MORALITY AND ETHICS--HOW DO I KNOW I’M RIGHT?
Introduction
Remember the first time you lied? When your mother held you by the hand and
told you it was wrong? Remember your very first pangs of guilt? Whether we remember
them or not, its obvious that there must have been those “first times”. Well, here’s a
thought. How did we ever come to believe we were wrong, or right for that matter? If
morality is a real concept, if it is an outcome of basic premises built on logic, then what is
the logic that dictates your conscience? Where do morality and ethics come from? And
are these “moral rules” absolutes, can we all obey them?
“Morality” essentially is the ability to distinguish right from wrong. A moral
choice is one that is right. And this isn’t the first time that the question of the origin of
morality has been challenged. Thinkers have always tried to analyze the threads of logic
that dictate social norm, and the feasibility of their moral codes.
The Justification - On What Basis?
For most of the conservative societies with a greater history behind them, religion
seems to be the single largest force driving moral decision-making. This is especially true
for Christian, Islamic, Hindu and Jewish societies that have Holy Scriptures such as the
Bible, the Koran and the Gita, providing direct moral codes as indisputable axioms.
However, with globalization and subsequent overlap in world tribes, people have
started questioning these moral premises, especially the ones that might clash with each
other (E.g. Islamic opinions on Polygamy versus Christian concepts of Monogamy). All
these and more problems have brought the intellectual to think and ponder on the
existence of a moral code or law that could dictate his actions more universally. At
present the most widely discussed theories in philosophical literature include
utilitarianism, deontology and the social contract theory.
Utilitarianism
Proposed by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism suggests that man’s actions should
be to that end which “tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.”
It is based on two premises: consequentialism (that morality is concerned with the effects
of actions on the happiness of individuals) and a maximization principle(greatest good of
the greatest number). Among the more popular literary fiction that propagates such
philosophy, are Isaac Asimov’s Robot and Foundation books, which feature the famous
laws of robotics (metaphorical to laws of humanics) which prioritize Life, Species and
Individual, in that order. (The altruistic nature of such thinking is evident.)
Deontology
These theories take as their premise the belief that human beings have an intuitive
knowledge of right and wrong. Associated is the belief that humans have certain rights,
and the actions that adversely affect such rights are morally wrong. The American
ideology of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” comes to mind. Adherents to
this theory propound that, when every individual is alive, free and happy, the society will
be happy as a whole. Theories like objectivism (Existence exists) are observed in fiction
by authors such as Ayn Rand. In her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, she says, “I swear by my
life and my love of it that I will not live my life for the sake of another man, nor will I let
another live his life for the sake of mine.”
Social Contract theory
According to this theory, “there is an agreement between an individual and a
society in which the individual agrees to submit to the authority of the government in
exchange for the government’s protection of his life and property.” It recognizes the right
of equality of all citizens, and points towards a socialist form of government.
Problems in Implementation- Can it work?
Adopting any single theory in totality presents obvious problems. For instance,
consider this. Two patients, Y and Z, are dying. Y needs a heart transplant and Z needs a
lung transplant to survive, but there are no organs available. Y and Z argue that if a
healthy living X is killed, the two of them will survive. Hence by the law of
maximization, this is the right thing to do. But this conflicts with the deontological right
of life of X.
The Solution
The obvious road to take, is a compromise between all the modern theories. An
empirical approach to morality would suggest the following premises:
A belief in consequentialism, viz., that morally correct action depends on its effects.
Effects desired are those that promote happiness.
Maximization of happiness however, should be rejected. In its place, we assert that
every individual should act in the pursuit of self-interest. However the conventional
problem of “good to all” can be solved by every individual, if he acts in overall self-
interest as opposed to prima facie self interest.
E.g. Consider the simple moral issue of accepting a bribe. Though this may be in the
prima facie self-interest (as an immediate consequence) of the individual, in the long
term it militates against him( in terms of its effects on society and its members, he
being one of them). Thus it is against his overall self-interest and he is persuaded to
not follow it.
As a footnote, when do we know that we are happy? Lets not forget that a person
would act morally only if he knew why he was doing it.
A truly moralistic person would define happiness as “that which is desirable; and
the only thing being desirable as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to
that end.”