Com 310:   Ethics

Right and Wrong 
 

The Development of Ethical Thought, Part 2

Com 310

Copyright, 2003

Last Updated: 03/20/03

Reading Assignment: Day, Chapter 3; Introduction to Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah (at reserve desk at library).

Our focus in this class is to try to figure out what is good or "right" behavior for a professional media practitioner and what is bad or "wrong" behavior. These are some of the most serious questions we will ever ask ourselves, and they are based on questions that have occupied human beings for centuries.

Greeks provided the foundation for philosophical thought. Ethics was considered to be one of the three branches of philosophy:

A part of Greek philosophy was the importance of logic, systematic examination of facts and arguments in pursuit of truth.  See Dr. Mc's "Basic Concepts in Logic and Rhetoric" for a quick survey of some of the basic concepts, and be sure to see Chapter 1 Good and Bad Reasoning at the reserve desk at Collier library.   

The Judeo-Christian Ethic offered a new perspective. Human beings are seen to be valuable because they were created and loved by God, not because of human-assigned class or status. Therefore we should treat others as we would like to be treated.

That ethic was determined by the Catholic Church was the predominant view of western culture until the latter part of the 16th century.

When considering the issue of GOOD and BAD or RIGHT and WRONG, modern philosophical perspectives fall into three key categories:

Utilitarianism:

Presented by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

Concept: The greatest good for the greatest number of people. Happiness is not the only value; other things should be considered as well.

The social contract theory came out of this perspective. Governments served the people, and people submitted in exchange for the services the government provided. Governments had a responsibility to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Key Questions: What are the consequences of an ethical judgment? Motivation is not that significant, rather the consequences are of paramount importance.

"When I was making excuses for something by saying, "I didn't mean to...." or "I thought....," my dad would always say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!" He didn't know he was espousing utilitarian philosophy, but in a sense he was. He wanted me to be concerned with the consequences of my actions because THOSE were what I'd have to live with.

Can this philosophical approach be used to justify unethical behavior?

Certainly. One might be a utilitarian egoist and be concerned in the consequences for one's self.

Clarification: It is important to note the difference between ethics and prudence. Let me illustrate.

Why do you drive at the speed limit?

The prudent reasons: You don't want a ticket. You don't want a wreck. We make prudent decisions about lots of things in life every day.

The ethical reasons:

You see the logical progression of thought in the ethical reasoning? That progression is based on facts, on previous ethical determinations, and on rational comparison of the benefits and risks of differing courses of action.


Egalitarianism:


Concept: Individuals should be treated equally in terms of rights and opportunities.

Application: Put yourself in the other person's shoes....This forces the moral agent to make decisions independent of his/her own social, political, or economic agenda.

This philosophy sees outcomes based on what individuals deserve rather than what dictated by social privilege or custom.

NO DOUBLE STANDARD is acceptable in this perspective, unless there is a morally defensible reason to discriminate.

This concept is consistent with the concept of democracy and the Marketplace of Ideas. It is this concept that led to the voting rights of the ordinary person and the freeing of the slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation.

Q: What does Judge Bork say about these two concepts. How does he say they have influenced our society? How does he say they have altered in the 20th century from their original concepts to what he now calls RADICAL INDIVIDUALISM AND RADICAL EGALITARIANISM?


The Rise of Relativism: (sometimes called progressivism)

This position was formed in response to Kant's duty-based theories. Emanuel Kant believed that God existed, but that good and bad, right and wrong could be determined by a rational mind independent of God. This began the progression from "God is there, but we can figure out HIS truth of good and bad for ourselves" to "God is NOT there and WE determine OUR truth and good and bad for ourselves." Do you see the shift? It is extremely significant, because it moves the power from God to human beings.

Secular Humanists believe that there is no God and that human beings can determine the answers to all of life's questions. Two of the most famous early humanist philosophers were Bertrand Russell and John Dewey

Dewy was a major influence in the development of the public school system in the United States. He developed the Dewey Decimal System used in the libraries today. He convinced decision-makers that moral values should not be a significant part of the public school system. This was a radical change from pre-20th century thought. Originally public schools were developed so that citizens could learn to read. Reading was necessary for people to fully develop their relationship with God. Protestants no longer wanted to be dependent upon a priesthood to tell them what was IN the Bible. They believed they could and should read it themselves, so that God could speak to them through it. They were also rationalists (and so were the non-Protestants in the country) who believed that they could and should understand the issues before the government and should participate in the decision making as part of a democratic republic. However, an informed citizenry by necessity must be an educated citizenry. So, while religious purposes were not the only reasons for public schools, they were significant justification for the emphasis on an educated public.

[An interesting book to read concerning the early philosophical views of the early colonists is documented in the book, The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel.]

Relativists believe that what is right or good for one is not necessarily good or right for another - even under similar circumstances. There is no real truth, just opinion.

The general attitude is : "I'll decide what is right for me, you decide what' s right for you."

This was the primary mode of thought in the 1960's. Taken to extreme, it can lead to anarchy and chaos.

Your author, Day, offers Three Types of Relativism:

Conventionalist Relativism:

What is right or wrong, or good or bad is decisively determined by the settled habits, traditions, conventions of one's particular society.

POSITIVES: respect for people, their judgment and moral traditions.

PROBLEMS: If each culture is right, we have a BIG problem. (More on this later....)

This view permits intolerance toward dissenting minorities within a culture.

Dissenters are marks of moral change, and until the majority agrees with them they are immoral. (What problems do you see with this?)

This was the justification of the Nazis. The majority ruled. The minority was destroyed.

The dominant group is determined to be morally infallible. Individualist judgment is looked down upon. This is illustrated in the classic, "Fiddler on the Roof."

Individualist Relativism:

This perspective replaces the infallibility of the group with the infallibility of the individual.

Day sees this position as one of moral arrogance and selfishness. There is no respect for deferring to any other group or individual. If is importance to respect the autonomy of individuals, but not to exclusion of the well-being of others.


Situational Relativism:

In this philosophy, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to deviate from the rules.

PROBLEM: It can be used to justify what feels good or seems convenient.

Motives may be selfish in nature or evasive (may be rationalizing...)

Noted ethics author, John Merrill calls it 'non-ethics' : If every case is different and no rules apply, why bother?

Partly because of the social attitude of the 60s and 70s situations ethics became the dominant philosophy, especially among the "educated classes."

Situational ethics is a foundation of secular humanism. Read the HUMANIST MANIFESTO (see link at end of lecture notes).


Let's look at some of the basic arguments of relativism:

This statement is self-contradictory. When the relativist says his claims are only true for HIM, why should we care? Relativists are arguing that their "truth" is true, but others are false by the very fact that they try to convinces one who disagrees with them that those in disagreement are in error. That is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Disagreement doesn't necessarily imply relativism. Disagreement may only mean one or more parties may not have full understanding or knowledge. Differing underlying assumptions may also result in disagreement (such as the difference between the nature of human beings [intrinsically good or sinners])

Culture and birthplace may explain the source of understanding about a belief, but says nothing about the belief's truthfulness.

[Just because we don't understand or believe something doesn't make it so.....The earth has never been flat, even though no one understood or believed it to be round for thousands of years.]  

To reject logical laws runs into real problems. Those who have tried, have ultimately used western logic to attempt to do so. We need logic for language to function, to operate in our daily lives. The very basic rule is the law of non-contradiction: if something is self-contradictory, it can NOT be true. When a relativist tries to prove an absolutist wrong, the relativist uses logic AND assumes that objective truth exists.

At a conference a few years ago, a relativist panelist was asked if it wasn't always wrong to abuse a child? The panelist, a woman, responded? "What counts as abuse differs from society to society; so we can't really use the word 'abuse' without tying it to an historical context." (Copin, p. 43)

This illustrates the relativist's abhorrence of the concept of evil.

Under this social relativist context, we would have no right to say that 
In Calcutta, and other cities in India there is a practice of breaking and twisting the limbs of children or otherwise crippling them so that they will make better beggars and be more able to support the family. Should there be no effort to reform this practice?

Was the eradication of slavery in western cultures not a moral victory?

Discuss: Why then to we struggle for "human rights?" Are we not over-stepping our bounds to send Peace Corps or other volunteers to other countries to lead to reform and "improvement" of conditions there?

George Will wrote: "A society that flinches from the fact of evil will flinch from the act of punishment. It should not wonder why it does not feel safe." (Copin, p. 44)

In his book on relativism, Paul Copan lays out some basic terms and premises:
Relativists argue that others are "wrong" to impose their morality on others. Does that mean no one should ever evaluate and judge the morality of another to be lacking or unacceptable?

If the relativist says "yes," then the relativist has just admitted that some things ARE wrong, and the relativist position is self-contradictory.

If the relativist says "no," then we must seriously question the mental and intellectual health of one who contends any society can continue to exist under such conditions. (and wonder whether it's safe to have that person around....)

"Who are you to impose your values?" can be countered with the question, "Should NO values be imposed?" If the relativist says "yes," then the response is..."Who are YOU to impose YOUR values on those who want to impose their values on others?"

Under the philosophies of moral relativism, equal rights for women and the abolition of slavery would never have come about, and the reign of terror of Nazi Germany would never have been stopped.


Relativists ask: "Who are you to judge?"

If we are not to assume that slavery, Nazism, and apartheid are morally equal to democracy, respect for others and racial harmony, then the issue is not WHO should judge but WHAT should be judged. When they ask, "Who are you to judge?" they are trying to shut down the argument that judgment should be done at all. If there are hierarchies among moral behaviors, then someone MUST evaluate them. WHAT is far more important than WHO.

Relativists accuse traditionalists of having no respect for other people's views or culture.

Respect for the individual and one's culture is does not mean accepting all of the ideas within that culture as acceptable or moral. I might respect the accomplishments of the ancient Mayan and Aztec cultures...their calendars, their architecture, their art, their highly developed culture. However, I can do that and still not accept their practice of human sacrifice as moral or acceptable behavior. [Don't you have friends or family that do things which you find problematic from moral standpoint? But do you still not respect them as human beings, see the good things about them, care about them or even love them?]

Moralists often accept and respect the practice of others and may not intend to intervene in those practices. They may even see that imposing their values is inappropriate, but they still believe the practice or behavior is wrong.

Judge Bork provides a sharp statement on relativism in his book (p.99) concerning the case, Cohen v. California in which a man had refused to remove a jacket on which was written the phrase "F-k the Draft!" The court determined that they could not define what an offensive word was, saying, " [O]ne man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Moral relativism which the court endorsed, is necessary to radical individualism. But it mush, of course, be confined to such areas as speech and sexuality. It would never do to reverse a conviction for assault on the ground that one man's battery is another's sparring practice."

We'll talk more about this in our unit on truth.

If everyone has the right to choose one's own values, the incentive is removed for people to live ethically and to build character.


What difference does it make what values one has or one doesn't have under those circumstances? Why bother? Self-sacrifice isn't nearly as convenient or pleasurable as the alternatives, but it does make for a more productive society. Where do we find ourselves without character as a value?

According to Copan, there are four implications of relativism:

1. Persuasion is prohibited: Trying to persuade implies one has the truth and one's listeners might be wrong...

2. To be exclusive is to be arrogant: To claim to have the answer implies hierarchy and therefore must be erroneous.

3. Tolerance is the cardinal virtue: One must be accepting of ALL ideas to be virtuous. Alan Bloom wrote, " Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason's power." (Copan, 1998)

4. In the absence of the possibility of truth, power rules the day. If there is no truth, there can be no "wrong," so "might makes right. (Didn't Socrates settle THAT 2500 years ago?)


We'll come back to many of these issues as we further explore the nature of truth and the importance of truth telling in the next unit.


Ethical Theories of Moral Reasoning:

Day writes that there are three key types. You may find more as you study these issues.

1. Deontological or Duty-based theory.

This theory is built on the ideas of Emanuel Kant, although they developed in the middle ages and were strengthened by the dominant influence of the Catholic Church. Kant was an early rationalist, one of the first of the "modern" thinkers. He believed that the human mind was God-given and could and should be used. In his writings he speaks of how much his faith and his relationship with God permeate every aspect of his life, but he thinks that while God established moral truths - the good - , it is so self-evident, than human beings can determine it on their own, through rational means. It did not have to be revealed by God.

Kant's thinking reflected the influence of the reformation. Whereas the church has provided the understanding of morality for a thousand years, reformation thinkers held that man could reason effectively. There was power and worth in the human mind.

The development of printing press at the same time as the reformation meant that more people had access to ideas -without benefit of church interpretation. The level of discourse was raised significantly, and people began to challenge the old power structures.

So we have Kant, who writes of the moral necessity of duty, of the importance and existence of absolute rules, rule that can be derived and understood without God.

Deontologists believe that morality has value, weight and existence in and of itself. Some things are always right, and some things are always wrong. For this reason, they are sometimes referred to as absolutists.

Under this theory, one does not break rules for any reason:

Robin Hood would have not been considered a hero, but rather a villain.

The ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

In media, this perspective means:

Needless to say, media folk don't usually like this approach.

Advantages of deontological approach:

Disadvantages:

What more do we need?

If you don't understand a rule, and don't particularly like, under what circumstances are you likely to obey it?

[understanding]

[relationship]

Josh McDowell, in his book Right and Wrong, writes that we need both the precept and the principle.

The precepts are the rules, the "thou shalt nots...", but behind each one of them is a principle. The principle of provides the understanding and the keys to the relationship.

Principle: (def) "a norm or a standard that may be applied to more than one type of situation; it is a principle that expresses a fundamental truth on which a precept is based. Understanding the principles behind the rules, allows us to see why and when a rule might apply that we don't like or understand in a given situation.

Precept Principle
Thou Shalt Not Kill Reverence for life

Let me give you a list of principles:

Now here are some precepts. See if you can match the principle to the precept.

Can you think of other non-codified precepts that are significant in our culture? What principles are associated with those?

Non-codified precept Principle
   
   
   

Now, let's look at this a little more personally....(to yourself...) These points are really important, because they have so much to do with how and why we decide what to do and what we think about right and wrong. What else might be needed for one to become committed to a precept and principle?   McDowell has some additional points to make about that, indicating that a relationship with the principle/precept GIVER is important.  Kids are less likely to disobey parents with whom they have a strong and loving relationship.   These principles are also dependent upon some absolute truths....

2. TELEOLOGICAL Theories:

These are consequence-theories.

Telos: greek "the outcome"

Teleology is the study of the evidences of design or purpose that causes exist for specific events or outcomes. (Webster's Dictionary) If a there is an order or cause for the events of the universe, then some argue that there must be an "order-er," and sometimes teleology is associated with that perspective.

How does this work?

Another focus of teleological theories: Minimizing Harm

These theories are more flexible than other theories.

Procedure:

Problems:

3. Virtue Theories: Aristotle's Golden Mean

These theories focus on what kind of person we should be.

Emphasis that the acquisition of virtue is the heart of morality.

Dr. Russell Gough's presentation (3/1/99) addressed this issue. When he said "character is destiny," he meant that how we behave determines the course our life will take. In the little things, the big things, ethical decisions create our character and thus our course of future action and our destiny.

The concept of the Golden Mean holds that virtuous conduct involves learning to avoid the extreme. This is based on the Platonic view that morality is intrinsic to the universe; it is a given. Plato would have argued that it is clearly better to be hardworking than to be lazy, and it is better to be hardworking than to be a work-a-holic. Moderation is the key. 

Still, this perspective does not answer the key question: from WHERE do these concepts come. It doesn't answer why we have guilt.....("a whole 'nother" can of worms, as we've been known to say in Indiana..)

It is important to note that the mean is not necessarily the 'middle'. Why? According to Clifford Christianson who is quoted into you text,

"The mean is not the only right quantity, but at the right time, towards the right people, for the right reason and in the right manner. The distance [between the two extremes] depends on the nature of the agent as determined by the weight of the moral case before him."

There are a number of examples in your book that illustrate these points very well. (The concept of "grandfathering...")

The virtue theories are also based on social expediency. Without some order, some rules, and some cooperation, societies and professions would not be able to function.

CRITICAL THINKING IN MORAL REASONING:

Skill that can be learned

MODEL OF MORAL REASONING -- SAD formula

1. define the situation:

2. Analysis of the situation

3. Decision

See case study in your book: I might give you an essay on one of those....

Links of Interest for this Lecture:

American Humanist Association: This is the home site for the organization and has a variety of interesting links.

Humanist Manifesto I and II.  Here you can see a copy of the documents we discussed in class.

Apolgetics index:Relativism.  This site has numerous and excellent resources on the topic, but it it NOT required reading. It may go more deeply than is necessary for this class, and it is a Christian site.  It does, however, offer some valuable resources on this topic.

RESOURCES:

At Collier Library:

Bork, Robert H. Introduction to Slouching Toward Gomorrah.

"Heaven Can't Wait: Martha Williams has millions believing in 'Touched by an Angel' and its Spin-off 'Promised Land." Broadcasting and Cable Magazine, February 24, 1997 p. 26.

Chapter 1: "Good and Bad Reasoning" in   Kahane, Howard and Nancy Cavender. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric,  Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1998

Copyright, Dr. Janet McMullen, 2001

Return to Com 310 page: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/310.htm

Email Dr. Mc:

jmcmulle@unanov.una.edu