Final Thoughts
I first want to commend you for the good discussions over very controversial (and unsettled) issues. The recurring theme of many conversations was the issue of determining how to go about deciding what is the right course of action. This, of course, is the central focus of ethical theory. I don't pretend to claim that we've answered that question for all people and all-time in this class. What we have done is illustrate different methods for going about finding the answer and illustrated some different options. Given that we didn't really resolve anything in a final sense it might pay to ask the question: What was the point of studying ethics at all?
I think such questions are not often enough asked and when asked not sufficiently answered in the classroom. I suspect that many instructors simply assume that the answer is obvious and so never bother to explain why studying the particular field they teach is important. Even if it is obvious why we should study ethics I'd still like to clarify some important points regarding this question.
One of the points I made early on in the course was the necessity of judging. As I said then judging has gotten a bad reputation. However, this is mainly because many people make bad judgments. The problem is not judging itself (which is unavoidable) but rather how we discover the correct criteria to use when making judgments. We've looked at several:
1. Our own cultural standards (relativism)
2. Our own opinions/feelings (subjectivism)
3. Our own selfish desires (egoism)
4. Our religion (divine command theory/natural law theory)
5. The greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarianism)
6. Our duty to ourselves and others (deontology)
We saw throughout the semester that all of these options (and others such as social contract theory, and feminism) had problems. Some of the problems made the theory untenable. Of course, the fact that a theory is logically or philosophically untenable doesn't prevent people from using it. Often what seems to occur is that we make up our minds about what we believe and then find a justification that makes sense afterward. This is not uncommon. As Louis Menand points out in his book The Metaphysical Club, Oliver Wendell Holmes admitted that many Judges use the same process when ruling in court cases!
This brings me to the next point. Though we are often reluctant to admit it, many of our ethical principles are provisional and adapted to fit the circumstances we find ourselves in at the time. Notice, I said many, not all. As Rachels pointed out in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, there is good reason to believe that some ethical principles are universal. These would include principles governing the care of the young, indiscriminate killing, and truth-telling. Think of how often these principles have come up in our discussion of issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, sexuality and marriage, liberty, and war and terrorism. But, also remember how often they were interpreted differently and applied differently. This is where the real debates are in ethics; the details. Of course, these are important. As the architect, Mies van der Rohe once said: "God is in the details."
For example, no one seems to argue that we should kill everyone (no one advocated this in our discussions!). The question is under what circumstances is killing permitted and under what circumstances should it be prohibited? No one seems to argue that children should be left to fend for themselves with no care at all. No, the question is (for example in the sexuality and marriage debate) what effect would same-sex marriages have on children? My point is that despite our differences, we do have some important things in common when it comes to ethics and morals.
Many students are fond of the insight that everyone has different morals. But, is this really true? What is the evidence for this claim? Could it possibly be true? Let's look at it.
While it's not clear who the "everyone" is in this claim let's examine it in two ways. First, let's look at our own culture in the United States. With roughly 300 million people could everyone have different morals? It seems impossible that there could be 300 million different moral codes! Even more so when we look at the world at large. Could there really be over 6 billion moral codes? This semester we have examined roughly a dozen ethical theories including subjectivism, relativism, emotivism, egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, feminism, and social contract theory. The vast majority of ethical codes are simply variations on these theories. Could we really have overlooked so many more? It seems unlikely!
Perhaps the belief in this claim that everyone has different morals is the fact that people disagree about moral issues. But, we need to look at this disagreement closer to see if it is really a disagreement about moral principles or the facts concerning the issue. A good example can be seen in the abortion debate. This is an especially good example in that I am sure it is one that people think of as validating this claim that everyone has different morals. After all what could be more different than the position of pro-life versus pro-choice? But, how much do they really disagree with each other about fundamental moral principles? The pro-life advocate may say that innocent human lives should not be taken. Innocent children should not be murdered. Would a pro-choice person disagree with this? I doubt it.
The question is not whether we should kill innocent children or not (that would represent a major difference in moral principles) but instead whether the fetus constitutes such an innocent child. Like it or not, this is a question of certain facts or definitions, not moral principles.
On the other hand, a pro-choice advocate may claim that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body and ought not to be told what to do with her own body. Would a pro-life advocate disagree with this? Again, I doubt it. While this would represent another example of a difference in moral principles, the pro-life advocate is not saying that women should be stripped of their autonomy with regard to their own bodies. No, they are making a claim about the status of the fetus (i.e. that it is different from the woman's body).
Again, like it or not this is not a moral claim but a factual or definitional claim. While I am not saying that this disagreement is easily resolved I am saying that it is not a disagreement over fundamental moral principles.
I suspect that this analysis could be done with most other issues as well. If we only look closer and examine the claims made we could see that there is much agreement in moral principles even among people who differ on such issues as euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc.
But, why does the belief still persist that everyone has different morals? It could be a simple misunderstanding of what an agreement really looks like. Let's suppose that everyone operates on the exact same moral principle: the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If everyone acted by this moral principle (most religions have this as a moral principle and I suspect many secular moral codes also include it) would we all agree about abortion, euthanasia, and the countless other issues facing us? I doubt it. Why not? Well, look at the principle itself. It is universal (based on our assumption) in the same way that everyone must eat is universal. But, it does not specify what each individual would have done unto them even as everyone needing to eat doesn't specify what they need to eat. If I act such that I do unto others as I would have them do unto me and you act that way as well, we could still act differently simply because I prefer different things done to me than you do! Of course, these differences are not necessarily differences in our moral preferences though they could be. The point I am making is that even if everyone acted by the same moral principle we could still end up with major disagreements.
So, where does that leave us? In truth, it seems that if we examine our own reasoning on ethical questions and closely compare it with others we'll see that we have much in common concerning our moral principles. But, if we only look at the outcome we may mistake this disagreement for something much deeper. I suspect that this is the major cause of the belief that we all have different morals. We are not willing to take the time to ask ourselves and others why we believe what we do about morality. It is not sufficient to simply say we all have different morals and leave it at that. At its best, this is simply false and at worst precludes any chance for moral consensus.
In his book Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Bernard Williams points out the importance of setting priorities when addressing ethical values. I think this makes an important point about our implicit ability to recognize right and wrong. Some actions are immediately recognized as right and wrong before any moral deliberation. This turns out to be a good thing. As Williams puts it "an effective way for actions to be ruled out is that they never come into thought at all, and this is often the best way. One does not feel easy with the man who in the course of a discussion of how to deal with political or business rivals says, 'Of course, we could have them killed, but we should lay that aside right from the beginning.' It should never have come into his hands to be laid aside. It is characteristic of morality that it tends to overlook the possibility that some concerns are best embodied in this way, in deliberative silence."
We can, more often than not, take comfort in this deliberative silence. Our neighbors are not plotting to kill us (most are not!). But, silence can become dangerous when the issues are unsettled. Then it becomes useful to discuss our thinking regarding ethics and morals. This gets me back to my original point. What is the point of studying ethics? First and foremost, it gives us a framework to have these discussions. Like many activities, we have to be taught to engage in moral discourse. It takes practice and a facility with subtle concepts. Mastering them is difficult enough; applying them is even harder. Once again, I want to commend you for your good work in doing this. Hopefully, this won't be the end of your ethical and moral discussions. This should be just the beginning. We will always face unsettled issues which have a moral component to them. It is immensely useful to engage in civil discourse about these issues. Sure, we'll have disagreements but we should be able to exchange ideas and perhaps even resolve issues.
We certainly have an interest in doing so. One recurring theme in many of the (viable) ethical theories is this interest in the welfare of others. For many philosophers this interest is natural. Of course, we benefit from the well-being of others but even without this benefit, there is something in us that more often than not desires to see that others can pursue happiness as we do. The Dalai Lama talks extensively about this as do the utilitarians. Even the classical economist Adam Smith famous for his doctrine of economic self-interest recognized this universal impulse. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith writes that "how selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it." A nice sentiment to end on, I think.
I think such questions are not often enough asked and when asked not sufficiently answered in the classroom. I suspect that many instructors simply assume that the answer is obvious and so never bother to explain why studying the particular field they teach is important. Even if it is obvious why we should study ethics I'd still like to clarify some important points regarding this question.
One of the points I made early on in the course was the necessity of judging. As I said then judging has gotten a bad reputation. However, this is mainly because many people make bad judgments. The problem is not judging itself (which is unavoidable) but rather how we discover the correct criteria to use when making judgments. We've looked at several:
1. Our own cultural standards (relativism)
2. Our own opinions/feelings (subjectivism)
3. Our own selfish desires (egoism)
4. Our religion (divine command theory/natural law theory)
5. The greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarianism)
6. Our duty to ourselves and others (deontology)
We saw throughout the semester that all of these options (and others such as social contract theory, and feminism) had problems. Some of the problems made the theory untenable. Of course, the fact that a theory is logically or philosophically untenable doesn't prevent people from using it. Often what seems to occur is that we make up our minds about what we believe and then find a justification that makes sense afterward. This is not uncommon. As Louis Menand points out in his book The Metaphysical Club, Oliver Wendell Holmes admitted that many Judges use the same process when ruling in court cases!
This brings me to the next point. Though we are often reluctant to admit it, many of our ethical principles are provisional and adapted to fit the circumstances we find ourselves in at the time. Notice, I said many, not all. As Rachels pointed out in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, there is good reason to believe that some ethical principles are universal. These would include principles governing the care of the young, indiscriminate killing, and truth-telling. Think of how often these principles have come up in our discussion of issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, sexuality and marriage, liberty, and war and terrorism. But, also remember how often they were interpreted differently and applied differently. This is where the real debates are in ethics; the details. Of course, these are important. As the architect, Mies van der Rohe once said: "God is in the details."
For example, no one seems to argue that we should kill everyone (no one advocated this in our discussions!). The question is under what circumstances is killing permitted and under what circumstances should it be prohibited? No one seems to argue that children should be left to fend for themselves with no care at all. No, the question is (for example in the sexuality and marriage debate) what effect would same-sex marriages have on children? My point is that despite our differences, we do have some important things in common when it comes to ethics and morals.
Many students are fond of the insight that everyone has different morals. But, is this really true? What is the evidence for this claim? Could it possibly be true? Let's look at it.
While it's not clear who the "everyone" is in this claim let's examine it in two ways. First, let's look at our own culture in the United States. With roughly 300 million people could everyone have different morals? It seems impossible that there could be 300 million different moral codes! Even more so when we look at the world at large. Could there really be over 6 billion moral codes? This semester we have examined roughly a dozen ethical theories including subjectivism, relativism, emotivism, egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, feminism, and social contract theory. The vast majority of ethical codes are simply variations on these theories. Could we really have overlooked so many more? It seems unlikely!
Perhaps the belief in this claim that everyone has different morals is the fact that people disagree about moral issues. But, we need to look at this disagreement closer to see if it is really a disagreement about moral principles or the facts concerning the issue. A good example can be seen in the abortion debate. This is an especially good example in that I am sure it is one that people think of as validating this claim that everyone has different morals. After all what could be more different than the position of pro-life versus pro-choice? But, how much do they really disagree with each other about fundamental moral principles? The pro-life advocate may say that innocent human lives should not be taken. Innocent children should not be murdered. Would a pro-choice person disagree with this? I doubt it.
The question is not whether we should kill innocent children or not (that would represent a major difference in moral principles) but instead whether the fetus constitutes such an innocent child. Like it or not, this is a question of certain facts or definitions, not moral principles.
On the other hand, a pro-choice advocate may claim that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body and ought not to be told what to do with her own body. Would a pro-life advocate disagree with this? Again, I doubt it. While this would represent another example of a difference in moral principles, the pro-life advocate is not saying that women should be stripped of their autonomy with regard to their own bodies. No, they are making a claim about the status of the fetus (i.e. that it is different from the woman's body).
Again, like it or not this is not a moral claim but a factual or definitional claim. While I am not saying that this disagreement is easily resolved I am saying that it is not a disagreement over fundamental moral principles.
I suspect that this analysis could be done with most other issues as well. If we only look closer and examine the claims made we could see that there is much agreement in moral principles even among people who differ on such issues as euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc.
But, why does the belief still persist that everyone has different morals? It could be a simple misunderstanding of what an agreement really looks like. Let's suppose that everyone operates on the exact same moral principle: the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If everyone acted by this moral principle (most religions have this as a moral principle and I suspect many secular moral codes also include it) would we all agree about abortion, euthanasia, and the countless other issues facing us? I doubt it. Why not? Well, look at the principle itself. It is universal (based on our assumption) in the same way that everyone must eat is universal. But, it does not specify what each individual would have done unto them even as everyone needing to eat doesn't specify what they need to eat. If I act such that I do unto others as I would have them do unto me and you act that way as well, we could still act differently simply because I prefer different things done to me than you do! Of course, these differences are not necessarily differences in our moral preferences though they could be. The point I am making is that even if everyone acted by the same moral principle we could still end up with major disagreements.
So, where does that leave us? In truth, it seems that if we examine our own reasoning on ethical questions and closely compare it with others we'll see that we have much in common concerning our moral principles. But, if we only look at the outcome we may mistake this disagreement for something much deeper. I suspect that this is the major cause of the belief that we all have different morals. We are not willing to take the time to ask ourselves and others why we believe what we do about morality. It is not sufficient to simply say we all have different morals and leave it at that. At its best, this is simply false and at worst precludes any chance for moral consensus.
In his book Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Bernard Williams points out the importance of setting priorities when addressing ethical values. I think this makes an important point about our implicit ability to recognize right and wrong. Some actions are immediately recognized as right and wrong before any moral deliberation. This turns out to be a good thing. As Williams puts it "an effective way for actions to be ruled out is that they never come into thought at all, and this is often the best way. One does not feel easy with the man who in the course of a discussion of how to deal with political or business rivals says, 'Of course, we could have them killed, but we should lay that aside right from the beginning.' It should never have come into his hands to be laid aside. It is characteristic of morality that it tends to overlook the possibility that some concerns are best embodied in this way, in deliberative silence."
We can, more often than not, take comfort in this deliberative silence. Our neighbors are not plotting to kill us (most are not!). But, silence can become dangerous when the issues are unsettled. Then it becomes useful to discuss our thinking regarding ethics and morals. This gets me back to my original point. What is the point of studying ethics? First and foremost, it gives us a framework to have these discussions. Like many activities, we have to be taught to engage in moral discourse. It takes practice and a facility with subtle concepts. Mastering them is difficult enough; applying them is even harder. Once again, I want to commend you for your good work in doing this. Hopefully, this won't be the end of your ethical and moral discussions. This should be just the beginning. We will always face unsettled issues which have a moral component to them. It is immensely useful to engage in civil discourse about these issues. Sure, we'll have disagreements but we should be able to exchange ideas and perhaps even resolve issues.
We certainly have an interest in doing so. One recurring theme in many of the (viable) ethical theories is this interest in the welfare of others. For many philosophers this interest is natural. Of course, we benefit from the well-being of others but even without this benefit, there is something in us that more often than not desires to see that others can pursue happiness as we do. The Dalai Lama talks extensively about this as do the utilitarians. Even the classical economist Adam Smith famous for his doctrine of economic self-interest recognized this universal impulse. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith writes that "how selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it." A nice sentiment to end on, I think.