Ethics is a particular area of study within philosophy. It addresses questions about concepts like what is good, what is bad, and what is right or wrong. Different schools of thought provide different answers to these questions, implying that there is no certain answer to these questions; these questions are answered based on particular assumptions taken by the questioning philosopher.

Ethics is central to how people make decisions. Ethics is considered to be part of a set of “Duties” societal imposed to individuals. Additional duties include morals, and law.

There are several branches of ethics, but the major ones consist of meta-ethics (theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions), normative ethics (practical means of determining a moral course of action), and descriptive ethics (what moral values people actually abide by). These branches contain additional sub-branches, and many of these overlap with other areas of study such as law, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

Two of the strongest structured approaches to ethics are the ontological approach, and the deontological approach. The latter is the current standard used by the law to evaluate cases in which ethics are involved.

Deontological ethics (deon comes from Latin, meaning “obligation or duty”) looks at ethics by evaluating the morality of an action based on a set of rules. This approach to ethics looks not at the consequences of individual actions, but at the actions themselves.

Many consider Immanuel Kant the first deontological ethicist, although C. D. Broad first used the term. Before Kant, it was widely accepted that an action is right if God has decreed that is right. Kant stated that for someone to act rightly, this act has to come from a duty, and the result of this action should not be considered when trying to determine if the action is right, but the motive for the action should be the one to determine its rightness. Hence, Kant argues that the only know thing to be good is good will.

Based on this assumptions and statements, Kant produced the concept of the categorical imperative. In summary, the categorical imperative provides a framework for determining whether an action is good or bad. The single most important concept of this framework is defined, in Kant’s words, as: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, before you act, think about what anyone would do in such situation; if you believe everyone would proceed the same way, then proceed.

Kant’s ethical proposals are a reaction to the current ethical trend of the time, ontological ethics. Ontological ethics (also known as Utilitarianism), states that an action is considered right, or good, if it provides the greatest good to all beings. This means that the outcome of an action is the determinant of whether an action is good or bad. Additionally, ontological ethics sees the action with most good as the one that provides the greatest happiness to all individuals.

As an example, if by killing someone everyone will be better off, an utilitarian would consider the killing as a good action, whether a deontological ethicist would consider the action wrong because it is wrong to kill, disregarding potential benefits to society.

Portrait of Immanuel Kant

Since deontological ethics has become the norm for current societies to place ethical values on actions, a set of duties was developed in which all individuals must adhere too. Additionally, there are different levels of duties, and specific duties differ among different levels.

The set of duties consists of ethics, morals, tradition, laws, and manners. Ethics refers to predefined ideas of good and bad. Morals refer to values defined as right or wrong. Tradition involves history surrounding certain actions of a particular group of people. Laws define actions that are off limits. Lastly, manners refer to ways of performing certain actions that are appreciated as good or bad.

Duties span several levels, starting from the individual and ending in the universal. Examples of different levels of duties are: individual, group, organization, country, and universal. As we regard our actions in comparison to duties that are higher in the duties ladder, the more likely is that our actions will conflict with such duties.

Oneself mainly creates duties at an individual level. In groups, duties are normally inferred; a group of friends might not have a written set of duties, but they are still implicit. Organizations such as clubs and companies normally have a set of duties that a member has to adhere to; for example, the Association of Computer Machinery has a code of conduct to which is members is expected to adhere to. Countries have their own set of laws, traditions, and other duties particular to the country. There is also a set of duties that are universal, and remain the same from country to country.

Sets of duties dictate which groups we adhere to. If a group of friends share a set of duties that confront your own, you are likely to avoid such group. If an association has a set of duties to which you know you cannot adhere, you decide not to join. In general, different sets of duties determine our associations.

“Why not say […] 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved.” -NIV Bible, Romans 5:8

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” -Immanuel Kant

“Given our present perspective, it is amazing that Christian ethics down through the centuries could have accepted almost unanimously the sententious doctrine that “the end does not justify the means.” We have to ask now, “If the end does not justify the means, what does?” The answer is, obviously, “Nothing!”” - Joseph Fletcher, Moral Responsibility (1967)

We don't give answers for these questions, and some of them may have no clear answer, but there are here to get you thinking.

• Is it fair to charge more for technology in a developing country where it is more rare and in higher demand? ¹⁾
• How should we decide whether a piece of work should cost money, be free, or even be free and open source? ²⁾
• Is the best way to stay ahead of malicious hackers by hacking programs ourselves and posting the exploits for all to see? Is this even an acceptable method? ³⁾
• How much responsibility do public officials have when it comes to understanding the technology that they're selecting for their constituents? ⁴⁾
• What responsibilities do parents, teachers, and others have to educate children on Internet safety? ⁵⁾
• When is web filtering a good or bad thing in schools? ⁶⁾