Systems of Ethics

How do you decide what is right and what is wrong?  Do you think that 'right' and 'wrong' exist as absolute, objective things that are beyond revision?  Do you think that they are given to us, perhaps by a creator, or do you think that humans define their own morals?

Tough questions.  They may not pop into your mind often, but they have increasingly been appearing in mine.

I have been giving some consideration to what I think is right and wrong, but more consideration still to how it is that I should determine what is right and wrong.  Perhaps you live your life according to a list of set in stone rules or maxims, like 'thou shall not kill/ steal', etc.

After a little consideration, any list of absolute rules soon reveals itself as insufficient.  Even common sense, fundamental rules that may seem unarguable or uncontroversial at first, soon crumble when applied to real life circumstances.  Let's take a simple premise such as 'it is wrong to kill'.  Soldiers cannot live by any such rule and yet they are not, generally, considered evil or immoral.  The rule is too general as it is in this form, think about the number of animals killed for human consumption, a good deal of people don't see this as wrong.  We may think we can strengthen the rule by adding some qualification or other, so how about 'it is wrong to kill an innocent human being'.  Now this does sound more sturdy. Don't agree too quickly, though. It may be a few moments before you can imagine an objection to this, but there are situations in which it may not apply.  What if an innocent human being is living in constant, debilitating pain?  If the person is of sound mind, but their life is devoid of any pleasure and they would prefer non-existence to perpetual agony, would our surely stated premise hold?  I don't think it would.  I don't think it would be wrong to kill an innocent human being in this circumstance.

A system of ethics where the individual relies on a set of rules may be referred to as Deontological ethics.  It is adherence to the rule or maxim that is important and determines whether one's action is right or wrong.

This isn't a system I am happy to use.  Although we may not often find ourselves in opposition to such rules as 'it is wrong to kill an innocent human being', it is clear that rules are unlikely ever to apply absolutely, in all circumstances.

So, having decided that Deontological ethics is not for us, where might we turn?  Well, what about if we consider the effect of our actions or decisions to be the important thing?  What if we judge our actions by the consequences to which they give rise?  If we think this sounds a little better, we may have some sympathy with a consequentialist approach to ethics and we may be interested in Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism has many forms, but put in its classical form it judges actions as right or wrong by reference to the pleasure / pain or happiness / misery that they create. There are variations of Utilitarianism, just as there are versions of Deontological ethics, but the fundamental or classical form of utilitarianism is as stated above.  The first thing a Utilitarian approach does is to cut us free from the shackles of strict rules, which can never be universally applied in our grey, rather than black and white world and lives.

By considering what may be the outcome of various actions, weighing up which action will do the most good or cause the least pain/misery, we allow ourselves to me much more flexible in our judgements.  Nothing is wrong by rule, but anything may be wrong by consequence.

Various thought experiments have been used over the years to test an ethical system.  There are several variations of the following scenario:

A train is hurtling down a track, completely out of control and on a collision course with a group of 5 people, which it will reach in very short time.  As an observer of the incident some distance away, there is only 1 thing you can do to change the course of events, since you are not close enough to contact the people.  There is a switch near the train line that you could throw, which would have the effect of changing the course of the train to a side track.  On the side track 1 person is walking along, oblivious to events taking place.  What should you do?

Observing any deontology that requires you not to kill a human being would mean that you are powerless to change events and 5 people will die.  However, a utilitarian ethic would allow you to throw the switch, which would prevent the loss of 5 lives at the expense of 1.

You may not be happy about either of these outcomes and may feel that either result will be tragic.  You should.  However, I think it is possible to make a strong argument to suggest that a utilitarian approach of some kind suggests you should strongly consider throwing the switch. 

A utilitarian would agree that all persons have a value. Therefore the death of 1 million people is not just quantatively different from the death of 1 person, but also qualitatively different, by virtue of the quantity of people, each of whom has a value.  This shouldn't be controversial.  Our newspapers report air crash disasters, natural disasters, etc. on the front page.  When somebody dies crossing the road, this is tragic, but it is not generally found on the front of our national newspapers.  Therefore, without taking lightly the value of any individual's life, we might agree that 1,000,000 people dying is a worse result (involving more pain / misery by accumulation) than the sad death of 1 person.  This is an objective view, one we may take if we imagine ourselves observing the world as a disconnected 3rd party.  In life, obviously, we can only see through our own eyes and our subjective preferences for family members, friends, partners, etc., obviously mean that we place a premium value on certain people, but we can agree that objectively one person has a value equal to that of another.

So, if we agree that the death of 1,000,000 people is a worse consequence than the death of 1, we should agree that the death of 5 is worse than the death of 1, albeit by a smaller margin.  5 people suffering pain/misery/death is a worse outcome than 1 suffering the same.  As a utilitarian is interested in consequences of actions, the action that increases the overall happiness/pleasure and the least pain/misery, we can see that they might decide to throw the switch. 

The argument could be stated even more strongly.  Since a utilitarian framework is interested in consequences, little distinction may be made between act and omission.  Since it is a choice to do nothing, rather than throw the switch, and this choice brings about more pain/misery - the worst outcome - then a utilitarian may charge somebody who fails to act as being responsible for the greater tragedy.

You may think that you would be incapable of throwing the switch, since you would then be positively doing something that brings about the death of a person.  Maybe you wouldn't be able to do it and maybe neither would I, but that does not mean that utilitarianism is wrong or bad.  Maybe it just means that we couldn't do the right thing.  Maybe we wouldn't have what it takes.  Maybe this is because the sanctity of human life and the wrongness of killing have always been taught to us as an absolute rule.  But we have seen that the difference between act and omission in this scenario is the difference between a tragedy and a bigger tragedy.

Let’s modify the scenario.  What if the train is full of 1,000 people, headed for another train coming in the other direction, which also holds 1,000 people.  Unless we throw the switch to divert it to a side track, where it will kill a lone person strolling obliviously, 2000 people will die.  Given a choice of 2000 lives and 1, do you find the decision comes any easier?  Extrapolate it however you want, make the numbers as big as you want.  Even if you have to imagine that millions die at the expense of 1 before you would choose to positively act to kill 1 person, you are acknowledging that more people dying is a worse outcome than fewer; each life has equal value and therefore the act that is 'right' according to the consequences it creates, is the act to positively kill somebody.

I have been at pains to describe how and why the utilitarian might decide to kill someone, since it brings about the best consequences.  The consequences in this scenario are limited to 2 outcomes and both are bad.  The scenario isn't practical and isn't likely to be something one ever faces in life, but it is a dilemma that has been used as a thought experiment in some form or other for years.

You may think it a criticism of a utilitarian system of ethics that such a thing as killing is ever allowed. The example we've seen is extreme and both outcomes are bad, needless to say if an option existed to save all, this is what the utilitarian would choose.  However, just because something may seem intuitively wrong or traditionally wrong, our inquiry shouldn't stop there.  Ethics is something to think about and something to which we should apply reason.  Judging by your gut may not be the best thing.  Maybe your intuition will normally serve you well and generally result in the best outcome.  In more everyday matters I expect it will, but never let it go unchecked- serious things deserve serious consideration. 

Morality Without God

Do you believe that you need to be commanded to be good? Do you believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute, objective concepts defined by a supernatural entity? I don't.

I believe that our notion of good and bad can be explained rationally, without reference to the supernatural. I also believe that the atheist can be seen to have the moral advantage when compared to the religious believer.

Before I outline what I believe, let me explain what I mean when I refer to the concepts of good and evil within a religious context. As far as I have seen, although there may be rare exceptions, religion considers good and evil to be the whim of god. They are not defined by humans, we must accept them as outside of us, as absolutes that escape our revision. Good is good, not because it is - because of any characteristics we naturally associate with goodness, or because we think it is, by reasoning or instinct, but because god says that it is. Good doesn't have to be that which we think is good, it may even be that which we think is evil, its only qualifier is that god says it is good. For instance, I don't think it is good, as detailed in a bible story, that Abraham was willing to kill his son, so to prove his loyalty and obedience to god. As far as the religious position goes, I am wrong and god is right. What Abraham did, moreover what he was prepared to do, was 'good'.

It is interesting to consider what might happen if god were to reconsider what is good and what is bad. Imagine if god decided that indiscriminate murder was good. The religious couldn't argue; they accept good and evil as absolutes outside of human revision. But surely god could re-define good and evil, any omnipotent god surely has it within his, her or it's power, only a divine change of opinion is needed.

If religious people believe good and evil are defined by god, then they must concede that they are not absolute terms, but merely that which god likes or abhors. This surely could change. This seems to me to make the definitions of good and evil to be no less arbitrary than if they were decided by humans. In fact it makes them more so, because they are not set by those to whom they apply.

What is wrong with humans deciding for themselves what they consider good and evil? The religious believer may say that this would leave us all drowning in a sea of moral relativism, with no compass by which discern true good and evil. This is another way of saying: we do not know that which is truly good or evil, without being told. This is simply another argument from authority.

Let's get one stumbling block out of the way. I don't care if good and evil are absolute. I don't care if good and evil exist. All that matters, is that humankind, as a whole, define what we mean by 'good' and 'evil' and set our laws accordingly. I don't see any problems on the horizon using this approach. Does this mean that anything may be permitted? No, it doesn't. I suspect that evolution has had a significant part to play in instilling in us all a set of shared morals. It is easy to see, for instance, how evolution may have favoured those who displayed altruism towards kin or close neighbours, so that this became an inherent characteristic within us all.

Good and evil according to the will of god, surely renders the concepts arbitrary, less intrinsic and less satisfying than if they were evolved characteristics that had emerged as a result of social exchange between our ancestors. I believe that good and evil, as concepts, need only mean things that humans agree as broadly beneficial or hurtful to themselves and others, in specific contexts.

The definition of good and evil may shift over time, according to the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, but I don't imagine that what we consider extremely good or extremely evil will ever switch categories. This may not sit easy with some, they may say that certain things are, by their very nature, evil and must be absolutely so. I don't personally find this a big problem, practically, as I find it hard to countenance a world in which the majority of humankind has decided that something such as indiscriminate murder may be considered good. However, even in the extreme examples, it is the context and the consensus which are important. If all humans, or at least a very large majority, consider something to be good or evil - this is what is important. Whether this something is absolutely, objectively good or evil is not significant, particularly if this simply means that which god likes or abhors.

Ask yourself, do you think that something is good because you think that a supernatural authority has told us so, or because you can see that it has a benefit for humankind? Keep in mind that whatever good you are picturing may not fit into both categories.

Needless to say, I don't accept good or evil as absolutes or as divine concepts; I think these are things that we can define for ourselves. I don't worry about the semantics of the words and I don't mind that the definitions are changeable, in fact, I think that this is a good thing. Without revision, the morality of the bible may struggle to deal with things that the modern world has come to accept or come to abhor, such as homosexuality or slavery, for example. A dogmatic and unrevised concept of good and evil does not leave any room for the reconsideration or reshuffling according to social change.

I think the moral atheist, who considers good and evil, broadly speaking, on a benefit vs pain basis in respect of his or her fellow humans; who is good, not as avoidance of hell, or as an aspiration to heaven, but in deepest sincerity and agreement with the wider population, with whom an evolved, fundamental moral base is shared, may make a greater claim to morality than many who act only as a result of commandment from their god.