SCW#4- In paragraph 61, Socrates outlines a program that would assure Athens of having good rulers and good government. Clarify exactly what the program is, what its problems and benefits are, and how it could be put into action. Then decide whether the program would work. You may consider whether it would work for our time, for Socrates’ time or both. If possible, use examples (hypothetical or real) to bolster your argument.
If we asked a sampling the American population to rate their satisfaction with the overall performance of the government, we would likely encounter a range of differing responses, all stemming from an array of attitudes, cultures, religions, and beliefs. Ironically, as we learn from history we discover these attitudes have probably been around since the first societies. The attitudes of those in Plato’s era are no different, especially after the loss of his beloved Athens government to the Spartans (Jacobus 447). In his Republic, Plato uses the allegory of the cave to introduce his idea of the dualistic nature between mind and body. Through the dialogues of his characters Socrates and Glaucon, Plato reveals a program for political success and uncovers a very strong argument for how his plan, if followed correctly and adhered to by everyone, could assure the success of Athens. If we deconstruct examples using Plato’s theory, we find his argument to be structurally sound and applicable to not only the Athens of his time, but to current societies as well.
In his allegory, Plato reveals to us his idea of the perfect ruler or leader. To understand these ideas we need to understand what Plato is attempting to sell us with his metaphor of the cave and its components. Plato’s first step is to describe (via Socrates) that man are slaves; they are born and grow in the cave “with their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads” (Plato, 450). Socrates goes on explaining that because they were born to the cave, the only view the slaves have ever seen is what has been reflected by the fire on the wall in front of them. The shadows seen on the cave walls are the only truth the prisoners know. To Plato, we (humans) are like the prisoners of the cave, depending only on our sensory experiences to tell us what is real. The easiest way to bring this to life is to refer to the film, “The Matrix.” If we remember from the movie, all human beings are basically born connected to a computer, and immediately placed into a coma. The computer creates a digital world (the Matrix) that sends signals to the brain that simulate sensory perception in the coma patient. In other words, a fake life is created and sent directly to the brain without any need for the use of a conscious body. Most people live in the Matrix and never stop to question the reality of the life they currently live. Like Plato’s cave, many may die in the Matrix. The “philosopher” to Plato, is the one who realizes that perhaps what he sees portrayed on the walls in front of him does not encapsulate all of life. The philosopher is the one who escapes the cave because of his persistence in questioning the reality of what was in front of him, and it is he who has an ethical obligation to seek the truth and try to educate those who have yet to break the chains that bind them to a life of lies. To Plato, these philosophers are the ones who are best fit to lead a society via government or politics. Although the symbolism in his allegory does not stop there, our knowledge up to this point of the philosopher and his duties will allow us to proceed.
Now that we have put into context Plato’s symbolism, let’s examine his suggestions for the ideal philosopher. The first of Plato’s explanations is introduced when Socrates tells Glaucon “there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others” (Plato, 456). Think of this like a set of rules or even a checklist of must-have duties for the philosopher (ruler); Plato is saying that first and foremost the leader must possess the ability and desire to care for the well being of everyone else. He understands the importance of the human connection and the imperative role it plays for a successful leader and society. The fact that this is the first requirement he gives us, may reveal its priority or in relation to the next. Of course living by this rule could yield a number of positive benefits such as increased feelings of patriotism, brotherhood, and compassion. A perhaps Machiavellian counterargument, could claim that too much love for fellow man by the leadership could result in a “soft” government, therefore jeopardizing (weakening) the state as a whole, rendering it “at-risk.” I think if we are to take Plato seriously here, we should at least consider the idea that if we are truly caring for everyone, perhaps there are no real risks to consider after all. It is my contention that although Plato is identifying necessary characteristics for leaders of the state, he is not limiting the leaders to consider the lives of only those in said state; I believe Plato feels a true philosopher ought to care for all men, regardless of nationality. If all mean are cared for equally, the strength of the state in regards to safety should be irrelevant. Socrates goes on to tell Glaucon that “Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark” (Plato, 456). Plato understands that the philosopher, knowing what he now knows of truth, will have a daunting task ahead of him due to the fact that many people (if not most) will not share his recent enlightenments. Plato is saying that the leader, just because he is leader, cannot make the best decisions on everyone’s behalf if he himself is not skilled at deciphering between lies and truth. The great leader has to know how everyone will be impacted by every decision. Just because the philosopher may recognize that the antithesis of truth exists, does not necessarily give him right to make decisions without using the same logic that led him to the truth in the first place. By going back to the cave, not only will the philosopher hone his skill of distinguishing between truth and lies, he will also gain perspective on the potential lies that everyone else may perceive as truth. This allows the leader to see all points of view and have empathy for his fellow man (as unenlightened as he may be). By demanding these traits be present in our leaders, we can easily distinguish between those who are leading to increase the good of all, and those who are leading to increase the good for themselves. “And philosophy is not for everybody, but only for those gifted people who are capable of it, and who can safely be entrusted with the running of the educational process, and indeed of the entire state” (Hare, 50). In review, Plato’s two main rules of his program are to understand the duty of caring for your fellow man, and actively seeking out the truth in the world based on lies. This is a most important dynamic because “he [the philosopher] knows the Good and everything which depends on it, can really educate people instead of just pandering to their desires and ensnaring them.” (Hare, 50) The bottom line here is that a leader who makes the decisions ought to spend time analyzing people and the world they live in, if he is to make decisions based on their best interests. In review, we have two fundamental requirements for leaders set forth by Plato, which in his opinion will assure success of the state. His two requirements are, to care deeply for others and to remain familiar and close to lives of those who are entrusted to your care.
The strength in Plato’s argument lies in his ability to create a check and balance system if you will, that ensures the good can be attained and prolonged. If we were to look at various events in our world’s history, we may find that many of the atrocities that have occurred can likely be attributed to the leadership lacking in one of the areas previously outlined. I particularly enjoy Plato’s plan because if it were to be strictly adhered to, many of the blunders in our history could have been avoided. Both in slavery and the Holocaust, people were used as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Although Hitler thought he was doing "good" by his country, he failed to recognize that a true leader would have considered and empathized with the Jews on the same level as the Germans and everyone else. With slavery, it wasn’t until our leaders realized that slaves needed to be cared for and considered equally to non-slaves. Once this consideration was in place, leaders saw the situation for what it really was and abolished slavery. If we look at an offense on a lesser scale as the aforementioned, we can still find applicability in Plato’s doctrine. For example let’s look at President Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Without diving into all the details of that event, let’s ask if Nixon’s actions were done out of the necessity to comply with “the Good” that Plato has outlined for us. Were his (Nixon’s) actions based out of deep caring and compassion for others? Were his actions an attempt to educate people on the truth while sympathizing with their situation? The answer to both is clearly: No. Nixon’s actions were based not on the good (as Plato would say) but on himself, something Plato recognized long ago as not effective for leadership. It is not the conclusion that these historical events and the respective leaders were deliberately opposing Plato’s advice, simply that had they considered the advice of Plato, they simply may not have happened.
For Plato’s program to work, it has to be taken seriously and carried out diligently. The true leader (philosopher) does not lead for personal gain, “being neither pleasure-seeking nor ambitious, the true philosopher, alone qualified to rule through his knowledge of the good, can leave the pursuit of material pleasures to the lower orders” (Hare, 60). If leaders were to follow these guidelines, success of the state could be attainable in any time, past current, or future. The obvious challenge is finding the leaders that can actually follow the guidelines set forth by Plato.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Rawls, Theory of Justice. (Part II)
SCW#4- The utilitarian position emphasizes a form of justice in which the greatest good for the greatest number of people dictates social decisions. Since the nineteenth century, this view, sometimes called the principle of utility, has been fairly dominant in Western democracies. However, Rawls condemns this view because it does not improve the condition of the least advantaged members of society. In fact, it may even harm such people. What is your position on Rawls’s rejection of utility? How carefully must a society that values justice work to prevent enacting laws that might make worse the lives of the least advantaged?
Rawls and Just Society
Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.
In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.
Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.
Rawls and Just Society
Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.
In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.
Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
My email to Congresswoman Capps in regards to DADT being blocked by the Senate
Congresswoman Capps,
My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.
Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.
Best Regards,
Josh Davila
United States Marine Corps 1998-2006
My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.
Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.
Best Regards,
Josh Davila
United States Marine Corps 1998-2006
My response to a lady on facebook who spoke out against gays in the military
@Kathy- First of all what section of the constitution references the sexual preference of service members? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Since we are using political doctrine to help validate our points, what about the Bill of Rights ..."Right to bear arms" or perhaps the Declaration of Independance- "All men are created equal?" I gather that references don't mean that much anyway, if the Constitution began with "Gays should be allowed to openly serve", there would undoubtedly still be people like you contesting your point. Secondly your statement "How uncomfortable would it be for all other males to have a guy checking them out, watching them shower!" only proves to everyone that you, like other opponents, are more worried about your own feelings and perceptions than the real unjustice of the matter. If the true intent is to avoid "harassment" then the military ought to eliminate all possible forms of potential harassment and make it a uni-sexual military. How would you feel if our government said "allowing women in the military creates more problems than it is worth?" Also, the fact that you would associate a gay man with a cross-dresser only shows yours unreasonable logic and true inner bigotry. Not all gays are cross-dressers, not all cross-dressers are gay, and believe it or not, not all gay people want to check you out in the shower. Our country has a proven track record of not doing the right thing; let's not forget how we treated african-americans (during the time the Constitution was written) and perhaps more applicable to you, how we treated women until the 1920's. We have proved time and again that while we think we are doing the right thing, we clearly infringe on the rights that we all have equal access to. Dr. King said "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" What he meant by this was that regardless of how we feel about something, at the end of the day we have to choose between right and wrong, unfortunately there is no in between. I hope that one you can realize the true implications of the choices you make. I hope you understand the true message you send to the world when you openly support the infrigement of basic human rights. Thank you for serving in the military, and thanks to the government who gave you the freedom and option to do so.
Euthanasia
This topic is similar to the abortion debate in that I find myself in the middle of an argument that is clearly not as black and white as I assumed. We have four different types of euthanasia, each which its own arsenal of situational thought experiments and rationalizations, and subsequently each with its own ethical justifications. Like the abortion debate, I was mainly concerned with the autonomy of the individual, claiming that we should have the ultimate control over our own bodies…no matter what. While I still tend to be more pro-euthanasia than not, I find my reasoning do not rely solely on the autonomy of the individual. My biggest roadblock with writing about these ethical dilemmas is that while I may have a lot of thoughts or opinions, I do not know what underlying beliefs these opinions are tied to. Boss does a good job explaining how the “Philosophers on Euthanasia” felt about the topic, but I feel that is merely the starting point for evaluating dilemmas like this. I have yet to see how the relationship between ethics, dilemmas, beliefs, laws, and public policy all come together; and if I can be honest, sometimes I feel like taking the “what’s the point” approach to these issues as they seem to have no clear answers or resolutions. The best option I can come up with is one where I use ethics to help me decide which beliefs I really hold true. Whether my beliefs are the practiced or agreed upon beliefs is irrelevant, what matters here is that I have come to a comfortable conclusion based on reason.
For the purposes of this journal I would like to focus on physician-assisted suicide (PAS), one of the types of active euthanasia. PAS is when the physician assists the patient in bringing about his or her own death; according to Boss, a situation most Americans are “split over” in regards to the ethics. Like abortion, the end result will ultimately be a reflection of the beliefs of the individual. One argument against PAS is the sanctity of life argument that states “human life has intrinsic worth.” The proponents of this argument claim that legalizing euthanasia will weaken the respect for human life. On the surface this seems like a sound, philosophical, argument and it advocates a certain amount of humanity. But is this argument realistic? While I understand the concern that legalizing euthanasia may be a shock to some, I think it is a slippery slope to claim that respect for human life will be weakened as a result. We’ve talked about this in class in regards to other situations; if we choose not to make a decision (such as legalizing PAS) only because of the fear of a particular outcome, then we will find it very hard to make progress in not only moral dilemmas, but social, scientific and political arenas as well. Boss states many “western philosophers” hold the sanctity of life position, but how many western philosophers are the ones directly affected by the act of euthanasia? What I mean here is, because this is such a delicate subject, wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to allow people to follow their own beliefs rather than creating an imposition of ours? An easier way for me to defend this argument is to assume the position of a terminally ill patient who is seeking a “good death.” Let’s assume I have become ill with brain cancer and subsequently diagnosed and given a meager prognosis. If I requested information on PAS and denied by a doctor that claimed human life has intrinsic worth, I would probably reflexively question the intrinsic worth of my life and dying body. I can’t say for certain, because I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s like to be in an incredible amount of pain or suffering, but something tells me, based on everything I currently believe in, that I don’t think I would want to endure the long and painful death.
Part of me feels that the dying should be treated with a certain amount of respect and an understanding that life has come to its inevitable end. As of now I don’t agree that the end of a person’s life is the time to inject moral debate, personal beliefs, or social norms. Because of this, I think PAS should at least be considered as an option for those in need. With that said, and much like my position on abortion, I feel that this particular issue should be looked at from the moral perspective to discuss, but from the social perspective to solve.
For the purposes of this journal I would like to focus on physician-assisted suicide (PAS), one of the types of active euthanasia. PAS is when the physician assists the patient in bringing about his or her own death; according to Boss, a situation most Americans are “split over” in regards to the ethics. Like abortion, the end result will ultimately be a reflection of the beliefs of the individual. One argument against PAS is the sanctity of life argument that states “human life has intrinsic worth.” The proponents of this argument claim that legalizing euthanasia will weaken the respect for human life. On the surface this seems like a sound, philosophical, argument and it advocates a certain amount of humanity. But is this argument realistic? While I understand the concern that legalizing euthanasia may be a shock to some, I think it is a slippery slope to claim that respect for human life will be weakened as a result. We’ve talked about this in class in regards to other situations; if we choose not to make a decision (such as legalizing PAS) only because of the fear of a particular outcome, then we will find it very hard to make progress in not only moral dilemmas, but social, scientific and political arenas as well. Boss states many “western philosophers” hold the sanctity of life position, but how many western philosophers are the ones directly affected by the act of euthanasia? What I mean here is, because this is such a delicate subject, wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to allow people to follow their own beliefs rather than creating an imposition of ours? An easier way for me to defend this argument is to assume the position of a terminally ill patient who is seeking a “good death.” Let’s assume I have become ill with brain cancer and subsequently diagnosed and given a meager prognosis. If I requested information on PAS and denied by a doctor that claimed human life has intrinsic worth, I would probably reflexively question the intrinsic worth of my life and dying body. I can’t say for certain, because I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s like to be in an incredible amount of pain or suffering, but something tells me, based on everything I currently believe in, that I don’t think I would want to endure the long and painful death.
Part of me feels that the dying should be treated with a certain amount of respect and an understanding that life has come to its inevitable end. As of now I don’t agree that the end of a person’s life is the time to inject moral debate, personal beliefs, or social norms. Because of this, I think PAS should at least be considered as an option for those in need. With that said, and much like my position on abortion, I feel that this particular issue should be looked at from the moral perspective to discuss, but from the social perspective to solve.
Abortion
After reading the section on abortion and allowing some time for thought, I realized that I’ve previously taken the ethically lazy route by having an opinion on this issue without knowing all the facts. I cannot think of a better personal example that illustrates how easy it can be at times to not fully understand the implications involved with a particular ethical position in a moral dilemma.
I think it’s safe to say that since the moment I was able to comprehend abortion in the sense of its definition, I have taken the stance of pro-choice. It’s not to say that I took that position with any particular amount of ease, but instead that I took that position based on my rationalization of the information I was familiar with. The question I would (in the past) ask myself is “do we really have the right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their bodies (based on our own objectives, personal morality, or religious beliefs?)” It always made sense to me that the one thing we should have complete control over is our own bodies. My concern was definitely focused on the consequences of making abortion illegal. For example, if by taking a woman’s right to an abortion away, what other precedents do we set? By allowing ourselves to live a life that is guided by the rules and doctrine of others, are we really allowing ourselves the autonomy we claim to have right to? Are we really “free”? Someone might want to argue that we do live like that based on social contracts and rules and regulations. I agree with that however, where do we draw the line? At what point does the contract or accepted behaviors of a group become infringement on personal rights? I realize now that not only was I making a “slippery slope” argument, I wasn’t even basing my decision on facts related to the ethical issues of abortion. I like looking back on this now because it helps gain more perspective on Utilitarian theory, a theory I had come to like because it focuses on consequences. I realize now that not only was I making the hasty argument of: the act of abortion could lead to something, I was also completely basing my decisions only on the consequences and pretty much putting the blinders on the morality of the actual issue. After trying to formulate a position in this argument, I found that a utilitarian approach didn’t get at the crux of the issue, leaving me ethically thirsty. Because of this I have seen a working example of how Utilitarian theory can be a bit “light” for those trying to get at the core of ethical problem solving. I began to doubt myself after I read Boss’s definitions and explanation of abortion. How could I have previously chosen my pro-choice position without really understanding all the information related to this subject? At the very least I have been forced to look at the issue from a different perspective. First and foremost, this is not a simple issue of yes or no; like other debates we have plenty of situational criterion and circumstantial clauses to consider. People who are pro-life are saying that the act of abortion itself is morally wrong while the pro-choice advocates claim that it is wrong to not let a woman have control over her body. (Now obviously there is a lot more to both sides of this argument, I’m simplifying for the purposes of this journal).
If these are the two arguments we consider for the time being, it seems as if these two issues aren’t even in the same category; one side is based on morality (killing is wrong) while the other is based on legality (right to choose). This already seems convoluted to me in that we are arguing morals against laws or rights. The pro-choice argument seems to naturally exude ethical egoism by claiming that the ability to choose should be paramount to those involved. However, a true ethical egoist would want egoism to be universal which would mean they would want everyone else to take the position of egoist to pursue their own rational self-interests. This acceptance of pursuing self-interests does not seem to be the actual interests of those supporting the pro-choice argument (regarding the pro-life position.) One of the more difficult facets of the argument for me, is the consideration of a potential life. Whether the life is human, fetus, or viable, seems very irrelevant to me. I understand the importance of this portion of the pro-choice argument here however, to me it doesn’t really matter how or what we classify the fetus as. Does calling the fetus a baby, or an embryo or a human have anything to do with the actual morality of the act itself? Most references of the sanctity of life reference just that, life. It shouldn’t matter if it is a clump of cells, a fetus, a tree, or a whale; it seems to me that we are only arrogant when we assume that we can willingly end the life of any other organism. It simply doesn’t sound right that we currently have laws that protect a myriad of other “life forms” on the planet, but when it comes to human life forms, we are reduced down to what seems like semantic debates.
So how do we proceed with this argument? The only thing that makes sense to me is to accept the fact that on a moral level, this debate will always be a controversial one and we should try to actually solve the issue from a social perspective. I’m not suggesting that we throw in the towel or become subjectivists, rather I’m suggesting that we consider other viewpoints (social factors, psychological effects), in addition to morals, that will hopefully help us solidify our beliefs and hopefully provide the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.
I think it’s safe to say that since the moment I was able to comprehend abortion in the sense of its definition, I have taken the stance of pro-choice. It’s not to say that I took that position with any particular amount of ease, but instead that I took that position based on my rationalization of the information I was familiar with. The question I would (in the past) ask myself is “do we really have the right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their bodies (based on our own objectives, personal morality, or religious beliefs?)” It always made sense to me that the one thing we should have complete control over is our own bodies. My concern was definitely focused on the consequences of making abortion illegal. For example, if by taking a woman’s right to an abortion away, what other precedents do we set? By allowing ourselves to live a life that is guided by the rules and doctrine of others, are we really allowing ourselves the autonomy we claim to have right to? Are we really “free”? Someone might want to argue that we do live like that based on social contracts and rules and regulations. I agree with that however, where do we draw the line? At what point does the contract or accepted behaviors of a group become infringement on personal rights? I realize now that not only was I making a “slippery slope” argument, I wasn’t even basing my decision on facts related to the ethical issues of abortion. I like looking back on this now because it helps gain more perspective on Utilitarian theory, a theory I had come to like because it focuses on consequences. I realize now that not only was I making the hasty argument of: the act of abortion could lead to something, I was also completely basing my decisions only on the consequences and pretty much putting the blinders on the morality of the actual issue. After trying to formulate a position in this argument, I found that a utilitarian approach didn’t get at the crux of the issue, leaving me ethically thirsty. Because of this I have seen a working example of how Utilitarian theory can be a bit “light” for those trying to get at the core of ethical problem solving. I began to doubt myself after I read Boss’s definitions and explanation of abortion. How could I have previously chosen my pro-choice position without really understanding all the information related to this subject? At the very least I have been forced to look at the issue from a different perspective. First and foremost, this is not a simple issue of yes or no; like other debates we have plenty of situational criterion and circumstantial clauses to consider. People who are pro-life are saying that the act of abortion itself is morally wrong while the pro-choice advocates claim that it is wrong to not let a woman have control over her body. (Now obviously there is a lot more to both sides of this argument, I’m simplifying for the purposes of this journal).
If these are the two arguments we consider for the time being, it seems as if these two issues aren’t even in the same category; one side is based on morality (killing is wrong) while the other is based on legality (right to choose). This already seems convoluted to me in that we are arguing morals against laws or rights. The pro-choice argument seems to naturally exude ethical egoism by claiming that the ability to choose should be paramount to those involved. However, a true ethical egoist would want egoism to be universal which would mean they would want everyone else to take the position of egoist to pursue their own rational self-interests. This acceptance of pursuing self-interests does not seem to be the actual interests of those supporting the pro-choice argument (regarding the pro-life position.) One of the more difficult facets of the argument for me, is the consideration of a potential life. Whether the life is human, fetus, or viable, seems very irrelevant to me. I understand the importance of this portion of the pro-choice argument here however, to me it doesn’t really matter how or what we classify the fetus as. Does calling the fetus a baby, or an embryo or a human have anything to do with the actual morality of the act itself? Most references of the sanctity of life reference just that, life. It shouldn’t matter if it is a clump of cells, a fetus, a tree, or a whale; it seems to me that we are only arrogant when we assume that we can willingly end the life of any other organism. It simply doesn’t sound right that we currently have laws that protect a myriad of other “life forms” on the planet, but when it comes to human life forms, we are reduced down to what seems like semantic debates.
So how do we proceed with this argument? The only thing that makes sense to me is to accept the fact that on a moral level, this debate will always be a controversial one and we should try to actually solve the issue from a social perspective. I’m not suggesting that we throw in the towel or become subjectivists, rather I’m suggesting that we consider other viewpoints (social factors, psychological effects), in addition to morals, that will hopefully help us solidify our beliefs and hopefully provide the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.
Rawls: Theory of Justice
“This element of justice is absent in strict utilitarian theory.” This stance by Rawls (as stated by Boss) is the reason I feel that Justice Theory is more humane than strict utilitarian theory. While utility seeks the most overall good, Rawls seems opposed to reaching that good at the potential sacrifice of certain individuals or groups.
I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.
I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).
Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?
I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.
I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).
Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?
Deontology
My initial impression of deontology was that this theory seems to make a great deal of sense and I was all in favor of Kant’s ideas and opinions. After some careful thought I still prefer deontology to other moral theories, however, some of Kant’s ideas do not seem as complete as I initially had thought.
I like Kant’s ideas in the categorical imperative (if I am interpreting them correctly) because it seems as if the two “formulations” really help to weed out many of the lingering questions behind moral dilemmas. I think Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is saying that by committing an act, we would (should) also approve that act be committed by someone else at any other time. If I understand this correctly, this helps solidify the universality of an act by saying it is right (for the time being) and it will always be right (at any other given time.) An example of this could be something as simple as speeding on the freeway. If I am going to say that it is acceptable for me to disobey the laws and speed on the freeway, I would have to accept the fact that anyone else could break the same laws at any time. If I cannot “will” that act to be acceptable when committed by others, then I should not commit the act myself. The second formulation is concerned with humanity. Kant is basically saying do not “use” people, all humans are created equally (we are all rational beings) and are therefore entitled to the same rights of humanity. Because of this, we all have a duty not to impede on the autonomous nature of other humans. I think slavery and child labor are perhaps the two most obvious examples of infringing on human rights. It seems as if, when writing the categorical imperative, Kant was looking for a set of rules that would almost act as a “catch-all” for evaluating moral acts. I say this because it is hard to imagine any act (that could be considered immoral) that does not get cancelled out by one of these two formulations.
I feel that Kant’s categorical imperative is a strong foundation for analyzing moral issues however, like many other theories it does not seem complete. My first question is in regards to the dismissal of consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant makes it clear that the consequences or outcomes of an act are irrelevant; instead Kant focuses on the will or intent of the act. The reason this concerns me is because it is possible for an act to be committed with the greatest of intentions and still yield disastrous outcomes. I realize that Kant is saying if we have the best intentions and by this theory- “do the right thing“ then we should have nothing to worry about however, there could very much be things at risk (including lives of others etc.) that we may or may not know about. When considering intentions, the opposite is true as well; it is possible for acts premised by bad intentions to turn into a “good” act. If someone was committing a bad deed, then Kant would say it is still bad because of the bad will, however, I don’t think rewarding bad deeds is a good recipe for promoting morality. It seems at this point Kant is gambling with the outcomes and because of that, I feel there should be more consideration for the consequences of the acts we commit. Another direct conflict with Utilitarian theory is that Kant (at least according to my reading of our text) does not state that animal rights should be considered. I am certainly no animal rights activist and I love the taste of meat, but one thing I like about Utilitarian theory is that it at least considers the rights of other beings in addition to humans. While I do not necessarily have issues with using animals as sources of food, I certainly would not approve of punching a kitten. The other area I feel is weak is in regards to conflicting duties. It does not appear that the categorical imperative provides us any guidance in regards to duties that interfere with each other. As Boss states, a great example is that of the euthanasia debate. How can a physician reach a sound moral decision (based on this theory) derived from pure rationale when the duties of preserving life and preventing pain and suffering are obviously conflicting? Because of conflicts like this, I prefer Ross’s addition of the seven prima facie duties (although to my understanding even the prima facie duties do not provide much guidance in regards to the euthanasia debate.) I feel that although Kant’s views may be lacking, not necessarily wrong. Where I feel his theories are weak, other theories such as Utilitarian theory are strong. I think a mix of deontological theory including Kant’s categorical imperative and Ross’ prima facie duties, merged with certain aspects of Utilitarianism would yield a stronger and more universal moral theory.
I like Kant’s ideas in the categorical imperative (if I am interpreting them correctly) because it seems as if the two “formulations” really help to weed out many of the lingering questions behind moral dilemmas. I think Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is saying that by committing an act, we would (should) also approve that act be committed by someone else at any other time. If I understand this correctly, this helps solidify the universality of an act by saying it is right (for the time being) and it will always be right (at any other given time.) An example of this could be something as simple as speeding on the freeway. If I am going to say that it is acceptable for me to disobey the laws and speed on the freeway, I would have to accept the fact that anyone else could break the same laws at any time. If I cannot “will” that act to be acceptable when committed by others, then I should not commit the act myself. The second formulation is concerned with humanity. Kant is basically saying do not “use” people, all humans are created equally (we are all rational beings) and are therefore entitled to the same rights of humanity. Because of this, we all have a duty not to impede on the autonomous nature of other humans. I think slavery and child labor are perhaps the two most obvious examples of infringing on human rights. It seems as if, when writing the categorical imperative, Kant was looking for a set of rules that would almost act as a “catch-all” for evaluating moral acts. I say this because it is hard to imagine any act (that could be considered immoral) that does not get cancelled out by one of these two formulations.
I feel that Kant’s categorical imperative is a strong foundation for analyzing moral issues however, like many other theories it does not seem complete. My first question is in regards to the dismissal of consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant makes it clear that the consequences or outcomes of an act are irrelevant; instead Kant focuses on the will or intent of the act. The reason this concerns me is because it is possible for an act to be committed with the greatest of intentions and still yield disastrous outcomes. I realize that Kant is saying if we have the best intentions and by this theory- “do the right thing“ then we should have nothing to worry about however, there could very much be things at risk (including lives of others etc.) that we may or may not know about. When considering intentions, the opposite is true as well; it is possible for acts premised by bad intentions to turn into a “good” act. If someone was committing a bad deed, then Kant would say it is still bad because of the bad will, however, I don’t think rewarding bad deeds is a good recipe for promoting morality. It seems at this point Kant is gambling with the outcomes and because of that, I feel there should be more consideration for the consequences of the acts we commit. Another direct conflict with Utilitarian theory is that Kant (at least according to my reading of our text) does not state that animal rights should be considered. I am certainly no animal rights activist and I love the taste of meat, but one thing I like about Utilitarian theory is that it at least considers the rights of other beings in addition to humans. While I do not necessarily have issues with using animals as sources of food, I certainly would not approve of punching a kitten. The other area I feel is weak is in regards to conflicting duties. It does not appear that the categorical imperative provides us any guidance in regards to duties that interfere with each other. As Boss states, a great example is that of the euthanasia debate. How can a physician reach a sound moral decision (based on this theory) derived from pure rationale when the duties of preserving life and preventing pain and suffering are obviously conflicting? Because of conflicts like this, I prefer Ross’s addition of the seven prima facie duties (although to my understanding even the prima facie duties do not provide much guidance in regards to the euthanasia debate.) I feel that although Kant’s views may be lacking, not necessarily wrong. Where I feel his theories are weak, other theories such as Utilitarian theory are strong. I think a mix of deontological theory including Kant’s categorical imperative and Ross’ prima facie duties, merged with certain aspects of Utilitarianism would yield a stronger and more universal moral theory.
Air Force Sergeant Discharged Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy
After nine years in the Air Force, Sergeant Jene Newsome was discharged after a local police officer notified Air Force officials that Newsome was a lesbian. Although the manner in which Newsome’s sexual orientation was discovered and subsequently reported is bothersome, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
Utilitarianism
My initial response to Utilitarian theory was that it seemed to make very logical sense in that it considers overall happiness for the individual as well as the happiness of others. After I was able to dig deeper into the theory, I found that it did present a few problematic issues that were not easily identifiable on the surface.
What I like about Utilitarianism (UT) first and foremost, is that there is no mention of God, and therefore “we” are not attempting to live life in accordance with a set of rules in which we do not empirically know the true foundation. This theory completely takes God out of the equation and much to my liking, puts the moral responsibility back in the hands of the people who will actually be held accountable for the decisions that are made. The mere fact that this theory stems from social injustices and aims for overall happiness or “utility” in my opinion, makes it more receptive to skeptics considering moral theories. In other words, this theory was not put into place to please God or even to provide guidelines to humans like many other theories; it seems as if it was created in attempt to correct social injustices and consider everyone equally. What I appreciate most about Bentham’s contribution is the inclusion of Utilitarian calculus. These guidelines make Bentham’s theory practical (in the sense that there is a structure and formula) more useful in that there are actual steps, not just misinterpreted doctrine available to follow aimlessly. However, it is also in UT calculus that I find some of the weaker aspects of this theory.
Even though UT is definitely a step in the right direction, I feel the UT calculus (and some of Bentham’s principles behind it) skips some key components. For starters, it seems as if Bentham’s motives were to provide a tool to help us justify all of the decisions we make on a daily basis. What then if I am deciding between two things that are not really comparable? For example, what if I was forced to choose between humanitarian work and freeway graffiti? I think it’s difficult to compare these two subjects on any level and while they could both provide pleasure to someone, I find it hard to accept the fact that the pleasure is of the same caliber. The other thing I can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is how I would use this to choose between two acts that I have little to no knowledge of. For example, let’s say I had two possible choices in making a decision-becoming a school teacher, and becoming a doctor (to simplify my analogy). To use this theory as it was intended, I would have to measure things like intensity, duration, and extent. Well, if I have no knowledge of being a doctor or a school teacher, how can I reasonably quantify the potential results of either of these actions? My initial response would be to ask someone else but that defeats the purpose of this theory. Now if I were choosing between eating an apple and eating an orange, then I feel I could use the UT calculus to make a decision as I have prior experience and knowledge of both of those events. Lastly, although I like having the UT calculus as a tool, it does not seem practical for everyday decision making. I can however, see a similar tool being useful in the hands of governments being forced to make large-scale decisions.
What I like about Utilitarianism (UT) first and foremost, is that there is no mention of God, and therefore “we” are not attempting to live life in accordance with a set of rules in which we do not empirically know the true foundation. This theory completely takes God out of the equation and much to my liking, puts the moral responsibility back in the hands of the people who will actually be held accountable for the decisions that are made. The mere fact that this theory stems from social injustices and aims for overall happiness or “utility” in my opinion, makes it more receptive to skeptics considering moral theories. In other words, this theory was not put into place to please God or even to provide guidelines to humans like many other theories; it seems as if it was created in attempt to correct social injustices and consider everyone equally. What I appreciate most about Bentham’s contribution is the inclusion of Utilitarian calculus. These guidelines make Bentham’s theory practical (in the sense that there is a structure and formula) more useful in that there are actual steps, not just misinterpreted doctrine available to follow aimlessly. However, it is also in UT calculus that I find some of the weaker aspects of this theory.
Even though UT is definitely a step in the right direction, I feel the UT calculus (and some of Bentham’s principles behind it) skips some key components. For starters, it seems as if Bentham’s motives were to provide a tool to help us justify all of the decisions we make on a daily basis. What then if I am deciding between two things that are not really comparable? For example, what if I was forced to choose between humanitarian work and freeway graffiti? I think it’s difficult to compare these two subjects on any level and while they could both provide pleasure to someone, I find it hard to accept the fact that the pleasure is of the same caliber. The other thing I can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is how I would use this to choose between two acts that I have little to no knowledge of. For example, let’s say I had two possible choices in making a decision-becoming a school teacher, and becoming a doctor (to simplify my analogy). To use this theory as it was intended, I would have to measure things like intensity, duration, and extent. Well, if I have no knowledge of being a doctor or a school teacher, how can I reasonably quantify the potential results of either of these actions? My initial response would be to ask someone else but that defeats the purpose of this theory. Now if I were choosing between eating an apple and eating an orange, then I feel I could use the UT calculus to make a decision as I have prior experience and knowledge of both of those events. Lastly, although I like having the UT calculus as a tool, it does not seem practical for everyday decision making. I can however, see a similar tool being useful in the hands of governments being forced to make large-scale decisions.
Rights-Based Ethics
Immediately I am drawn to the argument of rights-based ethics as it seems to provide me with more substance than many of the theories we’ve discussed thus far. The reading makes multiple references to the term “self-evident” which I feel is not particularly positive terminology for the argument of Natural Rights Ethics. The term itself implies that a meaning is understood without proof. Unfortunately, and similar to many of the other theories we have discussed, I see this as a potential downfall (although not detrimental to the argument.) If moral rights were truly self-evident and God given (as Locke claims), I presume that there would not be much left for discussion in regards to how we acquire our natural rights. At first, Rand seems to provide a more rational theory to consider by agreeing with Locke, with the exception being that God is not the source of our natural rights. What’s comforting about this is the fact that on the surface, Rand not only considers this theory, (minus a God) she whole-heartedly defends it. My initial thought is if an original theory such as the one proposed by Locke can be considered and agreed with (minus the inclusion of God such as Rand suggests) then the fundamental aspects of the theory must be somewhat structurally “sound.” The only major difference between Locke and Rand is their conflicting viewpoints regarding the origination of our rights (God or natural.) The common ground shared between these two perspectives is that natural rights do exist for humans, independently of duties. In his natural rights theory Locke is suggesting (meta-ethically) that humans can live in a state of harmony with each other and the environment, with the right to pursue our own destiny. Due to the fact that this theory can be accepted by believers and non-believers of God, I feel the fundamental aspects (that we all have natural rights) are much more universal than some opposing theories.
One disagreement I have with both Locke and Rand is in regards to their claim that natural rights exist independently of duties. Although I understand the principle that a natural right (by definition) should not impose a particular duty on another, I do not understand how any right does not impose some sort of opposing duty. For example, Boss defines a liberty right as “the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests.” In order for our right to be fulfilled, it would require a duty on others to not interfere with said right. I realize this is not a duty where someone is forced to do (or give) something, instead it is asking that someone not do something (interfere) which in my opinion is a duty nonetheless. I feel that as long as there is the option to interfere with the rights of another, we are obligated by duty to make the correct moral choice of not interfering. I’ll use the (liberty) right to privacy to help clarify my point. If an individual has a right to privacy (which I’m assuming we all agree with) and is pursuing their right, I (as an opposing individual) have a duty to allow that person to pursue their right without interfering.
One disagreement I have with both Locke and Rand is in regards to their claim that natural rights exist independently of duties. Although I understand the principle that a natural right (by definition) should not impose a particular duty on another, I do not understand how any right does not impose some sort of opposing duty. For example, Boss defines a liberty right as “the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests.” In order for our right to be fulfilled, it would require a duty on others to not interfere with said right. I realize this is not a duty where someone is forced to do (or give) something, instead it is asking that someone not do something (interfere) which in my opinion is a duty nonetheless. I feel that as long as there is the option to interfere with the rights of another, we are obligated by duty to make the correct moral choice of not interfering. I’ll use the (liberty) right to privacy to help clarify my point. If an individual has a right to privacy (which I’m assuming we all agree with) and is pursuing their right, I (as an opposing individual) have a duty to allow that person to pursue their right without interfering.
Ethical Egoism
What immediately stands out to me in regards to psychological egoism is the fact that it leaves no real opening for objective analysis. It has already been decided that the motivation for every action is influenced by self-interest. Self-interest is the predetermined explanation for every action moving forward. Because this is a descriptive theory (telling us what “is”) and because the motivation behind any action will always be self-interest, this particular theory allows us little opportunity to try and discover right and wrong. Instead this theory makes a claim similar to “it is what it is” which doesn’t provide us much in the way of critical thinking. One can find a way to argue “self-interest” for every example imaginable, however, the fact of the matter is that simply claiming a fact (such as: an act is motivated by self-interest) does not necessarily make it empirically true. If every reason for every action has already been predetermined, is it possible there is such a thing as free will? One can argue that serving the good of self could be considered free will, however, my understanding of the definition of free will is that we are allowed the opportunity to make decisions as long as we are prepared to be judged by those decisions and accept the consequences of our choices. If all actions have a predetermined underlying reason, can human actions even be morally judged?
Because ethical egoism is normative and not descriptive in nature, it actually provides an opportunity for a more empirical analysis. What I like about this theory is the fact that it does not seem to eliminate free will. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own self interests and ethical egoism seems to promote this fairly well while encouraging personal responsibility. If each person were given the fair chance to pursue his own goals (self-interests,) I think as a social whole, we would be much more successful. This wouldn’t work in an economic structure (we can see examples of this today) where people are segregated based on access to resources. Are children in Rwanda really given the same chance (access to resources) as a child born into wealth? Rand’s “hands-off” approach in rational ethical egoism takes this thought a bit further by actually negating the actions of altruists. Although this idea may make sense in regards to maintaining economic stability if we were in fact members of a laissez-faire system, it does not seem to provide insight on how to reach that particular level of economic and social success. Claiming that acts of altruism toward “lesser” individuals only promotes charity seems almost Darwinian in nature. I would like more insight on Rand’s take in regards to physically and/or mentally ill humans. Should we not perform acts of altruism towards those who cannot act on their own behalf? Although ethical egoism appears to be more objective than psychological egoism, it still leaves questions in regards to actual morality. Ethical egoism (like psychological egoism) does not provide us with any moral guidelines for solving disputes. If a man ethical egoist and a woman ethical egoist were the last two people on the planet and they were not attracted to each other, would they suck it up and procreate or would the human race die out?
Because ethical egoism is normative and not descriptive in nature, it actually provides an opportunity for a more empirical analysis. What I like about this theory is the fact that it does not seem to eliminate free will. We are allowed to make decisions based on our own self interests and ethical egoism seems to promote this fairly well while encouraging personal responsibility. If each person were given the fair chance to pursue his own goals (self-interests,) I think as a social whole, we would be much more successful. This wouldn’t work in an economic structure (we can see examples of this today) where people are segregated based on access to resources. Are children in Rwanda really given the same chance (access to resources) as a child born into wealth? Rand’s “hands-off” approach in rational ethical egoism takes this thought a bit further by actually negating the actions of altruists. Although this idea may make sense in regards to maintaining economic stability if we were in fact members of a laissez-faire system, it does not seem to provide insight on how to reach that particular level of economic and social success. Claiming that acts of altruism toward “lesser” individuals only promotes charity seems almost Darwinian in nature. I would like more insight on Rand’s take in regards to physically and/or mentally ill humans. Should we not perform acts of altruism towards those who cannot act on their own behalf? Although ethical egoism appears to be more objective than psychological egoism, it still leaves questions in regards to actual morality. Ethical egoism (like psychological egoism) does not provide us with any moral guidelines for solving disputes. If a man ethical egoist and a woman ethical egoist were the last two people on the planet and they were not attracted to each other, would they suck it up and procreate or would the human race die out?
The Importance of Moral Development and Ethics Education
Nazi Germany, euthanasia, the destruction of fetuses, all in a single paragraph. There is no doubt that each one of these topics raises significant ethical or moral predicaments. An ethical dilemma basically forces us to choose between breaking an ethical (or perhaps social) norm, and negating an ethical or moral value.
According to Boss, “One purpose of ethics education is to help students make the transition to post conventional moral reasoning…to make effective moral decisions that they will not regret later.” One thing I find interesting about this statement (and post-conventional reasoning in general,) is there is little to no reference on the subject of continuing to grow both ethically and morally. For example, let’s say an individual has reached a stage of post-conventional reasoning and has made a decision as a doctor to euthanize a terminal patient who lives in unbearable pain. I could argue that at the time of his decision the doctor could be at complete ease with his choice, but who is to say that in five, ten, or twenty years that particular physician will not have a different moral outlook? (The same argument could be made for making the opposite decision to not euthanize the patient.) Is post-conventional wisdom (in regards to moral reasoning) the final straw in ethical development? Does advancing to this stage of moral reasoning in any way signify transcendence?
Later in the chapter Boss refers to a study in moral development by James Rest in which she states “People who are at the higher stages of moral development not only sympathize with those who are suffering, but take active steps to help alleviate that suffering.” This surfaces yet another problematic issue that I’m sure not only fuels the controversial euthanasia fire, but a myriad of other medical or psychological dilemmas as well. How do you alleviate suffering in terminal patients? How do you comfort those in chronic pain? Using the same scenario above, I have to ask what is morally just about allowing a human being to live a life of agony? What is morally unjust about ending a life of misery and allowing a fellow human being to die with dignity? I know some would prefer to use this junction to quote the Hippocratic Oath to substantiate the preservation of life however, it is my understanding that Hippocratic Oath it not necessarily a requirement or a governing document to the medical profession. I often make the point that if we continue to make decisions based on doctrine or customs that were put in place thousands of years ago, we as a species will eventually perish. I feel that opinion applies in this situation as well. Was that oath written by someone (I believe the actual author is unknown) who was able to foresee the numerous chronic illnesses and debilitating diseases that human beings are faced with today? If post-conventionalism is what it is, then why in 2010 would we subject ourselves to the moral philosophies and ethical guidelines of a doctrine that was written centuries ago?
According to Boss, “One purpose of ethics education is to help students make the transition to post conventional moral reasoning…to make effective moral decisions that they will not regret later.” One thing I find interesting about this statement (and post-conventional reasoning in general,) is there is little to no reference on the subject of continuing to grow both ethically and morally. For example, let’s say an individual has reached a stage of post-conventional reasoning and has made a decision as a doctor to euthanize a terminal patient who lives in unbearable pain. I could argue that at the time of his decision the doctor could be at complete ease with his choice, but who is to say that in five, ten, or twenty years that particular physician will not have a different moral outlook? (The same argument could be made for making the opposite decision to not euthanize the patient.) Is post-conventional wisdom (in regards to moral reasoning) the final straw in ethical development? Does advancing to this stage of moral reasoning in any way signify transcendence?
Later in the chapter Boss refers to a study in moral development by James Rest in which she states “People who are at the higher stages of moral development not only sympathize with those who are suffering, but take active steps to help alleviate that suffering.” This surfaces yet another problematic issue that I’m sure not only fuels the controversial euthanasia fire, but a myriad of other medical or psychological dilemmas as well. How do you alleviate suffering in terminal patients? How do you comfort those in chronic pain? Using the same scenario above, I have to ask what is morally just about allowing a human being to live a life of agony? What is morally unjust about ending a life of misery and allowing a fellow human being to die with dignity? I know some would prefer to use this junction to quote the Hippocratic Oath to substantiate the preservation of life however, it is my understanding that Hippocratic Oath it not necessarily a requirement or a governing document to the medical profession. I often make the point that if we continue to make decisions based on doctrine or customs that were put in place thousands of years ago, we as a species will eventually perish. I feel that opinion applies in this situation as well. Was that oath written by someone (I believe the actual author is unknown) who was able to foresee the numerous chronic illnesses and debilitating diseases that human beings are faced with today? If post-conventionalism is what it is, then why in 2010 would we subject ourselves to the moral philosophies and ethical guidelines of a doctrine that was written centuries ago?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
LOST: Ethics in Television
Here it is: my term paper from last semester. I haven't even read it since I wrote it. Hope it is enjoyable.
The hit television series “LOST” has become somewhat of a pop-culture phenomenon. The magical island, jungle of mystery, and questionable characters make the show easy to be interested in to say the least. What I find most interesting about Lost, is the underlying philosophical and ethical messages that are a prevalent aspect of the show. Almost all the characters on the show at least resemble, if not directly refer, to a philosopher or philosophical entity. Furthermore, the personality traits of the individual characters and the situations they find themselves in the show, give the audience a good taste of how certain ethical theories pan out, and how certain moral dilemmas can be approached. Throughout his time on the island, Jack Shepard finds himself in and out of situations that most people would find emotionally draining. Overall, Jack is a good person; he lives a dutiful life and inevitably does what could be considered to be the right thing. Since his plane crash led him to this mysterious “rock”, Jack has found himself in the middle of ethically diverse situations that challenge the very essence of his moral beliefs. In fact, much of the show’s progressive plot emphasizes the personal strain that Jack has experienced as a result of his inner desire to “do good” throughout his life. Based on his actions and demeanor throughout the story, Jack is an accurate depiction of a deontological or duty-based ethicist. Deontology theories claim that morality is found in the duty of an act and that consequences of an act do not represent rightness or wrongness. Although this sounds ethically strong, there are some fundamental issues which make it difficult to solely rely on duty-based ethics. Throughout the storyline of Lost we get to witness many ethical theories play-out as they are tested to their roots. For the purposes of this paper we will focus on Jack’s approach to ethical dilemmas using a duty-based ethic.
One of the shows earliest moral dilemmas comes to us in the beginning of the premier season when as a result of the plane crash, a federal marshal has sustained a life-threatening injury (S1, E1.) The marshal, unconscious for the majority of time since the crash, has suffered a pierced abdomen as a result of shrapnel from the wreckage. It is made clear that the marshal is (or will be) in a serious amount of pain, and is in dire need of medical supplies and antibiotics if he is in fact to have any chance of recovery. Being the only physician on the island, it is Jack’s duty to treat the patient to the best of his ability and because of this, Jack has dedicated his time (there are others injured and in need of medical attention) and resources (medical equipment, antibiotics, etc. that were salvaged from the crash) to the critically injured marshal. It is clear at this point that there is no real moral issue with Jack’s decision to take heroic measures to save the dying patient. Moral questionability is not revealed until a later episode when Jack meets Sawyer in the cabin of the crashed airplane while scavenging for much needed medical supplies. (S1, E3) During this confrontation, Sawyer points out the important fact that their rescue is not as inevitable as some may have initially been hoping. Because of this, Sawyer questions Jack’s decision to take such heroic measures to save the marshal and freely using the limited amount of medical supplies. It becomes apparent that what may have been considered a non-issue, has turned into a situation worth taking another look at. It should be known that at this point, there is no certainty that the patient will survive, even if he is privileged to all of the available medicine, surely a factor in Sawyers concern in “wasting” the antibiotics. In the following episode, Jack informs Kate that the condition of the patient has not improved and the prognosis is certainly death. (S1, E3) Both Kate and Sawyer suggest to Jack that he do something to expedite what is thought to be a certain death. Jack’s initial conflict is in dealing with the allocation of limited medical supplies; how much medicine should he use to try and save a suffering patient before his use of that medicine becomes a mere waste? Also, how long should Jack let the terminal patient suffer on the road to his inevitable death? Here we see how the role of a physician sort of naturally fits with a duty-based ethic; as a doctor, Jack assumes responsibility and inherits an ethical obligation to try and preserve the life of the dying marshal, in other words, Jack’s duty. This is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative (second formulation), Ross’s prima facie duties (beneficence, justice), and Rawls’ “Justice Theory” (if we say that from behind the veil of ignorance we would all “want” or choose to be helped in that situation.) The dynamics of Jack’s situation give us different aspects and components to consider when performing a moral examination. Making the life of a dying patient his personal resolve, is clearly a duty-based characteristic on Jack’s behalf. Furthermore, it seems as if once he makes up his mind, he has a strong ability to not let his decisions be influenced. His duty is to save the guy and that’s it; nothing else is relevant to that particular situation. What’s interesting here is that it almost seems irresponsible to not, at the very least, consider the potential need for medicine and supplies for future use. Sawyer (the ethical egoist), Kate (possibly a care-ethicist) and others from the camp all question Jack’s judgment in using the limited supplies. This is a good example of one the questionable side effects of some duty-based theory. It seems almost brash or inhumane to not consider the other alternatives based on perceived outcomes. This is why a strict deontological approach sounds really great, almost virtuous (“I have a duty to…”) however, once in that situation, we find it really difficult to simply dismiss the potential consequences. Jack’s second conflict in this situation comes after he realizes that despite the best efforts made, the life of the dying man will soon end. It’s at this point that Jack is approached by numerous members of the camp, all asking that Jack do something to “speed” things along. Now this scenario is similar, but the duties involved are significantly different. For example, now Jack has to decide between his duty of helping the patient live (beneficence) and his suggested duty to help the patient die (which contradicts his duty of nonmaleficence.) This situation provides an interesting parallel to the physician’s duty in the euthanasia debate. It is clear that Jack in no way wants to take action in the death of a patient; I can only assume that Jack has previously determined that the duty to preserve life is more sacred than the duty to prevent pain and suffering.
Near the end of the first season we find Jack struggling his way through a more personal moral dilemma. In the eleventh episode “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues,” we catch the scene of Jack losing a patient on the operating table. His father, the Chief of Surgery is in the room with him and there is an obvious friction between the two. We later learn that Jack assumed responsibility of the surgery from his father (Christian), who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The end result is the death of a girl whose life may have been salvageable, a result that Jack clearly blames on his father. Due to the patient’s death, a formal medical hearing has been sanctioned; as the surgeon of record, Jack must decide to either falsify the report, absolving his father of any responsibility, or testify the true events to the medical review board, an act that will surely ruin his father’s career. What’s unique about this situation is not only do we have conflicting duties, we have added a more personal element to the possible consequences. Keep in mind, a true deontologist would not allow their decision to be impacted by the addition of consequences. If Jack considers he has a duty to his father (loyalty, gratitude, etc.) then his only real option is to falsify the documents. The conflicting duty here is Jack’s responsibility of reporting his father, and hopefully preventing this event from happening in the future; the duty of nonmaleficence. So Jack is now trying to decide which duty is priority. A good deontologist (having grasped the concept that situations like this may arise,) may have his or her duties already pre-prioritized and may be able to assert that one’s duty to his family is of higher priority than other “non-familial” duties. What happens if Jack leaves his little black book of deontology on his nightstand; how does he work himself through this issue? A deontologist might say the moral agent would then have to decide on-the-spot, which duty that person held to a higher value. Jack finds himself at a decision yielding only two possible outcomes. Each outcome represents both an achievement of a duty, and the denial of a duty. For example, if Jack chose to surrender his father; he would achieve the duty of “preventing future harm” but he may also sacrifice the duty of beneficence or gratitude to his father. His alternative option yields results that achieve another duty, and finally the denial of another; almost an “I can’t win” scenario. I think a better solution may be to consider using a different ethic altogether. For example, if you get stuck with conflicting duties, you could progress to a utility-based theory where you can qualitatively and quantifiably choose the better of your two options. This can be looked at as getting the best out of your loss, or doing the best with what you had; it all depends on your outlook. Regardless of the decision that is made, you can say you did your duty of due diligence on the matter. In the show, Jack chooses the duty to his father is of the highest value in this situation and we are given the impression of a mutual understanding between Jack and Christian, one that entails a certain degree of change in Christian’s behavior moving forward. Jack agrees to sign the papers and testify on behalf of his father at the review hearing. The final question during Christian’s medical review reaches Jack and the television audience at the same time when we simultaneously learn that the dead patient was pregnant. Jack is immediately distraught and uncomfortable with this news, a feeling that eventually causes him to retract his testimony and legitimize the report of his father’s actions. Now this is an interesting conflict; Jack made a decision based primarily on duty, yet when we add a consequence to the equation, Jack actually changes his testimony and in essence, disregards the duty to his father. To me this shows us that Jack simply was unable to come to a decision based on duty alone, and he had to revert to the cost-benefit model of a consequentialist theory. Once a pregnancy and a loss of a child are entered into the equation, his choice of the higher ethic changed as well. We the audience never learn exactly what influenced Jack’s decision; it could have been the additional loss of life, or perhaps it was Christian’s willingness to lie in response to his knowledge of the girls pregnancy, all we know is that something did in fact make him change his mind. Because of this, I can only assume that Jack must have used some sort of consequentialist reasoning to come to his conclusion. If he truly made that decision based on duty and duty alone, then consequences (in this case collateral damage) should be irrelevant.
The season five finale presents Jack in a situation where he’s now challenged to make a decision that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on a large number of people. We learn in the “Follow the Leader” episode (S1, E15) that Jack has an opportunity to potentially reverse everything that has occurred over the last five television seasons. The scientist Daniel Faraday learns that if they can destroy the massive amount of energy that’s beneath the island’s surface, then they can potentially travel back to the exact point in time before they ever crashed on the island. This would mean that nothing that has occurred on the island as we know it will actually occur. Now we have a situation where the moral reigns are given to Jack so that he may decide what’s best for everyone. This a step-up from his other dilemmas because now instead of the implications only impacting one or a few, Jack is making a decision that will either work and be catastrophic for some, or it will fail and be catastrophic for all. You would have to be a fan of the show to really understand the implications involved with each of Jack’s options in this particular scenario. It’s important to know that should Jack succeed, he would reverse the deaths of many innocent people. It is also important to know that should he succeed, there would be a significant amount of collateral damage. For example, Kate (the women Jack has come to love) would inevitably end up in prison, Claire (who we learn is Jack’s sister) would give up her baby (Jack’s nephew) for adoption, and Rose would inevitably die from the cancer that has plagued her up to the point until she crash-lands on the island. So how does a good duty-based ethicist move forward? He could revert to his core beliefs and choose which duty “outranks” the other (much like in his first dilemma) or he can adopt methods from another ethical standpoint to help him through the decision (similar to Jack’s dilemma with his father.) Which of these options is the “right” thing to do? If we leave it to Jack to decide which duty to adhere to, we are in essence saying that we trust his judgment, as any good deontologist in that situation would choose the act which is most dutiful. Regardless of what we say we would do in this situation, I find it hard to believe, if not impossible, that any moral agent in this situation would not instinctively refer to the possible outcomes. It simply does not seem rational that an agent could be “right” by doing a duty that leads to many deaths, while there was another option available that resulted in less catastrophic outcomes. If a deontologist cannot at least “see” this point while in the crux of a moral dilemma, then said agent is in fact being ethically lazy. If Jack were to drop down (or step up) to another theory to help resolve the issue, he’s at the very least showing an understanding that since his chosen ethic has led him to a situation he cannot resolve, perhaps there is room to investigate other options or theories.
We’ve now had the opportunity to follow Jack through a number of dilemmas during his time on the island; each dilemma with its own set of circumstances, risks, and potential outcomes. Some might argue that these examples are not an accurate depiction of real life, but I think the series of events that Jack undergoes portrays very realistic parallels to the real world. Let’s take Jack’s first dilemma, the dying federal marshal. Here Jack is faced between two conflicting duties; the duty of beneficence and the duty of nonmaleficence. The crash, the island, and the whiny survivors are mere “multiples of zero” (they cancel themselves out) in Jack’s moral equation; the true dilemma lies with how to treat the dying patient. Jack is now at a point when he only has two choices and he himself must choose one. Once we rid ourselves of the visuals of crashed planes and jungle polar bears, we find this situation strikingly relevant to the euthanasia debate. When discussing this issue we are quick to compare the morality of patient rights with the duties of the doctor, it’s interesting now to see how the doctor’s morality is challenged. It’s almost as if we normally don’t consider the feelings or input of the doctors themselves, like they would do whatever we deem morally acceptable. Because we get to see how these implications impact Jack on a personal level, we gain more insight to the humanity of the euthanasia debate, simply from a different perspective than we might normally consider. What about Jack’s issue with his father? I think this issue is actually a lot more prevalent in our daily lives than we may consider. Again we have to dismiss much of the “movie magic” that’s included in the story, but at the end of the day, Jack is simply stuck choosing between his family and what is right. Personally speaking, family issues are the hardest to resolve. We sometimes may know that what Aunt Bethel did was unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, are we really willing to prosecute our family members based on a belief or value we may personally hold? This is a good example of how a potentially easy decision can go awry once a family component is introduced. Finally we have Jack’s last attempt to save the island. This is a more complex dilemma because so much is at risk and virtually every available option has serious implications. I find a unique correlation here between Jack’s situation and perhaps the situation of any company owner, politician, or leader. Jack is put into a situation where he is responsible for the lives (or well-being) of many people and regardless of the decision he makes, there will inevitably be loss, suffering, and the potential risk that the wrong decision was made altogether. Whether or not Jack wants the responsibility, he has it. To me it’s obvious that his duty now becomes to do that which would ultimately provide the best possible outcomes for the higher proportion of people. Through these examples of the moral turmoil that Jack experiences, we gain more insight to some of the inner workings of a duty-based ethic. We find how a duty-ethicist may approach certain situations, more importantly we discover a certain number of challenges that may be present when using an ethic of this type to approach day-to-day ethical dilemmas.
The hit television series “LOST” has become somewhat of a pop-culture phenomenon. The magical island, jungle of mystery, and questionable characters make the show easy to be interested in to say the least. What I find most interesting about Lost, is the underlying philosophical and ethical messages that are a prevalent aspect of the show. Almost all the characters on the show at least resemble, if not directly refer, to a philosopher or philosophical entity. Furthermore, the personality traits of the individual characters and the situations they find themselves in the show, give the audience a good taste of how certain ethical theories pan out, and how certain moral dilemmas can be approached. Throughout his time on the island, Jack Shepard finds himself in and out of situations that most people would find emotionally draining. Overall, Jack is a good person; he lives a dutiful life and inevitably does what could be considered to be the right thing. Since his plane crash led him to this mysterious “rock”, Jack has found himself in the middle of ethically diverse situations that challenge the very essence of his moral beliefs. In fact, much of the show’s progressive plot emphasizes the personal strain that Jack has experienced as a result of his inner desire to “do good” throughout his life. Based on his actions and demeanor throughout the story, Jack is an accurate depiction of a deontological or duty-based ethicist. Deontology theories claim that morality is found in the duty of an act and that consequences of an act do not represent rightness or wrongness. Although this sounds ethically strong, there are some fundamental issues which make it difficult to solely rely on duty-based ethics. Throughout the storyline of Lost we get to witness many ethical theories play-out as they are tested to their roots. For the purposes of this paper we will focus on Jack’s approach to ethical dilemmas using a duty-based ethic.
One of the shows earliest moral dilemmas comes to us in the beginning of the premier season when as a result of the plane crash, a federal marshal has sustained a life-threatening injury (S1, E1.) The marshal, unconscious for the majority of time since the crash, has suffered a pierced abdomen as a result of shrapnel from the wreckage. It is made clear that the marshal is (or will be) in a serious amount of pain, and is in dire need of medical supplies and antibiotics if he is in fact to have any chance of recovery. Being the only physician on the island, it is Jack’s duty to treat the patient to the best of his ability and because of this, Jack has dedicated his time (there are others injured and in need of medical attention) and resources (medical equipment, antibiotics, etc. that were salvaged from the crash) to the critically injured marshal. It is clear at this point that there is no real moral issue with Jack’s decision to take heroic measures to save the dying patient. Moral questionability is not revealed until a later episode when Jack meets Sawyer in the cabin of the crashed airplane while scavenging for much needed medical supplies. (S1, E3) During this confrontation, Sawyer points out the important fact that their rescue is not as inevitable as some may have initially been hoping. Because of this, Sawyer questions Jack’s decision to take such heroic measures to save the marshal and freely using the limited amount of medical supplies. It becomes apparent that what may have been considered a non-issue, has turned into a situation worth taking another look at. It should be known that at this point, there is no certainty that the patient will survive, even if he is privileged to all of the available medicine, surely a factor in Sawyers concern in “wasting” the antibiotics. In the following episode, Jack informs Kate that the condition of the patient has not improved and the prognosis is certainly death. (S1, E3) Both Kate and Sawyer suggest to Jack that he do something to expedite what is thought to be a certain death. Jack’s initial conflict is in dealing with the allocation of limited medical supplies; how much medicine should he use to try and save a suffering patient before his use of that medicine becomes a mere waste? Also, how long should Jack let the terminal patient suffer on the road to his inevitable death? Here we see how the role of a physician sort of naturally fits with a duty-based ethic; as a doctor, Jack assumes responsibility and inherits an ethical obligation to try and preserve the life of the dying marshal, in other words, Jack’s duty. This is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative (second formulation), Ross’s prima facie duties (beneficence, justice), and Rawls’ “Justice Theory” (if we say that from behind the veil of ignorance we would all “want” or choose to be helped in that situation.) The dynamics of Jack’s situation give us different aspects and components to consider when performing a moral examination. Making the life of a dying patient his personal resolve, is clearly a duty-based characteristic on Jack’s behalf. Furthermore, it seems as if once he makes up his mind, he has a strong ability to not let his decisions be influenced. His duty is to save the guy and that’s it; nothing else is relevant to that particular situation. What’s interesting here is that it almost seems irresponsible to not, at the very least, consider the potential need for medicine and supplies for future use. Sawyer (the ethical egoist), Kate (possibly a care-ethicist) and others from the camp all question Jack’s judgment in using the limited supplies. This is a good example of one the questionable side effects of some duty-based theory. It seems almost brash or inhumane to not consider the other alternatives based on perceived outcomes. This is why a strict deontological approach sounds really great, almost virtuous (“I have a duty to…”) however, once in that situation, we find it really difficult to simply dismiss the potential consequences. Jack’s second conflict in this situation comes after he realizes that despite the best efforts made, the life of the dying man will soon end. It’s at this point that Jack is approached by numerous members of the camp, all asking that Jack do something to “speed” things along. Now this scenario is similar, but the duties involved are significantly different. For example, now Jack has to decide between his duty of helping the patient live (beneficence) and his suggested duty to help the patient die (which contradicts his duty of nonmaleficence.) This situation provides an interesting parallel to the physician’s duty in the euthanasia debate. It is clear that Jack in no way wants to take action in the death of a patient; I can only assume that Jack has previously determined that the duty to preserve life is more sacred than the duty to prevent pain and suffering.
Near the end of the first season we find Jack struggling his way through a more personal moral dilemma. In the eleventh episode “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues,” we catch the scene of Jack losing a patient on the operating table. His father, the Chief of Surgery is in the room with him and there is an obvious friction between the two. We later learn that Jack assumed responsibility of the surgery from his father (Christian), who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The end result is the death of a girl whose life may have been salvageable, a result that Jack clearly blames on his father. Due to the patient’s death, a formal medical hearing has been sanctioned; as the surgeon of record, Jack must decide to either falsify the report, absolving his father of any responsibility, or testify the true events to the medical review board, an act that will surely ruin his father’s career. What’s unique about this situation is not only do we have conflicting duties, we have added a more personal element to the possible consequences. Keep in mind, a true deontologist would not allow their decision to be impacted by the addition of consequences. If Jack considers he has a duty to his father (loyalty, gratitude, etc.) then his only real option is to falsify the documents. The conflicting duty here is Jack’s responsibility of reporting his father, and hopefully preventing this event from happening in the future; the duty of nonmaleficence. So Jack is now trying to decide which duty is priority. A good deontologist (having grasped the concept that situations like this may arise,) may have his or her duties already pre-prioritized and may be able to assert that one’s duty to his family is of higher priority than other “non-familial” duties. What happens if Jack leaves his little black book of deontology on his nightstand; how does he work himself through this issue? A deontologist might say the moral agent would then have to decide on-the-spot, which duty that person held to a higher value. Jack finds himself at a decision yielding only two possible outcomes. Each outcome represents both an achievement of a duty, and the denial of a duty. For example, if Jack chose to surrender his father; he would achieve the duty of “preventing future harm” but he may also sacrifice the duty of beneficence or gratitude to his father. His alternative option yields results that achieve another duty, and finally the denial of another; almost an “I can’t win” scenario. I think a better solution may be to consider using a different ethic altogether. For example, if you get stuck with conflicting duties, you could progress to a utility-based theory where you can qualitatively and quantifiably choose the better of your two options. This can be looked at as getting the best out of your loss, or doing the best with what you had; it all depends on your outlook. Regardless of the decision that is made, you can say you did your duty of due diligence on the matter. In the show, Jack chooses the duty to his father is of the highest value in this situation and we are given the impression of a mutual understanding between Jack and Christian, one that entails a certain degree of change in Christian’s behavior moving forward. Jack agrees to sign the papers and testify on behalf of his father at the review hearing. The final question during Christian’s medical review reaches Jack and the television audience at the same time when we simultaneously learn that the dead patient was pregnant. Jack is immediately distraught and uncomfortable with this news, a feeling that eventually causes him to retract his testimony and legitimize the report of his father’s actions. Now this is an interesting conflict; Jack made a decision based primarily on duty, yet when we add a consequence to the equation, Jack actually changes his testimony and in essence, disregards the duty to his father. To me this shows us that Jack simply was unable to come to a decision based on duty alone, and he had to revert to the cost-benefit model of a consequentialist theory. Once a pregnancy and a loss of a child are entered into the equation, his choice of the higher ethic changed as well. We the audience never learn exactly what influenced Jack’s decision; it could have been the additional loss of life, or perhaps it was Christian’s willingness to lie in response to his knowledge of the girls pregnancy, all we know is that something did in fact make him change his mind. Because of this, I can only assume that Jack must have used some sort of consequentialist reasoning to come to his conclusion. If he truly made that decision based on duty and duty alone, then consequences (in this case collateral damage) should be irrelevant.
The season five finale presents Jack in a situation where he’s now challenged to make a decision that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on a large number of people. We learn in the “Follow the Leader” episode (S1, E15) that Jack has an opportunity to potentially reverse everything that has occurred over the last five television seasons. The scientist Daniel Faraday learns that if they can destroy the massive amount of energy that’s beneath the island’s surface, then they can potentially travel back to the exact point in time before they ever crashed on the island. This would mean that nothing that has occurred on the island as we know it will actually occur. Now we have a situation where the moral reigns are given to Jack so that he may decide what’s best for everyone. This a step-up from his other dilemmas because now instead of the implications only impacting one or a few, Jack is making a decision that will either work and be catastrophic for some, or it will fail and be catastrophic for all. You would have to be a fan of the show to really understand the implications involved with each of Jack’s options in this particular scenario. It’s important to know that should Jack succeed, he would reverse the deaths of many innocent people. It is also important to know that should he succeed, there would be a significant amount of collateral damage. For example, Kate (the women Jack has come to love) would inevitably end up in prison, Claire (who we learn is Jack’s sister) would give up her baby (Jack’s nephew) for adoption, and Rose would inevitably die from the cancer that has plagued her up to the point until she crash-lands on the island. So how does a good duty-based ethicist move forward? He could revert to his core beliefs and choose which duty “outranks” the other (much like in his first dilemma) or he can adopt methods from another ethical standpoint to help him through the decision (similar to Jack’s dilemma with his father.) Which of these options is the “right” thing to do? If we leave it to Jack to decide which duty to adhere to, we are in essence saying that we trust his judgment, as any good deontologist in that situation would choose the act which is most dutiful. Regardless of what we say we would do in this situation, I find it hard to believe, if not impossible, that any moral agent in this situation would not instinctively refer to the possible outcomes. It simply does not seem rational that an agent could be “right” by doing a duty that leads to many deaths, while there was another option available that resulted in less catastrophic outcomes. If a deontologist cannot at least “see” this point while in the crux of a moral dilemma, then said agent is in fact being ethically lazy. If Jack were to drop down (or step up) to another theory to help resolve the issue, he’s at the very least showing an understanding that since his chosen ethic has led him to a situation he cannot resolve, perhaps there is room to investigate other options or theories.
We’ve now had the opportunity to follow Jack through a number of dilemmas during his time on the island; each dilemma with its own set of circumstances, risks, and potential outcomes. Some might argue that these examples are not an accurate depiction of real life, but I think the series of events that Jack undergoes portrays very realistic parallels to the real world. Let’s take Jack’s first dilemma, the dying federal marshal. Here Jack is faced between two conflicting duties; the duty of beneficence and the duty of nonmaleficence. The crash, the island, and the whiny survivors are mere “multiples of zero” (they cancel themselves out) in Jack’s moral equation; the true dilemma lies with how to treat the dying patient. Jack is now at a point when he only has two choices and he himself must choose one. Once we rid ourselves of the visuals of crashed planes and jungle polar bears, we find this situation strikingly relevant to the euthanasia debate. When discussing this issue we are quick to compare the morality of patient rights with the duties of the doctor, it’s interesting now to see how the doctor’s morality is challenged. It’s almost as if we normally don’t consider the feelings or input of the doctors themselves, like they would do whatever we deem morally acceptable. Because we get to see how these implications impact Jack on a personal level, we gain more insight to the humanity of the euthanasia debate, simply from a different perspective than we might normally consider. What about Jack’s issue with his father? I think this issue is actually a lot more prevalent in our daily lives than we may consider. Again we have to dismiss much of the “movie magic” that’s included in the story, but at the end of the day, Jack is simply stuck choosing between his family and what is right. Personally speaking, family issues are the hardest to resolve. We sometimes may know that what Aunt Bethel did was unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, are we really willing to prosecute our family members based on a belief or value we may personally hold? This is a good example of how a potentially easy decision can go awry once a family component is introduced. Finally we have Jack’s last attempt to save the island. This is a more complex dilemma because so much is at risk and virtually every available option has serious implications. I find a unique correlation here between Jack’s situation and perhaps the situation of any company owner, politician, or leader. Jack is put into a situation where he is responsible for the lives (or well-being) of many people and regardless of the decision he makes, there will inevitably be loss, suffering, and the potential risk that the wrong decision was made altogether. Whether or not Jack wants the responsibility, he has it. To me it’s obvious that his duty now becomes to do that which would ultimately provide the best possible outcomes for the higher proportion of people. Through these examples of the moral turmoil that Jack experiences, we gain more insight to some of the inner workings of a duty-based ethic. We find how a duty-ethicist may approach certain situations, more importantly we discover a certain number of challenges that may be present when using an ethic of this type to approach day-to-day ethical dilemmas.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Morality and Religion: Divine Command Theory
“Many people look to religion for moral guidance.” To me this statement only solidifies my belief that religion, in many ways, can be used as nothing more than a scapegoat for people to pass the buck when it comes to being morally responsible.
The text states “there are no independent, universal moral standards by which to judge God’s commands,” (Divine Command) which potentially means that any action, be it rape, genocide, etc., could be deemed acceptable simply because God approved it. This is a fairly powerful statement that puts us all at risk to potentially disastrous ramifications. My main concern with this theory is that not only does it not tell us (believers or non-believers) what is right and what is wrong, it doesn’t even give substantial and applicable ethical or moral guidelines to adhere to. I find it hard to believe that if there is a God, that his/her strategic all powerful decision would be to ensure that no moral guidelines are available for us humans, other than the Ten Commandments which have been passed down through centuries and numerous languages, and individually deciphered by man. This doesn’t necessarily prove God infallible, but it doesn’t help an argument to prove his existence. Another concern with this theory is that there is no way to prove any act to be (or not to be) approved by God. In other words, any individual could take the position that the heinous act they committed was done in God’s eye with potentially no moral recourse (9/11 terrorists.) An act that potentially withstands moral recourse (meaning it was approved by God,) but is still subject to man’s law and subsequently the consequences deemed appropriate by mans law, is what makes this theory fail the first test sentence of the meta-ethical procedure used to determine universality. Furthermore, the mere structure of this theory allows us the opportunity to become complacent in regards to developing, instilling, and practicing a sound moral lifestyle. Assuming that a Divine Theorist follows the word of God (via the ten Commandments), because of the nature and message of the Commandments themselves, it is possible that a multitude of other morally “challenging” situations can arise with little to no guidance on how to deal with them. Having a list of guidelines, is absolutely a positive factor. Not only does it provide some moral guidance, it also gives good reason to have faith for those who choose it (the Commandments are said to be the actual words of God.) My issue remains in the lack of substance within the Commandments themselves. Although they cover a wide range of pertinent and valuable issues, they simply are not enough to build a strong moral foundation. Having a list of guidelines, while a good start, can be counteractive in the fact that if they are perceived to be the “end all be all” to morality, those very guidelines can limit our desire to strive for moral maturity.
The text states “there are no independent, universal moral standards by which to judge God’s commands,” (Divine Command) which potentially means that any action, be it rape, genocide, etc., could be deemed acceptable simply because God approved it. This is a fairly powerful statement that puts us all at risk to potentially disastrous ramifications. My main concern with this theory is that not only does it not tell us (believers or non-believers) what is right and what is wrong, it doesn’t even give substantial and applicable ethical or moral guidelines to adhere to. I find it hard to believe that if there is a God, that his/her strategic all powerful decision would be to ensure that no moral guidelines are available for us humans, other than the Ten Commandments which have been passed down through centuries and numerous languages, and individually deciphered by man. This doesn’t necessarily prove God infallible, but it doesn’t help an argument to prove his existence. Another concern with this theory is that there is no way to prove any act to be (or not to be) approved by God. In other words, any individual could take the position that the heinous act they committed was done in God’s eye with potentially no moral recourse (9/11 terrorists.) An act that potentially withstands moral recourse (meaning it was approved by God,) but is still subject to man’s law and subsequently the consequences deemed appropriate by mans law, is what makes this theory fail the first test sentence of the meta-ethical procedure used to determine universality. Furthermore, the mere structure of this theory allows us the opportunity to become complacent in regards to developing, instilling, and practicing a sound moral lifestyle. Assuming that a Divine Theorist follows the word of God (via the ten Commandments), because of the nature and message of the Commandments themselves, it is possible that a multitude of other morally “challenging” situations can arise with little to no guidance on how to deal with them. Having a list of guidelines, is absolutely a positive factor. Not only does it provide some moral guidance, it also gives good reason to have faith for those who choose it (the Commandments are said to be the actual words of God.) My issue remains in the lack of substance within the Commandments themselves. Although they cover a wide range of pertinent and valuable issues, they simply are not enough to build a strong moral foundation. Having a list of guidelines, while a good start, can be counteractive in the fact that if they are perceived to be the “end all be all” to morality, those very guidelines can limit our desire to strive for moral maturity.
Introduction to Moral Theories
I didn’t make it past the first page before Stanley Milgram’s excerpt (Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs…) provoked a seemingly endless and consuming thought process. If I interpreted Milgram’s thoughts correctly, he is inferring that all people, regardless of background and/or status have the potential to carry out immoral behavior. Based on his conclusion I immediately thought of all the young soldiers and the myriad of potentially problematic issues that may arise when ordinary people are asked to do extraordinary things.
Although not true in every case, a somewhat typical story of a soldier may entail: leaving for military duty at an extremely young age, being separated from family (sometimes for the first time ever,) undergoing a “culture shock” or paradigm shift, being put into an extraordinary situation with little to no moral or ethical foundation, being left to suffer the damaging consequences of his or her actions. I can surmise that members of the armed forces are taught to “act without thinking” and follow orders without questioning. For the objective of completing a mission without risking the lives of others, I can see the validity in this method of training. My quandary resides with my concern over the lack of foundation these ill-equipped young men and women possess. If we were to assume that a large portion of soldiers come from an age demographic of seventeen to twenty-five years of age, it is fair that we ask ourselves about the kind of moral/ethical foundation they can possibly have. Of course some are more ethically “mature” than others, but I do not believe that accounts for the majority.
Taking into consideration the fact that many service members may not bear a desirable amount of moral fiber, I have to question the validity of the exceptional amount of pressure these young men and women are forced to deal with. If I were to take a seventeen or eighteen-year old boy from a small southern town (who may have lived a relatively sheltered life) and put that boy in a situation where he follows orders blindly (without question) and was forced to experience something as formidable as say, taking the life of another human being; it would be highly presumptuous of me to assume that it would not have a high emotional effect on that child. Where is the morality behind that scenario? It’s difficult for me to believe that issues such as PTSD, depression, and suicide among military members, actually surprise anyone. What frustrates me further is the fact that so many people (including non-military personnel) are oblivious to many of the real reasons as to why we engage in certain acts of war. It saddens me to think that we may be putting American children at risk for potential long-term psychological issues while taking full advantage of the fact that they lack the resources to challenge or question the bigger picture.
Being exposed to a number of experiences in my life, both personal and professional, I have seen the tremendous importance of a solid foundation. In order to achieve a high level of moral or ethical capacity, one must first obtain a sound foundation. Strong foundations (across many applications) begin with parenting and child rearing. The longer children are denied the opportunity to grow both morally and mentally, the harder it is to attain a high level of moral and/or ethical achievement.
Although not true in every case, a somewhat typical story of a soldier may entail: leaving for military duty at an extremely young age, being separated from family (sometimes for the first time ever,) undergoing a “culture shock” or paradigm shift, being put into an extraordinary situation with little to no moral or ethical foundation, being left to suffer the damaging consequences of his or her actions. I can surmise that members of the armed forces are taught to “act without thinking” and follow orders without questioning. For the objective of completing a mission without risking the lives of others, I can see the validity in this method of training. My quandary resides with my concern over the lack of foundation these ill-equipped young men and women possess. If we were to assume that a large portion of soldiers come from an age demographic of seventeen to twenty-five years of age, it is fair that we ask ourselves about the kind of moral/ethical foundation they can possibly have. Of course some are more ethically “mature” than others, but I do not believe that accounts for the majority.
Taking into consideration the fact that many service members may not bear a desirable amount of moral fiber, I have to question the validity of the exceptional amount of pressure these young men and women are forced to deal with. If I were to take a seventeen or eighteen-year old boy from a small southern town (who may have lived a relatively sheltered life) and put that boy in a situation where he follows orders blindly (without question) and was forced to experience something as formidable as say, taking the life of another human being; it would be highly presumptuous of me to assume that it would not have a high emotional effect on that child. Where is the morality behind that scenario? It’s difficult for me to believe that issues such as PTSD, depression, and suicide among military members, actually surprise anyone. What frustrates me further is the fact that so many people (including non-military personnel) are oblivious to many of the real reasons as to why we engage in certain acts of war. It saddens me to think that we may be putting American children at risk for potential long-term psychological issues while taking full advantage of the fact that they lack the resources to challenge or question the bigger picture.
Being exposed to a number of experiences in my life, both personal and professional, I have seen the tremendous importance of a solid foundation. In order to achieve a high level of moral or ethical capacity, one must first obtain a sound foundation. Strong foundations (across many applications) begin with parenting and child rearing. The longer children are denied the opportunity to grow both morally and mentally, the harder it is to attain a high level of moral and/or ethical achievement.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Time!
I never have time to get on here and rant anymore! School has been kicking my butt lately and I have been spending all my free time focusing on what I'm going to do with my life. I have been thinking a lot lately about writing a book about my life. Why a book? Why my life? No idea! It's just one of those things that I feel is the right thing to do. I wish I had better answers than that, maybe while writing I will come up with some. One thing I am going to do is start posting all the journals I have to write for school on here, that way I at least can get some activity going on. Most of these journals will be related to either sociology or philosophy in some way or another. Any ideas on how to make a better effort on here???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)