Understanding Ethics

Ethics:

    Ethics is the branch of Philosophy that asks the questions about “what is the right thing to do”? It is the branch that asks questions about what is “good” and “bad”.

    For instance, is it wrong to commit a murder? Why?

    Is it wrong to tell a lie? Why? And under what circumstances?

    Ethics is the branch that is closely related to law, because many of the legal questions are based in ethics.

    Some examples of ethical questions are:

1. Is it wrong to kill someone? Why?

2. Is it wrong to steal? Under what circumstances?

3. Is there an obligation/duty to do charity?

    In order to answer some of the ethical dilemmas, various theories have been advanced. Some of the leading theories are as follows:

1. Utilitarianism:

    Based on the foundations of ‘utility’, this school of thought was founded by an Englishman called Jeremy Bentham in the 17^th century Britain.

1. Jeremy Bentham

    The main assumption under Bentham’s theory is that all humans are ruled by two masters: pleasure and pain. We want to increase our pleasure, and decrease our pain.

    Therefore, under this theory, an ethically correct action is the one that maximizes the happiness of the maximum number of people. This means, that if 10 people get saved by hurting 1 person, under this approach, it is an ethically justified action.

    Under this approach, what matters is the consequences of the action (which is why this approach falls under theories of ‘consequentialism’). Since what matters are the consequences and not the means, it does not matter whether the action is done by one person or the other. For example, it does not matter whether A tortures 10 people or B tortures 10 people, so long as the consequence is the same (that people are getting tortured).

Drawbacks of this theory:

    The biggest drawback of this theory is that it ignores the minority under every situation. Even if the greatest number is getting benefitted, what about those who belong to the smaller number? For example, when a dam or a bridge displaces 100 families, while benefitting 10,000 families, the 100 families still suffer. There is no space for individual rights.

2. J S Mill:

    John Stewart Mill was the son of James Mill, who was a close friend and follower of Bentham’s theory. John Stewart Mill, therefore, grew up with the ideas of utilitarianism. But during his life and from personal experiences, he realized the flaws of this theory, and formulated his own version of utilitarianism that he calls “rule utilitarianism”.

    According to rule utilitarianism, not every action, but every rule should be constructed as such that maximizes the welfare of the maximum number of people.

    In his book, On Liberty, Mill also gave the “harm principle” which goes as “one is free to do what one wants to do, so long as s/he does not harm others.” This puts a limit on how individuals can be treated. For this reason, Mill’s conception is more accommodative for individual rights.

2. The Kantian school of thought (or, ‘deontological’ thought):

    The theory of Immanuel Kant poses the most serious opposition to the Benthamite utilitarian thought. Often, in ethical debates, these two views are pitted against each other.

    According to Kant, an ethical action is one that is driven by “duty”: this means, that this action neither stems out of (a) instinct, nor (b) social pressure. The corollary of a duty is “rights”, and therefore, this approach is more conducive to accounting for individual rights. Kantian framework has been most often used to defend human rights.

    Kant’s theory works on the idea of “categorical imperative”, which basically means “do unto others what you would have others do unto you”.

    We can understand these theories better by applying them in the examples that Philosophers call “thought experiments”.

Ethical Thought experiments:

1. R v Dudley-stevens/ The lifeboat example

    There was a shipwreck on the high seas, and a group of four people managed to get on the lifeboat. This was the middle of the Pacific ocean, and it would take them at least forty days to reach a shore. After a few days, the food and water on the lifeboat ran out, and there was nothing for the survival of the people on the ship.

    One of the persons on the ship was Richard Parker, who was a young boy of 13 years, and he was already very sick. The other three persons decided that if they killed and ate Richard Parker, the rest three of them would survive, and that is what they did. Is their action morally justified?

Hint:

A utilitarian would think on the lines of maximum benefit to maximum number, whereas a Kantian would want to protect rights no matter what.

2. The Red Indians: Will you kill one to save nine?

    One fine day you find yourself in a forest. You are a bit scared, and just then, a group of tribal people approaches you. Their chief walks up to you and tells you that you are their special guest. He tells you that on every Wednesday, he sacrifices ten tribal men. Today is Wednesday, and therefore, he is just about to shoot ten men. But, he tells you, that you are their special guest, and therefore he is going to allow you to have the honor of shooting one person. He says, as a part of welcoming celebrations for you, he will release the rest of the nine men. What should you do? Kill one and save nine men, or let the tribal chief kill all ten of them?

    Hint:

    A utilitarian is a consequentialist, and therefore, only concerned with the final outcome. For a utilitarian, it does not matter whether ten people are killed by the tribal chief or any other person. What matters is that ten lives are lost. If, on the other hand, you can save nine lives by killing one, that will be ethically the right thing to do. A Kantian, on the other hand, would emphasise on one’s own duty, and also the rights violation of even one life taken.

3. The trolley problem: Will you re-direct the trolley?

    There is a road that diverges into two lanes: one of which is undergoing construction, and another one, which is a functional lane. There is a group of five children playing on the functional lane, and a single child playing by itself at the construction site.

    You are standing at the juncture where the roads diverge. Just then, you see a trolley approaching and going towards the functional lane where five kids are playing. You realise that the trolley has no brakes on, and therefore it cannot be stopped. If it goes in the direction of the functional lane, the five kids might be affected. If, on the other hand, you redirect it to the other lane where there is a construction site, only one kid is likely to be harmed. What should you do? Remember, the one kid had actually done the right thing by playing on a non-functional road! But should its life and safety be sacrificed to save the greater number of kids?

    Hint:

    Apply the utilitarian and Kantian principles, and ask if there is any distinction between “not helping” and “harming”. Also, think about whether those in majority are always right!

4. The burning house: who will you save? The scientist or your mother?

    There is a house which is caught on fire. There are two people stuck in it: the first is a scientist who is working on a medical research that will save thousands of lives, and second is your own mother. You can only save one person. Who will you save?

    Hint:

    Think about to what extent is it ethical to favour your own loved ones over the benefit of humankind. Also, does ethical behaviour require the impossible from us? Or shall we only expect that behaviour which is humanly possible? What would a utilitarian/consequentialist say? What about Kant?

    Think also about “Ethics of care” – which is the school of thought which argues that theories such as utilitarianism and Kantianism are too “rational”, that is, these theories do not give adequate emphasis on the emotional aspect of our lives. Feminists argue for ethics of “care”, which is, that ethical behaviour is that which is driven out of emotions such as care, and compassion.

5. The timebomb problem

    There is a terrorist which has been caught by the police. He knows where all his terrorist organisation has hidden timebombs. The police has got the information that the timebombs will burst at any point in time, and the only way to save people is by torturing the terrorist to spill out the secret locations of the bombs. Is the torture justified?

    Hint:

    To what extent should we consider “rights” to be absolute? Are there any actions (such as torture) which are wrong under all situations? If so, do terrorists and criminals have any rights? Are there any arguments that defend absolute rights? Think about Kant and the categorical imperative!