Reference no: EM13355806 , Length: 3 Page

• Now that we have a strategy for approaching ethical questions, we need to put this strategy into the broader context of our values and beliefs. Here are major themes in the dialogue of ethics. As we look at these themes, we will find that there are significant pros and cons to each side of the issues. If this were not the case these would not be major themes in the dialogue of ethics! It is likely, therefore that you will sometimes find yourself unable to place yourself entirely on one end of the spectrum or the other. The idea is simply to try to locate yourself toward one of the two options.

Continuum 1:

Ethical Absolutist............................................................................................ Ethical Relativist

Ethical Absolutist- believes that there are certain moral rules or principles that must be adhered to by all people, in all places, at all times.

Pros:This position eliminates gray areas in ethical decision making and provides a sense of certainty. This position makes ethical decision making simpler because one does not need to look at consequences or historical/social contexts: "X is wrong regardless of the consequences it will bring about in any particular context because X is always wrong." This position fits well with the intuitive feeling that ethical claims are deeply set in what it is to be human regardless of historical/cultural setting.

Cons:First, who determines what these absolute ethical claims are? To answer this question seems to require that we deny our human condition, raise above those who are mere humans, discover this un-contextualized Truth, and then return to our human condition to enlighten the poor slobs around us! This view relies on ignorance of the drastic diversity of ethical views throughout history and cultures as well as a very naive view of one's own place in a pluralistic human condition. Second, if there are such ethical absolutes, and if one somehow knew them, what happens when one must choose between two of them? This is the case with all moral dilemmas (that's what makes them moral dilemmas) and is frankly the case with most interesting ethical decisions. If both ethical principles (regarding say, telling a lie and killing innocent persons) are absolute then one cannot claim that one principle is more absolute than the other. But what happens when refusing to lie automatically means that you are actively participating in the killing of an innocent person? Third, this position encourages intolerance and discourages dialogue.

Ethical Relativist- believes that moral rules are the products of particular (usually cultural) contexts. As the rules of playing chess have their meaning and relevance only for those involved in the game, so moral rules have their meaning and relevance only for those involved in the particular context that produced them.

Pros: This position fits well with the notion that we must respect the views of others and the reality that we are, ourselves a part of a historical/cultural context. This position engenders tolerance and encourages dialogue.

Cons: First, because this position points to no ultimate authorities or principles that hold for all people in all places at all times, this position is nihilistic: ultimately, hells-bells-anything -goes! Second, because there are no ultimate Truths in this position, one can never condemn the actions of a Hitler, one can only say, "I refuse to play the particular game of ethics that the Nazis are playing. According to the way that I look at ethics, what he is doing is wrong." What one cannot say is," Even though the Nazi's belief system would support the genocide of the Jewish people, they are wrong."

Continuum 2:

Consequentialist.........................................................................................Non-consequentialist

Consequentialist- believes that the moral value of our decisions is based on the outcomes of those decisions. Calculating the effect our choices will likely have on all concerned is of critical importance to making a morally good choice.

Pros: This position makes sense of the everyday reality that our actions do not happen in some ideal world but in the real world where real people live. It is one thing to believe that euthanasia is wrong, something quite different to look into the eyes of a loved one who is suffering through the last stages of a terminal disease and tell them that they must continue the agony that they are begging you to end because there is this moral principle that you are determined to uphold.

Con: First, you can never be absolutely certain as to what consequences will come as a result of your actions: you may be trying to end the pain of your terminally ill loved one and, in fact, end their life right before they were going to experience a miraculous remission. Second, this position claims that what is right at one moment may be wrong at another: if telling the AIDS patient the truth will likely bring about undesirable consequences then not telling the truth becomes the morally right thing to do. Surely ethical principals are not based on our best guess as to what the outcome of our actions might be.

Non-consequentialist- believes that the moral value of our decisions is based on the principle we are upholding. Since upholding a rule or principle is what matters, the actual effect of our decision on those concerned is irrelevant. This position is often referred to as a priori ethics or deontological ethics.

Pros: This position makes sense of the intuitive feeling that ethical principles are right or wrong independent of, and prior to, our estimating the outcomes of our actions. Telling the truth is right because it is inherently right; not because when you tell the truth you won't get into trouble, or because more good things will happen to you than bad, etc.

Cons: First, how can what is ethically right or wrong be divorced from the context in which the action occurs: how can one 'love one another' without knowing who the other is, what kind of person they are, what their needs are, what their hopes and dreams are, etc., etc? What would love without any context even mean? Second, where do these principles come from and what could these mean without reference to a context: when filling out an IRS form, what does it mean to claim all relevant exemptions and what does it mean to commit fraud? How do you answer this without reference to the context? When refusing to serve in your country's military service, is there no difference between your decision when you live in Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, Johnson's America, today's America? Are the decisions whether or not to fight for the Nazis, the Communist regime in Cuba, with America against Vietnam, with America against Iraq all the same decisions? Ie. Is obeying your country's order to fight for your country the right thing to do for all people regardless of any contexts? How do you answer this without reference to the context?

Continuum 3:

Egoist............................................................................................................................Altruist

 

Egoist- believes that she should be the one who benefits from her choices. This person will choose individual interests over those of the community.

Pros: This position seems to fit in with how humans (and animals) behave in general. In everyday life we assume people will behave in this way. Why would we, for example, have punishments for breaking social laws, salary raises for work well done, good/bad grades, stars on the refrigerator for each time your child does their chores, etc.? When people do not look out for their own best interests we wonder if they are not masochistic. On the other hand, we say that being ethical is precisely the ability to get beyond this animal-like concern for one's own well being... so the ethical person will be able to put another's well being ahead of their own. Perhaps the most powerful weapon of the egoist arsenal is the ability to explain even this kind of behavior as ultimately egoistic: when you do something for someone else, do you not feel good about it? Doesn't feeling good about something mean that you are benefitting from your actions? Even if you were to throw yourself in front of an on-coming bus to save a child's life, the egoist can always respond that your behavior was ultimately to benefit yourself: you felt it better to lose your life than go on living knowing that you could have saved another's life. Note, there is no reason in the egoist position that says benefitting yourself has to be at the expense of another. Ethical egoism is not Egotism norEgocentricism! An egoist employer might be a very good person to work for; they may take care of you as an employee better than anyone else. The reason for their doing so is ultimately that they want to have happy employees and a friendly, supportive workplace. An egoist who disregards others in constant attempts to put herself forward is not a more thorough egoist, she is just stupid! It means she will always be looking behind her to see who will get back at her, and when. An enlightened egoist will likely be the best boss you've ever had!

Cons:First, Egoism seems to deny any inherent value in other persons. Acting ethically toward another is purely the means to the end of my own interests. Second, without inherent value being placed on other persons or their world-views, egoism leads away from the notion of community and towards an attitude of survival of the fittest. Third, a more philosophical objection has been raised toward egoism that it is "unfalsifiable". Briefly stated, this objection states that egoism explains too much! In other words, there does not seem to be any way of showing this hypothesis about human behavior to be wrong: no matter what evidence one points to (throwing yourself in front of a bus, diving on a hand grenade, etc.) The egoist will always be able to maintain their position that this was done out of self interest. For a hypothesis to be acceptable, one must be able to state the conditions under which their hypothesis might be proven wrong (ie. falsified). The egoist cannot do this.

 

Altruist- believes that her actions should be for others' benefit rather than for her own. She will think in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Pros:This position fits well with 'golden rule' to treat others as you would have them treat you, and a form of the golden rule is found in virtually all religious/wisdom traditions. Altruism encourages community and discourages individualism. This position is also based on a respect for others and for their world-views.

Cons:First, in light of egoism, one must of course ask if it is true: do people really act altruistically? Is the golden rule altruistic, or do you treat people in a certain way because you want to be treated that way in return? Would you continue treating people this way if it were never returned? For example, trusting in another's word when they give it to you is surely a way you want to treat others and be treated by others, but do you continue to trust someone with vital insights into your personal life when they intentionally betray you each time you do? Surely, measuring the effect your ethical actions toward others will ultimately have upon yourself is in fact important. Second, some philosophers question whether or not altruism is not a violation of one's own self and is therefore unethical. In denying oneself, one diminishes one's own possibilities in life and thus deprives oneself, those around one, and the human race of what contributions, discoveries and accomplishments one may have been capable of. This is not good for the individual or the community.

Continuum 4:

Theist.............................................................................................................................. Humanist

 

Theist- believes that there is a God and that God is the source of moral principles. Could be Divine Command theory where God's authority comes to every moral choice through the Bible, Church, etc. Could be Ethic of Love where humans are to bring about love in every context.

Divine Command Theory - Pros: If there is a personal God who is good and desires the greatest good for the creation, and if God has the True answer to all ethical questions, and if God has communicated these answers in each situation, and if one can understand this communication, then it is certainly reasonable to follow these commands. In fact, one might say that it is sure folly not to! This position is then a natural outcome of certain religious (particularly, Western religious) belief systems.

Divine Command Theory - Cons:First, for this to be the basis of ethical policies in a community of more than one person all people have to be of the same religious beliefs. In other words, this position denies respect for the plurality world-views and religions which surround us. It thus discourages dialogue and encourages intolerance: if I really believe that my view is God's view I would be a fool to genuinely listen to anyone else unless it was only to find some way of converting them to my own view. Second, who determines what the divine commands are? This view requires a naive view of our human condition, as though our religious traditions were a-historical and without influence from their philosophical/social context and without development from within. The most sure way to give up on this view is to do extensive research in the history of one's own religious tradition. In Christianity, for example we find that at different times in history certain things were seen as "sinful" which today we find utterly silly: to lend money and charge interest, to wear a hat; other things we find today morally despicable were in fact proper Christian behavior: to own, beat, and sell slaves, to burn women at the stake, to treat a woman as a possession, and the list goes on and on and on! Were all the Christians in history who thought they had God's view of ethical behavior simply mistaken... but we have now got it right?! But then, who is the "we"? In today's Christianity there is widespread disagreement over every ethical issue one can name: abortion, gun control, euthanasia, pacifism, taxation, etc., etc. Third, this view seems to require that one have a naive view of one's own context and the development of one's own world view within that context. (Pardon the repetition here, but...) The most glaring illustration of this that I have seen is a popular bumper sticker from the Christian right:

God said it

I believe it

That settles it

It seems more accurate to say:

God said it

(Ichoose the particular passageIwould like to use with regard to the issue) 

(Iinterpret the passage my way) 

(Iapply the passage to the issue the wayIhave determined to do so) 

I believe it

That settles it

All of the additions that I have indicated are the result of being a real person in a historical context with a world-view that is a part of that context and that is continually growing. Not appreciating this is not to raise above it but to engage in self-denial. Fourth, perhaps the greatest criticism of this view is that it places our own perspective into the mouth of God and then requires that all others take that perspective as from God's authority. The result is inevitably intolerance on one level or another and often conflicts as small as a domestic squabble or as large as a "holy" war, and everything in between.

Ethic of Love - Pros:All major religious traditions have some version of the principle to love others, have compassion, etc. Western religious traditions, particularly, carry this message with a sense that God has set the example in His treatment of humans. This position respects the fact that we are historical beings who live in various contexts and experience the world in different ways. It allows for the historical development of religious traditions. Ethical decisions will depend on the contexts in which decisions are made. To love God and love your neighbor is the essence of this position. What counts as loving your neighbor will depend on the situation you are in. For example, this position can make sense out of witch burning by recognizing that: if humans are a combination of soul and body, and if a person's soul can be taken over by the Devil, and if such possession means the person will be tormented in hell for eternity, and if one can prevent this by ending what is a short-term mortal life anyway, then the most loving thing to do is to snatch the soul from the Devil's grip by destroying the body. Today, our world views simply do not contain some of these pieces so we do not appreciate burning a woman alive as a loving thing to do. We do, however, see bombarding someone's body with radiation until we have nearly killed them as a loving thing to do if it is done to stop cancer from growing. There may be a day when people look back on this as nearly insane behavior! (Certain world-views today would already say this!) This view also allows us to approach contemporary issues with humility and openness to dialogue. One does not have a ready answer to ethical decisions, one must listen to who is involved, what the outcomes will be, etc. and then ask what will bring God's love into this situation. Jesus is often pointed to as the prime example of using the ethic love in direct opposition to the religious leaders of his day who continually reproached him for breaking their understanding of divine commands. His response was to describe the "divine" commands as the means to the end of bring about God's love, when they failed to do so they were jettisoned in order to do what brought about God's only command: love God and neighbor.

Ethic of Love - Cons:First, like relativism, this position leaves us without a ultimate principles beyond one which has constantly to be interpreted anew. This means that what is ethically right or wrong in a situation is up to my best guess about the facts, people, outcomes, etc. Surely ethical rights and wrongs are such independent of this. Second, this position means that texts like the Bible are not giving us rules for living by, but something like pictures of what it looked like in different social/historical contexts to love God and neighbor. This seems to undercut the notion of the authority of the Bible and the Church.

 

 

Humanist- believes that humans are the source of values and meaning and therefore must take the responsibility of creating the humanity they want to live with.

Pros:This position offers a way of living together ethically based on the inherent value of what we all share: humanity. This position does not rely on everyone having the same religious beliefs, but respects diversity and encourages dialogue. This position also takes seriously the notion that we do not leave our human condition, or try to convince ourselves that we have. All humans are in the same situation and deserve the same respect.

Cons:First, again, there are no absolute principles. One can agree that loving one's neighbor is the "right" thing to do but there is no foundation for this idea in the teachings of a prophetic or religious voice. One might just as well agree that to be human is to be out for oneself regardless of others.. On what grounds could one say that such a position was ethically unacceptable? Second, just because we are all human does not mean that we have to respect others..especially those who are significantly different from ourselves. If we see evolution within and among species then perhaps the proper mode would be to annihilate everything but those like ourselves in order to purify the species. On what grounds would this be determined to be ethically wrong?

 

 

Continuum 5:

Freedom..................................................................................................................... Determinism

 

 

Freedom- This position claims that one important aspect of being human is our ability to make free choices and therefore be morally responsible for our choices.

Pros:This position makes sense out of our intuitive sense that we make genuine free choices all the time: the food we eat the things we say, where we go to school, if we go to school, etc. This position also makes sense of the feeling that we as humans share a freedom unique to being human. Where animals function by instinct, we make "choices". With this uniqueness comes the responsibility for our actions. Thus, this position also explains why it is that humans are responsible for their actions in ways that animals and insects are not.

Cons:First, there seems to be evidence arising from the fields of biology, artificial intelligence, and behavioral psychology (to name a few) that this position is simply false. For example:

 

 

Determinism- This position claims that human choices are as causally determined and predictable (in principle) as any other event.

Pros:This position may of course make sense of the evidence against freedom above. Also this position might make sense of why we offer rewards, punishment, praise and blame to people. If we did not believe that a person's actions were directly connected to themselves as a character and to the motives available to them, each action on their part would be completely unpredictable and an utter mystery from one moment to the next! This position can make sense of ethical responsibility as well. Put simply, even if determinism is right, we have no access to the information that determiners our choices at the time we are making the choice. For example, as I stand before my closet this morning trying to choose a shirt to wear: only certain shirts will be available to choose from (due to my prior decisions described above), I will eliminate some because of the color of my pants, where I am going to go today and so on (all described of course by the process above). But as I make the decision I cannot articulate all of the values, beliefs, etc. that have gone into forming my character up to this point so that I must now choose the blue shirt. Out of the person I am at this moment, in this set of circumstances, I choose the blue shirt. The same goes for making ethical decisions. This means that I am responsible for the person I am at this moment and the choice I make. Perhaps one day there will be omniscient behavioral scientists (God spare us!!) who could look at all of the context in which I have developed and tell you for each decision what the precise causal factors are, but as yet none have arrived and this means that though determinism might provide a good theory for explaining events after the fact, it does not take away from the reality that at the moment of decision we must act out of who we are at that moment. That is responsible action.

Con:First, this view seems to reduce humans to nothing other than animals or computers, significantly more complex versions, but the same nonetheless. Second, in some sense we are still not responsible because, though we cannot articulate it, the fact is that there are causal factors outside of ourselves, forming us and driving us to every action we make. Third, this position justifies the kind of court cases in which the murderer is let off with psychological treatment because his murdering people was shown to be the result of the negative environment in which he grew up.

 

 

Continuum 6:

Autonomy...................................................................................................................... Obedience

 

 

Autonomy -Those who stress autonomy claim that moral choices can be made only by those who are capable of writing their own rules.

Pros:This position fits well with most conclusions of developmental psychology which claim that essential to developing from childhood to adulthood is the separation from dependence upon others biologically and psychically to independence where you become biologically viable and psychically your own person. Some philosophers refer to this as developing from an object which others use and define (somewhat like any other object: a chair, a spoon, etc) to a subject who determines the meanings and values things have for themselves. If one is simply defined by others then one never really makes an ethical decision, one merely follows another's rules.

Cons:First, this position can fail to take seriously the extent to which our social/historical context forms us. Is it really true that we are ever really autonomous? Second, how does one demand conformity to laws in a society of autonomous people - is this not going to lead to anarchy?

Obedience- Those who stress obedience claim that moral choices have to do with trusting in and being committed to moral authorities.

Pros:It is one thing to outgrow parental advice but surely some authorities are not to be outgrown. This position recognizes certain authority figures in society (the law for example) and religion as holding over individuals, regardless of how mature they become.

Cons:First, obedience should only be placed in authorities who are worthy of being followed. But the law cannot be said to be ethically right and worthy of being followed just because it is the law (we saw this in the Ruggiero text). Religious leaders or their interpretations are also not worthy of being followed just because they are religious (we saw this also in the Ruggiero text). The decision as to whether or not such authorities ought to be respected is itself an ethical decision we have to make. Thus the appeal to obedience just begs the question. Second, placing ethical decisions in the hands of some other authority (person, teaching, etc.)Is to fail to make moral choices. One can change the oil in one's car by reading a car manual and following the instructions, but when all is finished one will have made no ethical decisions at all.

Based on these, go on to Assignment #26

• Here is a summary list of the continua we have been talking about. Your Assignment is to plot yourself on each of the lines and write a 3 page paper explaining where you have placed yourself and how you see the various continua interacting with each other. 

Note: some positions may seem naturally to go more sensibly with each other than others: someone who is far on the Ethical Relativist end of the spectrum is more likely to also be high on the Consequentialist end. Other combinations may not appear likely but may in fact turn out to make perfectly good sense. For example, it makes sense to be high on the egoist end of the spectrum while being high on the theist end as well, if you believe that the reason for loving others is that you will be rewarded in the end and punished otherwise. In other words, do not think that because you see yourself at one end of one spectrum that that necessarily means you must be high on some other spectrum. Good cases can be made for a multitude of variations. The important thing is that you engage in the process of thinking through why you place yourself where you do and to articulate this reasoning in your paper.

Continuum 1:

Ethical Absolutist............................................................................................ Ethical Relativist

Continuum 2:

Consequentialist....................................................................................... Non-consequentialist

Continuum 3:

Egoist............................................................................................................................... Altruist

Continuum 4:

Theist.............................................................................................................................. Humanist

Continuum 5:

Freedom..................................................................................................................... Determinism

Continuum 6:

Autonomy...................................................................................................................... Obedience