Alright, so there are ton of different ethical models that exist in the world. They can essentially be divided up into three broad categories: virtue ethics (desirable qualities a person should have such as honesty and loyalty that we obtain through practice), duty ethics (all humans are required to fill certain duties of right and wrong) and consequential ethics (the right act is one which leads to good outcomes).
One we focused on primarily was Kantian ethics and it's an idea which interests me quite a bit. Part of duty ethics, Kantian ethics thrives on the "Golden Rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's based on the idea that not only are there "right and wrong", but that by following one mantra it is obtainable.
Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.
It's an ingenious concept applicable to a great number of situations. For instance if someone believes it is alright to steal, then you must be okay with everyone stealing, including from him/herself. If you think it is okay for you to kill someone, then it is also appropriate for everyone else to do so. Makes sense. If you hate the idea of skinning animals you shouldn't wear a fur coat. Looking at lying specifically, if it was a universal law that one did not lie, Kantian ethics suggests the world would be a better place. No matter the potential outcome, this branch of ethics suggest morality is only in the "right" intention since we cannot predict outcomes. An end to justify the means is not acceptable. Again a fantastic idea... but it falls apart when put under specific circumstances...
If for instance you knew the whereabouts of someone hiding from a killer and were asked by the killer where he/she was. By lying you could potentially be saving their life, but that would make lying okay all the time... The simple solution to this matter is that this is acceptable behaviour because it would be universally moral for anyone to lie in this specific situation. Logical for Kantian ethics, however suddenly a few general universal laws becomes rather chaotic. How would one ever be able to keep track of how to act in every single situation?
Yes it is based on personal decision on what should or should not be a universal law. But even still I do not believe it "right" to stand aside while people close to me are being physically abused simply because I believe violence is wrong and the abuser clearly doesn't share my view.
It's in these little details that Kantian ethics falls apart. Some may argue that I'm just nit-picking by creating specific situations that will likely never occur, but I would say the contrary. I feel the details are the most important part of ethics. There's no point in having a massive wall if it's full of holes people can sneak through. Courtrooms are forced to deal with these specific issues on a daily basis and there are times when "right" and "wrong" isn't so clear. (Another situation would be euthanasia...)
So what do we do? As I've said in earlier posts, I do believe there is ultimately a truth, but it is definitely difficult for us to see let alone construct a society around. I do believe Kantian ethics has something going for it when it says we must focus on the intent, not necessarily the outcomes. There's the saying that hell was paved with good intentions, however we can't predict the outcomes of our actions either. Ultimately, in the absence of this truth I believe that (in terms of ethics) we must act in the way that the majority views the world when providing judgement and making decisions. I'm not saying we need to push our ethical beliefs on everyone, but I guess I just hold the optimistic belief that the more people involved in an ethical belief, the closer it will be to being the "right" one. Naive? Perhaps, but I guess I'm hoping that belief is one in which we support the rights and freedoms of everyone.
Never stop questioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment