Testing Ethical Presumptions

We test an ethical hypothesis (presumption) by predicting the likely consequences of acting on it. If we find evidence that seems to “falsify” our hypothesis,39 we should take this into account. Evidence that seems to verify our presumption should be taken as supporting it.

As with the rule of law, some ethical presumptions may be stronger than others. For example, consider the presumption of innocence. To overturn this moral and legal presumption and find a person guilty of a crime, the law requires the state to present evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a civil lawsuit, however, where one party has accused the other of breaking an agreement, the burden of proof on the party bringing the action requires showing only that the claim is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Reasoning by analogy, in doing ethics we distinguish moral presumptions that require compelling adverse evidence to be set aside, from those that may be set aside when the showing of adverse likely consequences is merely convincing.

For example, an elected official should tell the truth about the threat of global warming, unless there is compelling evidence that the consequences of doing so are likely to be dire.

Convincing evidence, however, that the consequences of telling the truth will likely be detrimental is all that is needed for an adult to justify setting aside the moral presumption to be fully truthful when a child asks, for instance, if global warming will kill all the polar bears.

As human rights are the social conditions necessary for human dignity, I will argue that setting aside the moral presumptions affirmed by international human rights law requires compelling evidence. Also, as the ecosystems of nature are necessary for sustaining all life on earth, I will argue that compelling evidence should be required to set aside our duty to protect the integrity of the earth’s ecosystems.

The tradition of ethics that relies on utilitarian reasoning and consequential arguments is a modern response to the use of deontological and teleological arguments by entrenched social elites to justify and maintain their power. Affirming that we should do whatever brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of persons has been an effective way of promoting political and economic freedom, and today this seems to be the dominant reasoning in environmental ethics.

analogy to rule of law 
constructing presumptions
critical reasoning
faith and reason
environmental ethics 
ethical traditions
feelings
ethical relativism
right and good 

39.  Karl Popper uses this language in his writings about scientific reasoning. For a summary of his approach, see Derek Stanesby, Science, Reason and Religion (London, UK: Croom Helm, 1985).

  Checking ourselves...

Poverty and the degradation of the natural environment remind us human decisions are often short-sighted and undermine the common good as well as the health of the earth's ecosystems.

Thus, we cannot simply rely on our sense of what is right. We need to test our moral presumptions that express our sense of intrinsic worth, to see if these presumptions are either confirmed or challenged by our predictions of the likely consequences of acting on them.

In our desperate economy we need more jobs, but we must be sure that the jobs we create are good for the natural environment and other species as well as for our human standard of living. We must consider our duty to future generations as well as our duty to the people and other species now sharing the earth's biosphere.

For our moral community includes all life on the earth, and not simply our family, or city, or nation, or even our species.