Ethics and Human Interface 4
Consequences of Ethics
The consequences of ethics in human action can be traced at different levels. This is because while in a broad sense, ethics has to do with concepts such as good, right, and ought, but in the arena of everyday life, considering the practical meanings of these abstract concepts causes us to deal with them at different levels of seriousness and systematic reflection. Often we simply express emotion about what is good or what someone ought to do. Less frequently we face ethical questions that force us to reflect long and hard about our fundamental worldview – even the meaning of life itself. We can identify four distinct levels at which ethical concerns can be experienced in human action.
The Expressive Level
Many times every day we find ourselves simply venting our feelings about something, whether it is a corrupt clerk we encounter in a government department or getting caught between our family and official responsibilities. During such instances, we may very well respond first at the expressive level: “That clerk is a thief”, “What did I do to deserve being caught in this bind between my spouse and my organization?”
These spontaneous, unreflective expressions of emotion are perhaps the most common forms of value judgment. They neither invite a reply nor attempt to persuade others. They provide neither evidence nor
detailed descriptions of a state of affairs. However, depending on who utters them and how intensely, they may be followed by a more rational and systematic treatment of the problem.
The Moral Rules Level
The level of moral rules is the first level at which serious questions are raised and serious answers are given. We address the problem of appropriate conduct and begin to assess alternatives and consequences. We consider these courses of action and their anticipated outcomes in the light of certain rules, maxims, and proverbs that we hold as moral guides. For example:
o “Always be a good team player.”
o “Loyalty to your clients comes first.”
o “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
o “Honesty is the best policy.”
o “Truth will win out.”
o “My country, right or wrong.”
o “Never fight a battle you can’t win.”
o “The public should be trusted.”
o “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
o “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
o “Don’t air dirty linen outside the organization.”
o “It is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.”
o “It is better to be safe than sorry.”
o “Go along to get along.”
o “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
These are examples of moral rules we acquire through the socialization process from our families, religious affiliations, education, and professional experiences. For better or worse, they provide rules of thumb for appraising a situation and deciding what ought to be done.
Most of the ethical problems are resolved at this level. As we review the facts of the case, the alternatives for action, and their likely consequences on the one hand, and associate them with our stock of relevant moral rules on the other, the field of alternatives begins to narrow and one or two rules emerge as crucial. We move towards a decision, with the practical consequences and the moral justification related in some way that is acceptable to us.
Our decisions are not necessarily consistent from case to case. At the level of moral rules, which is where most practical administrative decisions are made, rationality and systematic reflection are involved but only in a limited, piecemeal fashion. Most of the time we are ad hoc problem solvers, not comprehensive moral philosophers. However, on occasion we are driven to the next level of generality and abstraction, usually because we are unable to reach a decision by applying our available repertoire of practical moral rules.
The Ethical Analysis Level
When the available moral rules prove ineffective in a particular case, when they conflict with each other, or when the actions they seem to prescribe do not feel right, a fundamental reconsideration of our moral code may be required. In the normal routine we do not usually undertake this kind of basic reassessment. However, sometimes an issue is so unique, so complex, or so profound in the consequences of its resolution that we have no choice but to reexamine the ethical principles that are implicit in our routine norms for conduct.
A brief but adequate definition of ‘principle’ is “a general law or rule that provides a guide for action.” An ‘ethical principle’ is a statement concerning the conduct or state of being that is required for the fulfillment of a value; it explicitly links a value with a general mode of action. For example, justice may be considered a significant value, but the term itself does not tell us what rule for conduct or what state of society would follow if we included justice in our value system. We would need a principle of justice to show us what pattern of action would reflect justice as a value. A common form of the justice principle is “Treat equals equally and unequals unequally.” We
might interpret this principle as meaning that if all adult citizens are politically equal, they should all have the same political rights and obligations. If one has the vote, all must have it.
Or if we look at another value, truth, we might start with a general principle to indicate its meaning for conduct and then develop more specific statements for particular conditions. Generally, we might support this principle: “Always tell the truth.” But when faced with a particular situation, we might revise the principle: “Always tell the truth unless third parties would be seriously harmed.”
Defining the ethical dimensions of a problem may require teasing out not only the values that are in conflict but also the unarticulated principles that indicate the mutually exclusive kinds of conduct those values dictate. Otherwise, values can be too vague to have much meaning in ethical analysis. To say we believe in freedom or liberty conveys meaning of only the most general sort. If, however, we identify and elaborate principles about liberty, the meaning becomes more specific and ethically useful. We might, for example, indicate that if we value liberty, we ought not to interfere, without social justification, in the chosen course of any rational being or impose on him conditions that will prevent him from pursuing his chosen courses of action. Although this statement does not prescribe precisely what should be done in every situation, it does provide some conditions and qualifications for the range of conduct that falls under liberty.
The Postethical Level
The considerations at the final, postethical level are exemplified by the question: “Why should I be moral?” Most of us would seldom reach this fundamental philosophical level of reflection. Only when pushed by a particularly persistent or cynical adversary or under the sway of a deeply disillusioning experience or confronting a profound personal crisis are we likely to function at this level. Here the struggle is to find some basis for valuing those things that were identified at the level of ethical analysis. Why is integrity important? Or truth? Or security? Or loyalty? Or the well-being of others? At this level we begin to question our worldview – our views of human nature, how we know anything to be true, and the meaning of life. Resolution at this level is achieved only when practical indecision has been removed. It may require developing or confirming a worldview grounded in philosophical or religious perspectives. When we have discovered an adequate motive to allow ourselves to “play the moral game,” this level is resolved.
The framework as we have elaborated above is highly dynamic. It is only in theory that people can move logically through these decision-making steps. In real life we move both up and down through the levels as we grapple with what is good or what we ought to do, and work within the constraints of time and context. We may first engage a problem expressively as we react spontaneously with our immediate feelings, but then we may move rather quickly to problem solving at the level of moral rules. As we get new information and the situation becomes more complex, we may move back to the expressive level. Then, having vented our irritation and frustration, we may move back again to the search for appropriate moral rules.
This movement among the various levels, although it may be intentional, is usually not a matter of conscious choice. The transitions occur because we need to solve a problem, not necessarily because we consciously think about which level is appropriate. In an concrete situation, as we attempt to integrate known facts with unknown but possible consequences of action, feelings and values, we find ourselves moving through these stages with varying degrees of rational reflection and abstraction.
If we want to become more systematic in handling ethical issues, we need to examine carefully what takes place at the level where rational reflection is most critical: the level of ethical analysis. This is where skill in decision making can be cultivated. Here we attempt to think about what we should do; there is intentionality and some degree of systematic treatment of the problem. At the expressive level only emotion is involved; it is not that emotion is bad, but it is only one element of ethical decision making. At the level of moral rules we are largely reflecting our socialization, which can amount to a set of blinders that limits our critical thinking. At the postethical level the considerations are too abstract, too personal, and in modern pluralistic societies, too varied to be susceptible to any generalized approach. People holding radically different philosophies and theologies are not likely to reach agreement at this level, although they may do so at the second and third levels. Also, public accountability in a heterogeneous society requires reasoned application of ethical principles rather the metaphysical assertions.
It is at the level of ethical analysis, the, that we are most likely to be able to account for our conduct most convincingly. If we proceed with reasoned justification, linking the consequences of our decisions with a tradition of ethical principles, then our conduct is reviewable and our deliberations and deeds are accessible for debate and logical assessment.
Consequences of Ethics
The consequences of ethics in human action can be traced at different levels. This is because while in a broad sense, ethics has to do with concepts such as good, right, and ought, but in the arena of everyday life, considering the practical meanings of these abstract concepts causes us to deal with them at different levels of seriousness and systematic reflection. Often we simply express emotion about what is good or what someone ought to do. Less frequently we face ethical questions that force us to reflect long and hard about our fundamental worldview – even the meaning of life itself. We can identify four distinct levels at which ethical concerns can be experienced in human action.
The Expressive Level
Many times every day we find ourselves simply venting our feelings about something, whether it is a corrupt clerk we encounter in a government department or getting caught between our family and official responsibilities. During such instances, we may very well respond first at the expressive level: “That clerk is a thief”, “What did I do to deserve being caught in this bind between my spouse and my organization?”
These spontaneous, unreflective expressions of emotion are perhaps the most common forms of value judgment. They neither invite a reply nor attempt to persuade others. They provide neither evidence nor
detailed descriptions of a state of affairs. However, depending on who utters them and how intensely, they may be followed by a more rational and systematic treatment of the problem.
The Moral Rules Level
The level of moral rules is the first level at which serious questions are raised and serious answers are given. We address the problem of appropriate conduct and begin to assess alternatives and consequences. We consider these courses of action and their anticipated outcomes in the light of certain rules, maxims, and proverbs that we hold as moral guides. For example:
o “Always be a good team player.”
o “Loyalty to your clients comes first.”
o “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
o “Honesty is the best policy.”
o “Truth will win out.”
o “My country, right or wrong.”
o “Never fight a battle you can’t win.”
o “The public should be trusted.”
o “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
o “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
o “Don’t air dirty linen outside the organization.”
o “It is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.”
o “It is better to be safe than sorry.”
o “Go along to get along.”
o “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
These are examples of moral rules we acquire through the socialization process from our families, religious affiliations, education, and professional experiences. For better or worse, they provide rules of thumb for appraising a situation and deciding what ought to be done.
Most of the ethical problems are resolved at this level. As we review the facts of the case, the alternatives for action, and their likely consequences on the one hand, and associate them with our stock of relevant moral rules on the other, the field of alternatives begins to narrow and one or two rules emerge as crucial. We move towards a decision, with the practical consequences and the moral justification related in some way that is acceptable to us.
Our decisions are not necessarily consistent from case to case. At the level of moral rules, which is where most practical administrative decisions are made, rationality and systematic reflection are involved but only in a limited, piecemeal fashion. Most of the time we are ad hoc problem solvers, not comprehensive moral philosophers. However, on occasion we are driven to the next level of generality and abstraction, usually because we are unable to reach a decision by applying our available repertoire of practical moral rules.
The Ethical Analysis Level
When the available moral rules prove ineffective in a particular case, when they conflict with each other, or when the actions they seem to prescribe do not feel right, a fundamental reconsideration of our moral code may be required. In the normal routine we do not usually undertake this kind of basic reassessment. However, sometimes an issue is so unique, so complex, or so profound in the consequences of its resolution that we have no choice but to reexamine the ethical principles that are implicit in our routine norms for conduct.
A brief but adequate definition of ‘principle’ is “a general law or rule that provides a guide for action.” An ‘ethical principle’ is a statement concerning the conduct or state of being that is required for the fulfillment of a value; it explicitly links a value with a general mode of action. For example, justice may be considered a significant value, but the term itself does not tell us what rule for conduct or what state of society would follow if we included justice in our value system. We would need a principle of justice to show us what pattern of action would reflect justice as a value. A common form of the justice principle is “Treat equals equally and unequals unequally.” We
might interpret this principle as meaning that if all adult citizens are politically equal, they should all have the same political rights and obligations. If one has the vote, all must have it.
Or if we look at another value, truth, we might start with a general principle to indicate its meaning for conduct and then develop more specific statements for particular conditions. Generally, we might support this principle: “Always tell the truth.” But when faced with a particular situation, we might revise the principle: “Always tell the truth unless third parties would be seriously harmed.”
Defining the ethical dimensions of a problem may require teasing out not only the values that are in conflict but also the unarticulated principles that indicate the mutually exclusive kinds of conduct those values dictate. Otherwise, values can be too vague to have much meaning in ethical analysis. To say we believe in freedom or liberty conveys meaning of only the most general sort. If, however, we identify and elaborate principles about liberty, the meaning becomes more specific and ethically useful. We might, for example, indicate that if we value liberty, we ought not to interfere, without social justification, in the chosen course of any rational being or impose on him conditions that will prevent him from pursuing his chosen courses of action. Although this statement does not prescribe precisely what should be done in every situation, it does provide some conditions and qualifications for the range of conduct that falls under liberty.
The Postethical Level
The considerations at the final, postethical level are exemplified by the question: “Why should I be moral?” Most of us would seldom reach this fundamental philosophical level of reflection. Only when pushed by a particularly persistent or cynical adversary or under the sway of a deeply disillusioning experience or confronting a profound personal crisis are we likely to function at this level. Here the struggle is to find some basis for valuing those things that were identified at the level of ethical analysis. Why is integrity important? Or truth? Or security? Or loyalty? Or the well-being of others? At this level we begin to question our worldview – our views of human nature, how we know anything to be true, and the meaning of life. Resolution at this level is achieved only when practical indecision has been removed. It may require developing or confirming a worldview grounded in philosophical or religious perspectives. When we have discovered an adequate motive to allow ourselves to “play the moral game,” this level is resolved.
The framework as we have elaborated above is highly dynamic. It is only in theory that people can move logically through these decision-making steps. In real life we move both up and down through the levels as we grapple with what is good or what we ought to do, and work within the constraints of time and context. We may first engage a problem expressively as we react spontaneously with our immediate feelings, but then we may move rather quickly to problem solving at the level of moral rules. As we get new information and the situation becomes more complex, we may move back to the expressive level. Then, having vented our irritation and frustration, we may move back again to the search for appropriate moral rules.
This movement among the various levels, although it may be intentional, is usually not a matter of conscious choice. The transitions occur because we need to solve a problem, not necessarily because we consciously think about which level is appropriate. In an concrete situation, as we attempt to integrate known facts with unknown but possible consequences of action, feelings and values, we find ourselves moving through these stages with varying degrees of rational reflection and abstraction.
If we want to become more systematic in handling ethical issues, we need to examine carefully what takes place at the level where rational reflection is most critical: the level of ethical analysis. This is where skill in decision making can be cultivated. Here we attempt to think about what we should do; there is intentionality and some degree of systematic treatment of the problem. At the expressive level only emotion is involved; it is not that emotion is bad, but it is only one element of ethical decision making. At the level of moral rules we are largely reflecting our socialization, which can amount to a set of blinders that limits our critical thinking. At the postethical level the considerations are too abstract, too personal, and in modern pluralistic societies, too varied to be susceptible to any generalized approach. People holding radically different philosophies and theologies are not likely to reach agreement at this level, although they may do so at the second and third levels. Also, public accountability in a heterogeneous society requires reasoned application of ethical principles rather the metaphysical assertions.
It is at the level of ethical analysis, the, that we are most likely to be able to account for our conduct most convincingly. If we proceed with reasoned justification, linking the consequences of our decisions with a tradition of ethical principles, then our conduct is reviewable and our deliberations and deeds are accessible for debate and logical assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment