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
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)