Ever since the vague origins of human morality, a categorically unanswered question has always been raised: is it ethical to do wrong for the right reasons and vice versa. Many philosophers have pondered over this question – Plato to Bentham, the Rigveda to Metaphysics of Morality. Many have professed their own perspectives, and yet human society has never rigidly followed any. At different points of time, in different situations, in different places, we have followed a wholly diverse set of morals. However, most philosophers have placed forth their theories believing, like theoretical physicists, in the vacuum-isolated perfection of the world. For example, how can a person be expected to perform a felicific calculation, as suggested by Bentham, for every action they take, the variables themselves being open to a great level of personal discretion and manipulation? In lieu of these facts, to develop the moral answer to this question, one must compare these theories with the empirical base.
Consequentialism
Consequentialist philosophers tell us that if an action is committed it is either ethical or unethical depending on a clearly defined set of rights and wrongs. For example, if murder is considered unethical, all murder is unethical – be it a state execution or cold-blooded manslaughter. The intrinsic intention behind the action is disregarded. The action itself decides the ethicality of the person.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethicists or Aristotelian philosophers tell us that if the person in question does an action for the right virtue, the action is ethical. The consequences of the action are disregarded, to make way for the values driving it. Despite the outright subjectivity of virtue in the mindscape, these ethicists believe in them, and thus actions, being either right or wrong. For example, if the virtue of benevolence is good, then helping a person is ethical.
Deontology
Deontologists or Kantian philosophers are far more concerned with the duty of the person. It is their belief that a person must fulfil moral rules and duties, in a semi-occultist fashion, as conscribed by a certain code. This implies that if a person does a deed of charitability, he is following suit the Golden rule (Do unto others what you would have done to yourself).
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism dictates that actions that increase the happiness and pleasure of the maximum number of people are preferable to those which harm and decrease the happiness of people. This theory believes that neither the reason nor the consequence of the action is as important as the overall happiness of the people affected by the action. Unlike consequentialism, it does not assume that certain actions are right or wrong in an outright fashion. Neither does it, as in the case of deontology, assume that certain intentions, if clear, are right or wrong as per any rule. It does, however, assume that people derive pleasure from actions that may benefit them too and have the ability to separate their short-term pain and pleasure and are not misled by their heart solely. For example, if the murder of a friendly homemaker causes much pain, it is unethical; but if the murder in question is of an autocratic dictator, thus giving freedom to a nation, it is ethical.
Karma
The idea of Karma is one that contains multiple inflows to various philosophical and religious quandaries in mainly Indic religions such as Hinduism. Nevertheless, this specific question is answered in a strange fusion of the previous three ethical theories. Karma believes in the moral epitomizing of the adage ‘as you sow, so you reap’. It implies a universal moral law, but in a more agnostic-palatable fashion implies that the inherent ethicality of some action is based on the prospective good of the action. Similarly to Bentham’s felicific calculus, an action can be termed ethical in a karmic sense when it derives a positive reciprocal action of gratitude. In a more consequentialist-friendly sense, karmic philosophers believe that the ethicality of an action is decided more by the people involved than the person committing it. For example, if a person provides a needy child with money, which involves reciprocating gratitude, the action is ethical. On the contrary, if the person takes the money from the needy child, which involves reciprocating hatred, the action is unethical.
Comparison to Our Reality
To us, the most idealistic vision of society is perhaps provided by Aristotle’s virtue ethics. The ability to tell the intent of a person is paramount to determining whether they express a virtue or a vice. For example, the photograph of a person helping someone in need can tell two stories. For one, he may just be exercising the virtue of charity and selflessness. Alternatively, in a darker twist, he may be exercising the vice of selfishness and disingenuity, for the camera. However, this perspective seems overly complicated, seeing that in the history of human civilization, neither telepathy nor clairvoyance has been particularly strong traits.
At an initial glance, consequentialism seems to be most representative of our law today. However, the complete disregarding of intent and duty, important in the deontological and virtuous ethical theories, leaves a gaping hole. A person who lies for the purpose of protecting lives, for example, is still unethical. However, even our society makes these exceptions. Moral isolation would never help society, due to the critical error of consequentialism considering every individual as a solitary moral system, instead of a unit within a congregate system.
Having checked the aforementioned two, the next ideal system would perhaps be deontology. The moral duty of a person as engraved by the edicts of a higher power, be it a government or someone masquerading as God’s messenger, seems like an interesting parallel to draw to the current criminal system. However, while our systems account for many flaws and exceptions, deontology is more absolute. This absolute rigidity does not, for example, take into account the evolving nature of human morality. Additionally, solely the moral duty of a person does not allow them to commit heinous acts in our society. Even the many Nazi officers responsible for the Holocaust were only following their moral duty to their nation. Yet this did not excuse them from the acts they committed and the atrocities they caused.
Now with karmic theory, an interesting fusion of theories, although developed independently before them, is an intriguing problem. Much of the foundations of the original karmic theory is based on the universal moral law (You get what you deserve). However, my adaptation to a more systemic understanding of the same, keeping in mind the primal emotion of reciprocation gratitude in humans, presents a problem. The mere positive response to an idea by those affected by the action does not imply its ethical brilliance. While the original karmic theory tells us of other-life punishments for our intentions and the causes of our actions, this cannot be applied to reality seriously. If a person addicts a child to a hard drug, for instance, although this may be positively reciprocated by the child, the problems accompanying it definitely cannot make the action seem ethical.
That leaves us with utilitarianism. Yet again, the same problem arises, as with karmic theory. Utilitarianism gives way to allowing majoritarianism and many more slippery slopes. It also exposes the flaws in felific calculus. Additionally, the stupidity of people together is nearly fact, noting the numerous times they’ve elected the worst leaders in history for the worst reasons, such as now. Thus, to expect people to feel pleasure in what will truly benefit them in the long-term is quite difficult to predict, relative to short-term pain.
Conclusion
Current ethical systems are usually not based on any single moral theory, noting the problematic nature of all of them. Famous ethical systems include the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress, which provide additional insight into these problems from a medical point of view.
Questions of virtue and ethics often, as Confucius would say, are based on the inclination of an individual and his society. Each society has its own interpretation of morality, shaped mostly, if not entirely, by its major religious groups. The sheer subjectivity of ethics leaves us with little scope for argument, despite the enforcing of one over the other as popularised by the legal system. One man’s pain is another man’s pleasure. Some questions are, perhaps, best left unequivocally unanswered; but not unasked.
Comments
Post a Comment