5. Philosophy
5.1. The historic roots of ethical thought.
In the East, philosophy evolved in conjunction with religious thought or as part of wisdom teaching and literature. The Vedas (ca 1500 BC) attempted to dissolve the conflict between religious teaching and rational thought by personifying truth and reality as gods. Knowledge of the universe was expected to yield ethical truth. Who can hope for any better approach, if valid results can be expected? The Vedic approach through “enlightenment” with the results then propagated by the Veda do not satisfy modern intellectual thought and, in some regards, Western culture (e.g. the conclusion of the Upanisads resulting in the caste system). In the West, however, the shaken trust in science as a guide towards a better world and Darwinian observations of nature (and the Book of Job) let us equally hesitate to use the understanding of the world as a guide for human ethics. Only the belief in a new phase of Creation with the emergence of ethical values can overcome this problem. But then, the observation of the prior phases of nature does not help any longer.
Another result of Vedic thinking, leading from non-violence to Janaism and to Buddha’s teaching, is a more important forerunner of modern ethical thought. While Buddha refused to follow abstract theological speculation, he did preach compassion and brotherhood (around 500 BC). Was there a connection to the Essenes and Galilee via the trade routes?
In China, the two great philosophers, Lao-tse and Confucius, related to ethics only in passing -- the one in pursuing inner peace, the other in attempting to create an orderly society. Thus, kindness to adversaries (in Taoism) and caring for the elderly and poor (in Confucianism) appear in rather practical terms, without religious or analytical deduction. Yet, those thoughts seem to indicate a commonality of human ethical needs, rather than an unbridgeable diversity between cultures as in so many other practical rules of behavior and value judgment. Confucius, when asked about the essence of his ethical thoughts, formulated much the same as Biblical teaching: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”. Mencius, about one hundred years after Confucius, postulated a natural base for the human desire to do right and to be good. Hsün-tse, however, postulated later that only education makes humans good -- they are by nature bad and selfish.
In the West, the Greeks introduced the search for intellectual truth as an independent, secular endeavour of the mind. The questions of the absolute or relative value of “right” and “wrong” and the mysteries of conscience were already discussed in their times. All this was swept away with the Dark Ages and the dominance of religious fervor in the early Middle Ages. Scholastic thought reintroduced a degree of intellectual inquiry, also in matters of ethics, establishing this inquiry as a separate discipline of philosophy.
5.2. The structure of ethical inquiry.
Further development resulted in the subdivision of three branches of ethics: Normative ethics, applied ethics and meta-ethics,
Attempts to establish absolutely valid ethical values as facts of nature or creation, almost provable and measurable as the facts in the natural sciences, have failed. Ethics has remained an inquiry into values that “should” be valid, that should be accepted, for whatever the various reasons might be. This is the field of “normative ethics”.
There was an immediate second-level question in this pursuit. Should one judge an action solely by its results (the teleological, consequentialist approach) or are there ethical norms one has to follow in arriving at the results (the deontological position). Can one steal from the rich in order to save a starving child? Can one bomb enemy civilians in order to save one’s own country? Can one evict an ethnic group in order to make room for one’s own ethnic group, under whatever historic pretext? Can one violate any of the Ten Commandments or other ethical rules in order to arrive at some more important ethical results? Can one, out of compassion, help another to break US immigration laws? There is no consensus in answering these questions. Many situations are in a gray zone, where black or white would be easy to judge, but an often necessary compromise is left to personal judgment.
“Applied ethics” is specifically the undertaking to apply ethical theory to practical problems, whether in areas of professional ethics, civil rights, abortion, gene technology or any other of our modern concerns. Needless to say, there is seldom a consensus in the resolution of those questions. The personal focus is often provided by emotion. Subsequently, focused selective observation and selective argumentation put the intellectual exercise into the service of the original emotion. Therefore, rationality alone does not solve complex emotional problems. One would first have to know how to sort out contradictory emotions and priorities. Furthermore, one does not deal only with individual situations but with cultural value trends in society. The entertainment industry and the media play an important role in these developments.
Meta-ethics is concerned with the clarification of the base of ethics (as in reason or emotions) and the validity of ethical concepts (even specific words), and statements. This ties into the analysis of thought as a natural or metaphysical phenomenon and into some normative questions as to whether ethical statements can be universally valid, or have to be seen in relation to individual and cultural circumstances.
5.3. The development of ethical thought in history.
Historically, the origin of formulated ethical rules was presented to the people by the priests and the rulers of their times as a gift and directive by the gods. Interestingly, there was little distinction between administrative, criminal, civil, and ethical laws. Since then, ethics has remained a mainstay of religious thought and teaching, mostly derived from a single historical canon or scripture, not from an evolving study or understanding of God, or some other transcendent essence of creation. However, the diversity in religious teachings of ethics leaves the individual with either: a personal decision of “faith”; the requirement for complex inquiry into a personal selection of standards; a chance following of the surrounding laws and habits; or with getting away with anything while not being caught.
The Ten Commandments are little more than the basic rules for civil order in a balanced community, not referring to emotional “values” such as fairness and compassion (except by later forced exegetic interpretation). The Golden Rule, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (with the fine distinctions of being worded either positively or negatively), without exegetic amplification, is not much more than the original natural rule of reciprocity. However, the code of Hammurabi and early Egyptian hieroglyphs already contain elements of fairness and compassion, without any religious or philosophical explanation. This is important to notice since our thinking sees criminal and civil laws not resting in themselves, but rather as an outgrowth of deeper ethical principles, which require prior thought and formulation. These ethical principles generally relate to fairness and compassion, if not Christian “love”, restrained by practicality.
Plato questioned the divine arbitrariness in issuing moral directives and postulated absolutely valid norms in nature. He began and pursued the intellectual search for these norms. (Actually, the Sophists and Socrates thought about the relativity or validity of ethical values before). Only a couple of hundred years later, Christ, rooted in the great Jewish prophetic tradition, presented a new holistic interpretation of God, the rules for human life, and the directive for inter-human relations based on “love” (the Greek “agape”, not “eros”), an ethical emotion, thereby tying ethics further to religion. Both pursuits of ethics became intertwined in European and American development of thought. The intellectual direction, more result oriented, tended to favor ethical goals that would bring the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. The emotional direction generally favored individual goodness over reaching results. Yet, both directions and any of their combinations allowed for horrendous aberrations, as in religious wars, the inquisition, or the crimes of Himmler under the “national-socialist workers party” and Kaganovich under the “communist workers and peasants party”. On the other side, it is thanks to a favorable combination of reason and emotions that the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Conventions came to be developed and generally appreciated.
In a more detailed observation of the historic development of “ethics” as a division of Philosophy, it is amazing to see the circuitous route of ever-new schools of thought following each other.
Plato formalized the contradiction between the Sophist’s relativistic position and Socrates’ belief in an ultimately existing valid “idea” of goodness, and proceeded with the inquiry into the latter. He formulated that being good adds to personal happiness. But even Plato saw the contradictions between rationality, emotions, and bodily desires and accepted the notion of compensation in the next life for god-pleasing behavior in this life. Aristotle, while being preoccupied with the supremacy of reason, postulated that a thorough understanding of human nature would reveal what makes a good human being, somewhat akin to the Vedic position. An analysis of human virtues led him to propose the Golden Mean between extremes of too much or too little (e.g. courage between cowardice and foolhardiness), not unlike Buddha’s Middle Path. The later Stoics postulated that reason leads to wisdom and virtue, rejecting passion, unaffected by the course of life, permitting the path of suicide if necessary. Since all humans share the capacity for reason, and since one should primarily seek the company of rational beings, all humans can be seen as common citizens of the world, resulting in a global moral law (thereby rejecting relativism).
The discussion of Greek and Roman ethics was centered on the validity of ethical laws and the process of inquiry. However, the definition of a proposed code of ethics and practical methods of implementation were not sufficiently pursued (not going much beyond the reciprocal Golden Rule). Questions important to our times, such as fairness in business, integrity in government, compassion in social matters, were not defined or seen as paramount virtues. As in our times, the Greeks and Romans saw virtues related to individual behavior. However, relations between groups or between city-states appear to have been little controlled by ethics (as in our business and international world). There were extensive class wars between the plebeians and the wealthy nobility ravaging the Greek cities. Athens was accused of taking advantage of its allies and treated opposing cities quite cruelly. There were wars between cities, culminating into the Peloponnesian War.
Christianism regarded all human beings as children of God, hence of equal value. This led to the abolition of abortion, slavery, and suicide, (but not of killing enemies in a “just” war!). Faith now dominated reason and the new virtues were Christian “love” (“agape”) as in peace-making, a clean heart, meekness, and suffering from injustice. While this change from the antique thinking was seen by some as an exercise in relativity of ethics, the believer saw it as finally having found the true base of all human ethics.
The intellectual discussion of ethics resumed only with the Scholastics in the 12th century (Abelard). Aquinas, based on the Aristotelian texts rediscovered at that time (by way of the Arab and Jewish thinkers in the Arab world), attempted to reconcile Christian doctrine with Aristotle. While stipulating the love of God as the highest goal and leading to heaven, Aquinas saw virtue as the base of limited happiness here on Earth. The notion of “natural law” can be traced to Aquinas. Thereby, right is what corresponds to the human nature and is suitable to the purpose of human existence (e.g. homosexuality, contraception, and abortion are unnatural and, therefore, wrong).
The Vedas, Plato, and Aquinas searched for ethical clarification in the understanding of nature (or human nature). This approach was possible only before Wallace and Darwin. Since then, our view of nature makes us shudder, thinking that mankind could one day again accept a code of ethics based on the struggle for prevailing and preferential propagation. We still very much belong to the more basic nature as our national internal conflicts and some sad international conflicts prove every day. The population explosion threatens again all of us. However, we hope that humans strive for something different. We hope that we have the potential for a more “ethical” life, unprecedented and little observable in nature.
With the Renaissance (and with Protestantism weakening the dominance of the Roman church), the human world began to be looked at independently of theology. Humanism began. A totally sophistic Machiavelli could be published (Il Principe, 1513). Diversity of religious thought surfaced. Thomas Hobbes was the first to present a new, humanistic concept of morality (the Laviathan, 1651). From there, a sequence of moral philosophers arose in England and Scotland, independent of the development in continental Europe.
Hobbes saw self-pleasure, individually different from one individual to another, as the only motivation of man, including the pleasure derived from making other people happy. A rationally derived “social contract” allows people to live together in society by establishing a sovereign (in whatever format) to maintain peace and security.
In opposition, the following “intuitionist” postulated that an absolute, generally valid truth in ethics can be found through rational intuition, somewhat like Plato’s ideas (Cudworth, More, Clarke). Some results where the demand for maximizing the benefit for the most as the most ethical strategy, and the reformulation of the Golden Rule based not on love, but on what is “judged reasonable”.
In questioning the centrality of personal pleasure and rationalism, the “moral sense” school of thought postulated that man also possesses natural altruism as expressed in compassion, generosity, and dedication to the public interest. This “moral sense” of virtue is opposed to selfish desires (Shaftesbury). These virtues rank higher than the fulfillment of desires in an enlightened pursuit of happiness. Butler, as a forerunner of Kant, introduced the concept of conscience as a more important moral guide than enlightened self-interest. In the 18th century, Hutcheson reiterated the significance of “moral sense” (used to define conscience) and the ethical objective to maximize happiness for the most.
David Hume (1711-1776) warned that reason is too often the servant of our desires. Thus, morality results from the proper desires and feelings. However, there is the dilemma that feelings vary between individuals. Hume also postulated that morality be practical, by resulting in action.
Hume also pointed out, in what is now called “Hume’s Law”, that the transition between observation of what is and the postulation what therefore should be is often made too easily, reflecting too easily the inner disposition or prejudice. In our times, it is not so much the study of nature but the study of history, which is mandated to teach ethics and prevent future catastrophes. But one should not forget that Marx arrived at Communism from his study of history, and Hitler arrived at anti-Semitism from his distorted observations.
For the British philosophers, Hume left the dilemma that one cannot know what to do by simply observing feelings about right or wrong (who’s?). The three-sided argument between “intuitionists” (that ethical truth can be found through intuition by reason), the “moral sense” school (that feelings and conscience can guide man), and Humes Law (that you cannot just observe reality to know what is right for whom) remained unresolved.
With “utilitarianism” (Bentham, 1748-1832), the discussion turned toward asking what actions would be ethical -- an approach of normative ethics. Again, the conclusion was that ethics meant maximizing “pleasure” and reducing “pain” for all concerned, including slaves and animals. Later, a qualitative ranking of pleasures and pains was introduced (by Mill, 1861). Sidgwick (1838-1900) investigated what was commonly being accepted as ethical, pointing out conflicts between various moral principles. The conflict between selfishness and interest for the common good appeared rationally insurmountable to him. The British sequence of philosophers concluded with Sidgwick’s statement that a rational approach to morality would not work.
On the European continent, after Erasmus (1466-1536), Spinoza 1632-1677) became the most important moral philosopher. In contrast to Hobbes (who lived at the same time), Spinoza postulated that natural desires are a burden on the freedom of the mind and, therefore, must be controlled by reason. He perceived a positive essence in all mankind due to its participation in a pantheist world. Thus, reason is not the servant of desires (Hume), but their master. Leibniz (1646-17-16) continued rationalist thought mixed with religious fervor.
Rousseau (1712-1778) depicted the ideal of the “noble savage”, who became corrupted by possession of land and material goods. He proposed to recapture the ideal state through a rule of society by “general will”. This could be found in following reason rather than personal desires, thereby leading to a civilized society.
Kant (1724-1804) followed Spinoza’s and Rousseau’s expectation of a common good. He postulated that only those actions, which are taken to do what is good in fulfilling moral “duty” (and not merely to reach personal happiness or in following benevolent feelings), possess ethical value. While the “hypothetical imperative” tells you to be good for some personal reason (your own happiness, recognition, compensation in heaven), the “categorical imperative” tells you to do what is good, equally valid to all people, irrespective of any personal feelings or expectations. The moral law, to be found by reason, he formulated as: “Act such that the maxim of your action could be the base for a general law”. Further thought about deriving specific decisions from the “categorical imperative” ran into contradictory examples. Further thought about the ultimate motivation for following the “categorical imperative” ran into the same old cycle between reason and emotions. In normative questions, Kant took position against a teleological valuation of actions (only by their results, consequentialist approach) and in favor of a deontological position (in that one has to follow ethical norms in arriving at conclusions).
Hegel (1770-1831), influenced by Schiller, developed a concept that history shows a development toward freedom of the mind, overcoming the division between conscience and self-interest, between reason and feelings, arriving at harmonious communal life. As human nature is formed by the society in which one lives, those desires will then be brought forth that are in the interest of society (a forerunner of communist education attempts). Individuals would then feel as parts of the community. Thus, the conflict between morality and self-interest is a problem of inadequate societies. Moral actions are those that fulfill one’s position and task in society (worker, administrator, merchant, etc.).
Marx (1880-1883), a student of Hegel, explained all ideas, whether religious or ethical, as a result of the economic stage a society had reached in its historic development. Thus, loyalty and obedience were ethical values of feudalism. Freedom became an expression of capitalism. Thereby, Marx returned to some thoughts of the Greek sophists before Plato indicating that those in power determine the laws. In the Communist Manifesto he described morality, law, and religion as bourgeois prejudices while, at the same time, lecturing in moralistic terms about the misery of the capitalist system. Engels (1820-1895) was a co-author of the “Manifesto” and of the “Kapital”.
Modern philosophers reverted to a concept of relative ethics, based on the conditions of an individual’s existence. Existentialism, thoroughly atheist, denied any purpose in human existence and, hence, any universally valid ethical standards. However, the horrors of WWII, the Holocaust, and the Nuremberg trials led again to the call for a common base in ethics for all people. At one time, the United Nations attempted to draft a code of ethics for international corporations operating in the Third World. Meanwhile, the philosopher’s argumentation about relativity or possible universality of moral values, of emotions and desires or the use of rational thinking in ethical inquiry continue unabated, 2400 years after the Sophists and Plato.
A new perspective of thought came from evolutionary biology. Edward O. Wilson’s “New Synthesis” (1975) and “On Human Nature” (1978) suggested that Darwinian evolutionary biology favors certain values leading to the propagation of genetic substance. He also postulated that nature justifies universal human rights. Other philosophers after Wilson deducted a justification of human inequality. However, one is reminded of Hume’s Law -- that the translations from observations to normative statements reflect the translators’ own prejudices.
In the recent focus on normative ethics, the dichotomy between consequentialist concepts (judging ethical actions by their consequences) and deontological concepts (requiring ethical actions to follow ethical rules) appear in the foreground again. Our system of law is largely deontological in judging behavior and not consequences (e.g. condemning the stealing from the rich to give to the poor). However, our governments, with their secret service and military operations, are largely consequentialists. In deontological ethics, there is the additional problem of conflicting ethical obligations (e.g. in the application of disposable resources or in telling the truth vs. not hurting a person by one’s statements).
Utilitarian consequentialism sees the goal of all ethical actions in optimizing the universal balance of pleasure and pain (the most pleasure for the most people) or, in different wording, to optimize the satisfaction of preferences, or what the preferences would be if people were fully informed. Rule-Utilitarianism would apply the consequentialist judgment to the application of any ethical rule (thus disallowing stealing from the rich to give to the poor, since general stealing would destroy society). Thereby, Rule-Utilitarianism unites consequential and deontological thinking. Simple Utilitarianism would eliminate the protection of the weak and of minorities. The Maximin theory assumes that if people do not know where they or their family members will end up in life, they will not attempt to maximize benefit for the most, but to minimize disadvantage for the least fortunate in society, a theory applied to our welfare state.
This leads to the common discussion of and appeal to basic rights of individuals within the society, as those in the US Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution). The question arises immediately whether rights should be based on and can be questioned by ethical judgment, or are “absolute” rights (e.g. whether the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is limited or unlimited). In the latter case, ethical judgment must be derived from those rights. Obviously, there are some limits somewhere. This leads to the attempted definition of basic (and vague) principles of ethics such as justice, equal respect, and concern for all individuals in society. This also leads to the postulation of basic natural goods (e.g. life), in continuation of the natural law ethics of Aquinas and the Catholic Church. Also here, limitations arise out of conflicting situations.
Unrelated to all philosophical thought, ethics has found an interesting supplement in the teaching of the Theory of Games to the business community -- an approach to optimizing economic benefit. A number of situations in this Macchiavellian art are not unlike the age-old approach to ethics by reason.
The millennia of inquiry into meta-ethics and normative ethics may appear quite ineffective. Yet, applied ethics was pursued vigorously at all times, partially because each new philosopher thought he had found the answer to the philosophical riddle and could teach the world. Therefore, no consistent code of ethics resulted from these efforts (except those based on a single doctrine or belief at any one time).
5.4. Ethics and larger issues of society and nature.
In our times, ethics no longer applies to individual behavior only. A number of larger issues of society and nature are also seen in an ethical perspective.
The American Civil Rights Movement became a specific issue for the intellectual discussion of applied ethics in equality, human rights, and justice. While the condemnation of racial discrimination was universal, reverse discrimination is still an item of discussion in our times.
The abolition of gender discrimination led to the still-open question of the role of the mother and, consequently, gender differences. The discovery (or confirmation) of physiological gender differences in the brain will extend and exacerbate this discussion.
The beginning understanding of brain physiology contributes to the discussion about ethics versus animals. However, the ethical aspect of environmental protection, of stewardship of nature, has not proceeded beyond utilitarian concepts for humanity.
The issues of nuclear armament, just wars, population control, immigration (legal and illegal), abortion, euthanasia, bio-ethics, genetic engineering, rationing of medical resources, and other issues of ethics in medicine, public policy, and global cooperation rise and fade in the attention of the public and of moral philosophers, their resolution remaining elusive.
0%
Author: Helmut Schwab
