Ethics and Human Interface 3
Determinants of Ethics
Traditional Sources of Ethics
How do we determine right and wrong?
Most popular determinants of ethics comprise a mix of four separate, but interrelated sources:
o Social rules or customs that are either agreed on by the majority or enforced by some kind of law.
o Some authority, usually claimed to be 'divinely inspired', that establishes an absolute dogma.
o Intuitive, emotional 'knowledge' of what is right and wrong - a personal moral compass.
o Rational or common sense rules and principles aimed at achieving a given objective.
Let's explore each of these sources in some detail:
Social Rules or Customs
Social rules and customs are, in themselves, a mix of religious or philosophical dogma, 'what feels right', and common sense. They evolve by various random forces impinging on them: an influential philosopher, a charismatic spiritual leader, economic factors, disease, wars, immigration, and art. The resulting morality is usually recognized as being relativist - its subjectivity being rather obvious. For example, one society believes that having more than one child is immoral, while another sees contraception as depraved. Unfortunately, this relativism does not usually prevent people from trying to force their views on others, even killing and dying for it in its name.
Divinely Inspired Authority
Religious, spiritual or cultish ethic claims to possess absolute knowledge - divinely inspired - and therefore not subjective. From an outsiders point of view its relativism is apparent. Who has the direct line to God or to some platonic Eternal Wisdom? How would we know? Conflicting claims of authenticity cannot be resolved rationally. Opponents are 'persuaded' either emotionally or physically. 'Divine' morality is frequently used by religious and cult leaders - alone or cahoots with kings and governments - to control people. Claiming a preferential relationship with Divinity, they can trade 'salvation', 'absolution' and 'godly knowledge' for their followers' obedience and sacrifice. Many wars and vast amounts of human suffering have their roots in this kind of
'morality'; though, granted, many systems are not consciously malevolent.
Intuitive, Emotional Knowledge
We all judge morality intuitively to some extent - we have deep emotional convictions about the immorality of, say, murdering an innocent victim, about aborting a female foetus, or regarding child abuse. Some philosophers believe that intuition is the only valid source to knowing right from wrong. Many people today reject religious and social morality and rely primarily on their own personal moral compass. In one sense, this is exactly what we have to - automatized principles are essential for coping with the myriad of complex decisions we face. However, without explicit, conscious selection of the principles that we internalize, our emotions are unguided missiles. Casteism, communalism or treating women as second class citizens may feel very right - as it has, and still does,
to many people. Intuition is no guarantee of morality. Our moral compass needs to be calibrated and checked to ensure that our intuition guides us to desired destinations.
What we need is an explicit system of ethics to serve as a reference to the programming of our subconscious values. Without this reference, intuitive morality remains a hodgepodge of various religious, social and rational ideas picked up during a lifetime: a persuasive idea gathered here, a powerful emotional lesson retained there, added to the comfortable social and religious norms of our childhood. The overwhelming preponderance of adults retaining their own parents' social and religious values is proof of these influences. However, the fact that many of us do break away from our childhood influences attests to the possibility of reprogramming ourselves. We do have free will - we can choose to review and change deeply held beliefs.
Rational Rules and Principles
Everyone uses reason, the fourth source of moral knowledge, to some extent. Even the most narrow-minded, emotional or dogmatic person occasionally uses reason to try to resolve moral conflicts - and the traditional approaches certainly provide plenty of contradictions and conflict: Communists reason about the practical contradictions in communal ownership and personal motivation. Catholics decide to use birth-control as they realize the folly of that restriction. Entrenched racists often go color-blind with people they personally know well. Reality eventually impinges upon irrational beliefs. But we can go much further in utilizing rationality to establish principles for living - we can pro-actively seek to systematically eliminate contradictions, detrimental beliefs and inappropriate emotional responses. But is there really such a thing as objective knowledge - and especially with regard to moral issues?
Reason is the mental faculty that integrates our perception of reality while eliminating contradictions. Reason seeks to obtain as accurate a representation of reality as possible. Reasoning consists of conscious and subconscious processes. For example, intuition and induction, which are partly subconscious, are used in integration and conceptualization. Information obtained by these subconscious means must be double-checked by conscious processes to establish its accuracy. Because of limits in our cognitive ability (we are not infallible or omniscient), we need to systematically test our data and reasoning against other minds (explain, debate, learn) and against reality (gathering empirical evidence to test our conclusions).
Reason does not provide absolute, acontextual certainty. All objective knowledge - knowledge of reality obtained by rational means - is subject to context and subject to future revision and clarification. Some objective knowledge is beyond doubt; we have no reason to doubt it. That knowledge we call 'certain'. It is certain within the context of our experience, knowledge and cognitive ability. Some of the things that we can be certain of: I exist and am conscious; the Moon is smaller than the Earth; improved self-esteem improves personal well-being. Each of these statements assumes a context of knowledge and meaning; they are certain only within that context. Conceivably, at some stage additional knowledge or a changed context may render them false - but we currently have no evidence to doubt their certainty. Detailed analysis of the nature of knowledge and certainty is the philosophical field of epistemology - a prerequisite for all knowledge and thus also for ethics.
Objective, or rational, ethics provides principles that will practically achieve a desired purpose. A given principle's truth is measured by its effectiveness. We call a principle 'good' if it's good at accomplishing its goal. In this sense we can call this a scientific approach to ethics. Rational morality is an integrated, non-contradictory, reality- based system of goals and principles. But how do we establish the ultimate goal - the standard of what constitutes good and bad, right and wrong, true and false principles?
Good and Bad
Two crucial questions represent the key to understanding the moral meaning of good and bad. Yet, moral philosophers have frequently ignored these questions, or have grossly underestimated their importance. Some prominent philosophers don't even seem to be aware of them: Good for whom? Good to what end?
For some reason, we have come to accept that there exists some independent Platonic 'Good' - some absolute meaning of good not related to any other standard. We will say 'it is good to speak the truth', meaning, somehow, good in itself - not because of some beneficial consequence. Were we to ask 'why?' we would get a
paternal 'because... because you should'. Ethics is rife with this meaningless categorical imperative 'should'.
'Should' only has meaning in the context of 'should in order to...'. An ethics is only as rational as its standard of value is - its standard of good and bad.
Good to what end? The purpose of ethics is to help us make decisions, to help us define and achieve our goals. If we have multiple goals, then ethics must also help us reconcile and prioritize these. Some claimed objectives of ethics are: 'getting to heaven', 'doing our duty', 'clearing our karma', 'filling our evolutionary purpose', 'pleasing others', 'achieving wealth', 'maximizing our own pleasure' or 'living a full and healthy life'. Having concluded that a rational approach to ethics is the only meaningful and practical one, we can eliminate all the irrational options
- goals that are not reality based. On the other hand, money or pleasures, by themselves, are not sufficiently comprehensive long-term goals. Anyone who seeks life-long guidance - and moral principles and virtues are by their very nature not quick fixes - needs to cast his moral net wider.
In the most general form, our goal comes down to defining and achieving a good life: Physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health - a fulfilled life. There are objective measures of health: Physical - living a full life-span (within the limits of current medical knowledge) as free as possible from physical impairments; Emotionally - generally free from depression and emotional conflicts, high self-esteem and the ability to experience joy; Mentally - cognitive competence including intelligence, memory and creativity; Spiritually - the ability to enjoy literature, art, friendships and love. This list is not exhaustive and is open to debate, but few people would argue about the importance of these basic qualities of human life. The particular manifestations of a good life - the specific level and choices of health, relationship, productive work, artistic enjoyment - will vary from person to person and from time to time. This general description of the good life we can call 'Optimal Living' and take as the standard of good and bad, right and wrong.
Good for whom? Living optimally requires holding certain moral values, setting and pursuing personal goals, and acquiring rational virtues. None of these can be done for someone else. We cannot make others think rationally, make them have a pro-active or optimistic outlook, or give them self-esteem. We may encourage others to think and act morally, but we can really only make those choices for ourselves. We can take most responsibility for our own lives because we have most control over it. We also have maximum motivation for expending the effort to live a principled, moral life when we are the primary beneficiary. In short, we cannot live someone else's life for them.
This does not mean that what is good for us is necessarily detrimental to others - life is not a zero-sum game. Fortunately, many rational moral principles benefit both us and others. Examples of these virtues are rationality, productiveness, integrity.
Determinants of Ethics
Traditional Sources of Ethics
How do we determine right and wrong?
Most popular determinants of ethics comprise a mix of four separate, but interrelated sources:
o Social rules or customs that are either agreed on by the majority or enforced by some kind of law.
o Some authority, usually claimed to be 'divinely inspired', that establishes an absolute dogma.
o Intuitive, emotional 'knowledge' of what is right and wrong - a personal moral compass.
o Rational or common sense rules and principles aimed at achieving a given objective.
Let's explore each of these sources in some detail:
Social Rules or Customs
Social rules and customs are, in themselves, a mix of religious or philosophical dogma, 'what feels right', and common sense. They evolve by various random forces impinging on them: an influential philosopher, a charismatic spiritual leader, economic factors, disease, wars, immigration, and art. The resulting morality is usually recognized as being relativist - its subjectivity being rather obvious. For example, one society believes that having more than one child is immoral, while another sees contraception as depraved. Unfortunately, this relativism does not usually prevent people from trying to force their views on others, even killing and dying for it in its name.
Divinely Inspired Authority
Religious, spiritual or cultish ethic claims to possess absolute knowledge - divinely inspired - and therefore not subjective. From an outsiders point of view its relativism is apparent. Who has the direct line to God or to some platonic Eternal Wisdom? How would we know? Conflicting claims of authenticity cannot be resolved rationally. Opponents are 'persuaded' either emotionally or physically. 'Divine' morality is frequently used by religious and cult leaders - alone or cahoots with kings and governments - to control people. Claiming a preferential relationship with Divinity, they can trade 'salvation', 'absolution' and 'godly knowledge' for their followers' obedience and sacrifice. Many wars and vast amounts of human suffering have their roots in this kind of
'morality'; though, granted, many systems are not consciously malevolent.
Intuitive, Emotional Knowledge
We all judge morality intuitively to some extent - we have deep emotional convictions about the immorality of, say, murdering an innocent victim, about aborting a female foetus, or regarding child abuse. Some philosophers believe that intuition is the only valid source to knowing right from wrong. Many people today reject religious and social morality and rely primarily on their own personal moral compass. In one sense, this is exactly what we have to - automatized principles are essential for coping with the myriad of complex decisions we face. However, without explicit, conscious selection of the principles that we internalize, our emotions are unguided missiles. Casteism, communalism or treating women as second class citizens may feel very right - as it has, and still does,
to many people. Intuition is no guarantee of morality. Our moral compass needs to be calibrated and checked to ensure that our intuition guides us to desired destinations.
What we need is an explicit system of ethics to serve as a reference to the programming of our subconscious values. Without this reference, intuitive morality remains a hodgepodge of various religious, social and rational ideas picked up during a lifetime: a persuasive idea gathered here, a powerful emotional lesson retained there, added to the comfortable social and religious norms of our childhood. The overwhelming preponderance of adults retaining their own parents' social and religious values is proof of these influences. However, the fact that many of us do break away from our childhood influences attests to the possibility of reprogramming ourselves. We do have free will - we can choose to review and change deeply held beliefs.
Rational Rules and Principles
Everyone uses reason, the fourth source of moral knowledge, to some extent. Even the most narrow-minded, emotional or dogmatic person occasionally uses reason to try to resolve moral conflicts - and the traditional approaches certainly provide plenty of contradictions and conflict: Communists reason about the practical contradictions in communal ownership and personal motivation. Catholics decide to use birth-control as they realize the folly of that restriction. Entrenched racists often go color-blind with people they personally know well. Reality eventually impinges upon irrational beliefs. But we can go much further in utilizing rationality to establish principles for living - we can pro-actively seek to systematically eliminate contradictions, detrimental beliefs and inappropriate emotional responses. But is there really such a thing as objective knowledge - and especially with regard to moral issues?
Reason is the mental faculty that integrates our perception of reality while eliminating contradictions. Reason seeks to obtain as accurate a representation of reality as possible. Reasoning consists of conscious and subconscious processes. For example, intuition and induction, which are partly subconscious, are used in integration and conceptualization. Information obtained by these subconscious means must be double-checked by conscious processes to establish its accuracy. Because of limits in our cognitive ability (we are not infallible or omniscient), we need to systematically test our data and reasoning against other minds (explain, debate, learn) and against reality (gathering empirical evidence to test our conclusions).
Reason does not provide absolute, acontextual certainty. All objective knowledge - knowledge of reality obtained by rational means - is subject to context and subject to future revision and clarification. Some objective knowledge is beyond doubt; we have no reason to doubt it. That knowledge we call 'certain'. It is certain within the context of our experience, knowledge and cognitive ability. Some of the things that we can be certain of: I exist and am conscious; the Moon is smaller than the Earth; improved self-esteem improves personal well-being. Each of these statements assumes a context of knowledge and meaning; they are certain only within that context. Conceivably, at some stage additional knowledge or a changed context may render them false - but we currently have no evidence to doubt their certainty. Detailed analysis of the nature of knowledge and certainty is the philosophical field of epistemology - a prerequisite for all knowledge and thus also for ethics.
Objective, or rational, ethics provides principles that will practically achieve a desired purpose. A given principle's truth is measured by its effectiveness. We call a principle 'good' if it's good at accomplishing its goal. In this sense we can call this a scientific approach to ethics. Rational morality is an integrated, non-contradictory, reality- based system of goals and principles. But how do we establish the ultimate goal - the standard of what constitutes good and bad, right and wrong, true and false principles?
Good and Bad
Two crucial questions represent the key to understanding the moral meaning of good and bad. Yet, moral philosophers have frequently ignored these questions, or have grossly underestimated their importance. Some prominent philosophers don't even seem to be aware of them: Good for whom? Good to what end?
For some reason, we have come to accept that there exists some independent Platonic 'Good' - some absolute meaning of good not related to any other standard. We will say 'it is good to speak the truth', meaning, somehow, good in itself - not because of some beneficial consequence. Were we to ask 'why?' we would get a
paternal 'because... because you should'. Ethics is rife with this meaningless categorical imperative 'should'.
'Should' only has meaning in the context of 'should in order to...'. An ethics is only as rational as its standard of value is - its standard of good and bad.
Good to what end? The purpose of ethics is to help us make decisions, to help us define and achieve our goals. If we have multiple goals, then ethics must also help us reconcile and prioritize these. Some claimed objectives of ethics are: 'getting to heaven', 'doing our duty', 'clearing our karma', 'filling our evolutionary purpose', 'pleasing others', 'achieving wealth', 'maximizing our own pleasure' or 'living a full and healthy life'. Having concluded that a rational approach to ethics is the only meaningful and practical one, we can eliminate all the irrational options
- goals that are not reality based. On the other hand, money or pleasures, by themselves, are not sufficiently comprehensive long-term goals. Anyone who seeks life-long guidance - and moral principles and virtues are by their very nature not quick fixes - needs to cast his moral net wider.
In the most general form, our goal comes down to defining and achieving a good life: Physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health - a fulfilled life. There are objective measures of health: Physical - living a full life-span (within the limits of current medical knowledge) as free as possible from physical impairments; Emotionally - generally free from depression and emotional conflicts, high self-esteem and the ability to experience joy; Mentally - cognitive competence including intelligence, memory and creativity; Spiritually - the ability to enjoy literature, art, friendships and love. This list is not exhaustive and is open to debate, but few people would argue about the importance of these basic qualities of human life. The particular manifestations of a good life - the specific level and choices of health, relationship, productive work, artistic enjoyment - will vary from person to person and from time to time. This general description of the good life we can call 'Optimal Living' and take as the standard of good and bad, right and wrong.
Good for whom? Living optimally requires holding certain moral values, setting and pursuing personal goals, and acquiring rational virtues. None of these can be done for someone else. We cannot make others think rationally, make them have a pro-active or optimistic outlook, or give them self-esteem. We may encourage others to think and act morally, but we can really only make those choices for ourselves. We can take most responsibility for our own lives because we have most control over it. We also have maximum motivation for expending the effort to live a principled, moral life when we are the primary beneficiary. In short, we cannot live someone else's life for them.
This does not mean that what is good for us is necessarily detrimental to others - life is not a zero-sum game. Fortunately, many rational moral principles benefit both us and others. Examples of these virtues are rationality, productiveness, integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment