|
Doing Ethics... | ||||
| Environment | Globalization | Health | Rule of Law | Sex | |
Ethical ReasoningIntentions & ResultsIn ethical reasoning we value acting with a good intention and achieving the best outcome. When these arguments clash, we become creative. For instance, we generally believe we should tell the truth, but at times we lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings or being embarrassed. If our intention is good and no one seems to be harmed, we think a lie is right as well as best.
Empathy & Reason
Neuroscience has confirmed that we have evolved the capacity for
empathy and have mirror neurons that enable us to feel the
emotions we see in others.
We
also have evolved the mental ability to use reason to weigh the
possible consequences of taking an action, which enables us to
make the choice that seems to offer the best possible outcome.
__________________________________________ Acting, Being & Predicting
Having good intentions involves being concerned with taking the
right action or being a good person, or both.
Being responsible for the practical outcome of our actions
involves weighing the likely consequences of the possible
choices we have, and then acting in the way that we predict will
have the best possible outcome.
__________________________________________ Ethical TraditionsPhilosophers and theologians have developed these arguments into ethical traditions. Deontological ethics concerns doing what is right, whereas teleological ethics is about our intention to be good persons. Consequential ethics considers what practical choice will result in the best possible future.
__________________________________________ Ethical ReasoningThe four words above the horizontal line represent intrinsic ethical values. We should do our duty and respect the rights of others, because we affirm these actions are intrinsically right. We ought to cultivate moral virtues that reflect character, and also be caring in our relationships, because we believe these intentions are intrinsically good. The word “consequences” represents the ethical argument that we should act to realize the best possible future.
Deontology vs Consequences
Disagreement about moral issues may reflect different kinds of
arguments.
For
example, the argument over torture involves a clash between
deontological and consequential reasoning.
Those opposed to torture argue it is intrinsically wrong because
it violates a person’s human dignity.
Those urging “enhanced interrogation techniques” value
preventing the dire consequences of a terrorist attack more than
protecting human rights.
Sources of ReasoningEthical arguments for taking the right action are rooted in our religious and cultural traditions. Neuroscience confirms that we have evolved to make moral decisions based on empathy as well as our ability to predict the likely outcome of our actions. Consequential arguments for doing what we think will yield the best possible outcome reflect the ethical and practical traditions of political philosophy and economics.
__________________________________________ Teleology vs Consequences
In
addressing ethical issues arguments for compassion and
forgiveness may seem to clash with our responsibility to achieve
the best possible outcome.
For
instance, the rule in criminal law that protects one spouse from
being compelled to testify against the other gives greater value
to the relationship of marriage than to the responsibility of
the state to ensure that those who break the law are held
accountable.
__________________________________________ Intrinsic Worth
Traditional ethics ascribes intrinsic value only to human
beings. This makes the use of
natural resources
merely a practical matter of what has the best consequences for
us.
Those who affirm the intrinsic worth of the earth’s biosphere,
as a reason for
government actions to
reduce further climate change, resist the claim that the
predicted negative costs of such actions should be of greater
concern.
Ethical Presumption
We
consider arguments for intrinsic values in order to construct an
ethical presumption as to what we should do.
We
test our reasoning by predicting the likely consequences of
acting on this ethical presumption.
If
our predictions confirm the ethical presumption, then our moral
choice is clear. But if the likely consequences seem more
adverse than beneficial, then we should reassess our options.
Environmental Ethics
In the United
States the main ethical arguments about environmental issues
are consequential.
Advocates for
legislation to restrict carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere argue that the scientific evidence for climate
change is clear.
Opponents assert
that the scientific predictions are uncertain and that
regulating carbon emissions would forestall economic
recovery.
__________________________________________
Duty Arguments
Advocates
for environmental policy
also emphasize our duty to future
generations, and Christian statements affirm as well
a duty to care for the integrity of creation.
International law asserts that developed nations
have an equitable duty to aid less developed
countries (LDCs).
Most
corporate environmental policies accept a duty to
future generations, and US law also affirms this
ethical duty.
__________________________________________
Rights Arguments
International law affirms the right of
every nation to economic and social
development that is environmentally
sustainable, and UN declarations assert
the right of every person to a healthy
environment.
The United States government affirms the
first right, at least in principle, but
opposes the second right.
__________________________________________
Character & Relationships
Character arguments that
urge gratitude and what
Schweitzer called
"reverence for life"
seem to be marginal in
this debate.
Christians teach
stewardship of the
integrity of creation as
a way of being faithful
to God.
Buddhists affirm the
natural interdependence
of life and practice
compassion for all
sentient beings.
In the US “ecosystem
integrity” has now
become a legal standard.
__________________________________________
Environmental Reasoning
The Golden
Rule
supports our
duty to
future
generations.
Science
offers an
ecological
view of
human
living.
Opponents of
environmental
policy claim
that
scientific
projections
are
uncertain.
They rely on
cost-benefit
analysis to
predict that
economic
regulation
will harm
the economy.
Advocates
argue
scientific
projections
are reliable
and
necessary
regulation
will
stimulate
green
economic
growth.
|
doing ethics
telling the truth lying?
intentions
right action being good
consequences
five keywords
intrinsic values
right action vs predicting
torture
empathy and reason
compassion
criminal law
being good vs predicting
value of nature?
ecosystems
moral and religious
economic and political
process of reasoning
a
moral and practical
climate change
international law corporate policy
duty arguments vs
consequential
rights arguments vs
consequential
gratitude Christian stewardship
vs
consequential
environmental |
| Copyright © 2007 by Robert Traer |