Ethics

When confronted with so many varied competing philosophical theories in the realms of truth, mind, free will, identity, etc, I find myself lacking the abilities (and the time) needed in order to properly evaluate them and to decide upon my own personal opinions. As such, I end up being a bit of a fence sitter on many subjects, sometimes left with residual beliefs I can’t really justify nor feel able to explain how I got them. This doesn’t bother me much as I’m sure I’m not on my own in this, and it doesn’t really affect my day to day decisions. But in other areas, such as religion, politics and ethics, it would seem I have to stand somewhere. With religion I’ve done lots of thinking and reading and feel fairly comfortable with my position, deciding long ago that time could be better spent thinking about other things (I’m not persuaded by the theistic arguments I’ve encountered and I could spend an eternity exploring all religions). But with politics and ethics I feel a responsibility to hold an opinion but really struggle. I feel this particularly strongly with ethics, being a parent I’m aware I’m passing on my values, and the consequences of my decisions more often than not affect people I care about. Most of the people I’ve discussed morality and ethics with (mainly on the internet) it would seem are relativists or subjectivists and I can’t really refute their arguments. But at the same time wonder then on what do they base decisions with broad consequences. If it’s as arbitrary as they suggest then surely ethical reasoning can’t really get going. And we have to face this stuff whether we like it or not. Is it enough to say that I base my moral decision making on a sort of basic concern for the welfare of others? What would be your advice to those of us overwhelmed by the number and diversity of these ideas with very limited time and abilities on how far to probe into these issues? I’d bet there are a huge proportion of people who’ve never really considered the foundations of their particular moral beliefs, but should they? Do they even need to in order to live well? Apologies for the long question(s), and thanks for the opportunity to ask.

Comments

Whether people need to examine the foundations of their moral beliefs in order to live well depends on what we mean by living well, doesn't it? Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living, so presumably he'd answer your question with a resounding YES. I suspect many philosophers would, since examining these kinds of things is something we're drawn to...or we wouldn't be philosophers.

I'd say yes, as well; I think living well is a matter of living rightly, and living rightly is at least in part a matter of living in a rationally consistent way. So I'd take rational consistency as a kind of baseline requirement for ethical reasoning.

How might you go about sorting through the overwhelming variety of theories? Let me share a nutshell version of what I teach undergrads who are compelled to take an ethics class, and see if any of this helps.

There is no way to avoid answering the moral question, "What ought I to do?" The answer to this question (let's call it "Q" for short) will derive from a morality, or set of specific directives that suggest an answer to particular instances of Q. You are right that many people have never considered the foundations of their moral beliefs and rely on "gut feeling" or ad hoc considerations to answer Q. I call this the "Seat-of-the-Pants" ethical framework, and the problems are that it leaves one prone to inconsistency, which is generally considered to be an undesirable trait in a rational being, and that it can be cumbersome to reinvent the moral wheel at every new instance of Q.

Some other standard frameworks -- interpretive schemes -- for Q are egoism, which posits moral goodness as whatever is one's own long-term self-interest; utilitarianism, which posits whatever produces the greatest net good overall; deontology, which posits the performance of one's duty; and virtue ethics, which posits the development of a certain kind of character or habitual disposition. Within each framework, morality requires a further specification: what IS in one's own long-term self-interest, what IS good overall, what IS one's duty, and what KIND of character is desirable.

How -- and whether -- a person answers these questions is going to depend (if they are interested in rational consistency) on what s/he takes to be the nature of truth and goodness. If one believes that moral statements ("X is wrong") are capable of being true or false -- which is the belief reflected by the way most people talk, and especially debate, about moral issues -- then presumably there is a way to determine which framework and which specification are correct. If one believes that moral statements are not capable of being true or false, or that their truth or falsity is not capable of being known, or that their truth or falsity is relative to some other consideration, then a separate argument is needed to show why, in the absence of correctness, a given framework and specification should be chosen over the others. (Some very good philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, have argued along these lines.) In any case, what morality one chooses is going to depend, ultimately, on one's metaphysical commitments. (There being no such thing as metaphysics is itself a kind of metaphysical commitment.)

You suggest a morality grounded on a basic concern for the welfare of others. Certainly this would be a viable ground. But you'd have to say what a "basic concern" entails. Is it just taking into consideration that other people are affected by what you do? Do you weight the welfare of some of these (e.g., your children) over others (e.g. starving children in Africa)? Why? How much of your own interest are you obliged to sacrifice or defer in order to show basic concern for others? And what do you mean by "welfare"? Is it having a certain amount and type of goods? Is it something procedural, like being treated in a certain way? Why?

That question "why?" is a great aid to probing, and it's one that we seem to want to ask naturally. The important thing is not to become frustrated if a clear answer isn't immediately forthcoming. That's to be expected; it's why questions like yours keep being asked, instead of being resolved once and for all.

Read another response by Kalynne Pudner

Read another response about Ethics