

Intellectual property: Legal aspects

74

Intellectual propertyLegal aspects


75

Legal definition of IP Patent Trade secret Copyright


76

Patent Designed to encourage disclosure of ideas in exchange

for limited period of exclusive use. Can patent:

A “method, product, apparatus, composition of matter, design for articles of commerce, or in certain cases a plant.”

Software or an algorithm. Cannot patent:

A pure idea, such as a theorem. Anything that occurs in nature. A “way of doing business,” even if automated by computer. “Look and feel,” e.g. spreadsheet.


77

Patent Patented invention must be useful, novel, and

unobvious. “Novel” means:

It was not known or used in the United States prior to the patent application.

It was not patented or described in a publication anywhere in the world more than a year prior to the patent application.

“Unobvious” means it was not obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention.


78

Trade secret It is a “secret formula, pattern, or device that

is used in a business and provides a commercial advantage.” It can be bought, sold and licensed.

It remains intellectual property forever, or until the secret gets out. For example, the formula for Coca-Cola.


79

Trade secret The law does not prohibit use of a trade

secret. It only prohibits others from stealing a trade

secret. It is legal for another company to conceive

the idea independently and use it. Reverse engineering is not theft (the idea was not

really secret).


80

Copyright It limits the number of copies others can make

of a document or work of art without permission.

It lasts longer than a patent. Individual’s copyright lasts 50 years beyond his

or her lifetime. Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Only a particular expression of ideas.


81

Ownership A patent is registered in the name of the

inventor. The owner may be someone else, or a

company. An employer normally owns any idea conceived by

someone working for hire. The 3-M employee who invented post-it notes at home

for his church choir had to turn rights over to the company.


82

Ownership Who works “for hire”?

Normally, full-time employees work for hire and do not retain IP rights. However, a university faculty member normally

retains rights to a scholarly article. Universities are free to modify this tradition in the

employment contract and sometimes do.

Normally, consultants do not work for hire, depending on contract.


83

Ownership A PhD student paid by professor to develop a

specific algorithm is not working for hire. Retains IP rights unless there is a specific agreement

to the contrary. But… professor or PhD student working under a

grant is subject to terms of the grant. A PhD student interested in IP rights should explore

the issue before investing heavily in a project. Universities typically publish IP policies.

Intellectual property: Ethical aspects

84

Intellectual propertyEthical aspects


85

Moral status of IP Utilitarian argument for IP

IP rights provide incentive to develop new ideas. Patent law allows free discussion and exchange of

ideas, despite IP rights. But trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements restrict

discussion.


86

Moral status of IP Property rights

Traditional conception of property rights was more sophisticated than the modern one. Several kinds of property. Only partially interchangeable. For example, bride price may be payable only in

cattle.


87

Moral status of IP Modern conception of property makes all assets

interchangeable. This tends to result in concentration of wealth

One can use economic power to acquire assets of those less well off. (See M. Walzer, Spheres of Justice).

One who has intelligence, artistic talent, or good looks may end up selling them to survive.

A few reversals of this trend. Illegality of prostitution. Abolition of chattel slavery.


88

Moral status of IP IP further extends interchangeability of assets.

Response to business pressure over the last century or so. Minor modifications of life forms can be patented.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty Minor modifications of folk knowledge can be patented.

W. R. Grace and Neemix. Is IP the chattel slavery of our age?

Information age makes limits on interchangeability more practical. For example, airline miles.


89

It’s your turnWhat ethical issues do you want to discuss?

1 ethics in or november 2003 j. n. hooker carnegie mellon university

Documents