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.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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.
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.
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)