Chapter 12 Deontology

Chapter 12 Deontology

For deontology the primary focus for ethical decision making is the rule. The rule to never lie, cheat, or steal is an absolute never to be broken under any circumstances for any reason. Immanuel Kant would argue that to break the rule would be to act contrary to reason; for Confucius to break the rule would be to act out against one's filial relationships and virtue, and for W. D Ross the rule may only be broken in order to uphold the more prima facia rule. Regardless of the deontological school of thought the rule is the guide.

This bring me to some important questions: why do the rules matter? Are we simply rational creatures born to keep rules? Should reason be our primary foundation for ethics, and if so, why? What role does our emotional nature play in ethical decision making? We see examples of rule based thinking in every sphere of life: religion, business, government, family. Here are some examples: If you smoke a cigarette you are going to hell, no shoes, no shirt, no service; pay taxes or go to jail, and bedtime is 8 pm.

Rules for rule sake:

The challenge with rule based thinking in ethics is the rule becomes the focus and not the object, meaning, reason, or value of the rule. The rule becomes supreme and so, the outcome produced, the individuals and communities that are impacted by them become only incidentals. It is then easy to become totalitarian, cruel, and indifferent to anyone and anything that contradicts the rule.

I think we can relate back to Kant's ideal, "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means". It is in this statement that we can find a corrective for becoming rule totalitarians. The rules are for people not the other way around. Jesus uses this logic when healing on the Sabbath. Jesus is accused of breaking God's command of not working on the Sabbath by healing the sick on the Sabbath. Jesus responds that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This puts the rule firmly in it's place by framing it in the context of human need and dignity. The person becomes the end not the rule.

This brings me to my next point. Ethics is a relational ideal and I agree in part with Kant that without reason, ethics would cease to be in this world , it is a human endeavor because humans are rational by nature and we utilize reason to communicate. By reason we can rationally conclude good from evil not simply by analytical, abstract conclusions, but how thoughts, words, and actions impact us individually, the people we love, and society in general. I believe that whatever ethical system we utilize, each ethical system is an endeavor to value that which is loved. Example: loving ourselves, loving others, loving nature and other creatures, knowledge, and innocence. The purpose of ethics is to love to the fullest measure. Through love we acknowledge our self-worth, the worth of others, and the goodness of being alive in a world full of beauty and mystery in which all creatures should be valued according to there nature. Ethics is a means to fulfilling the law of law.

Getting emotional:

Reason is foundational but there must be more to ethical decision making than 1 + 1 is 2. Humans are rational but we are also emotional beings. Sympathy, empathy, anger, and joy are fundamental to our psyche. Kant wanted to completely distinguish the rational (or good will) from the emotional in ethical decision making. Kant believed any emotive inclination towards a virtuous act was no longer virtuous, although "praiseworthy" and desirable, the act was only virtuous if done from pure reason or will. This is a problem for me because emotion is infused into our rational processes. When we think we feel, and when we feel we think. We are by nature emotive and rational and to ignore one over the other would be as dangerous as ignoring the physical heart over the brain.

A term being used today is emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence (EI) is a person’s ability to (1) be self-aware (to recognize her own emotions when she experiences them), (2) detect emotions in others, and (3) manage emotional cues and information. People who know their own emotions and are good at reading emotion cues—for instance, knowing why they’re angry and how to express themselves without violating norms—are most likely to be effective. (Dessler, 2011). This concept is used in business, but I believe is important to ethical decision making as well. Interesting, we can rationally judge and discover the who, what, and why of our emotional state. Reason should guide emotion. When we act out of emotion without reason we can make bad ethical choices. Have you heard the expression "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"? Also, we can be cruel when we divorce our feelings from reason, we can become rule totalitarians.

Confucius and Ancestors

For Confucius the rules were handed down by our ancestors and the rule was, honor the ancestors by keeping their rules. Not because the rules were what mattered but because we are to love our ancestors. Mo Tzu had seen the impact of rules on the Chinese rule based culture and attempted to use a utilitarian ethical philosophy to counter the negative impact of Confucian philosophy, but without much success. Authoritarian ancestry became a way of those in power through family ancestry to take advantage of the poor and powerless. The poor and powerless were then obligated to accept the injustice because of the Confucian rule based system. This allowed rule totalitarians to take advantage of Confucian ideals for their own benefit. Once again, love is reciprocal, and without reciprocity, we fail to truly love each other, or as Confucius might believe, we fail jen. Confucian ethics is possible if the ancestors rules are embedded in love for their offspring, and only then can the offspring truly love their ancestors.

Why Lie:

Warning: This is my opinion on lying and one I am still working through.

For Kant lying was an absolute unbreakable rule. There was no rational excuse for lying even to save an innocent life. So, according to Kant I must tell a vicious murderer the truth of where my family is hiding so he may or may not kill them. This is one of my biggest issues with Kant. It is at this point that I believe his deontological theory loses its roots, its value, and purpose. The purpose of ethics, in my opinion, is to love and value each human being (Kant would agree). By loving and valuing each other we build and maintain happy, strong and productive relationships and therefore maintain individual and social happiness.

When we lie we break trust between rational trusting individuals and societies. The deontological model for ethics is a powerful tool for decision making but only to the extent that we follow Kant's ideal that the person is the end not the rule. According to Kant when we lie we take control over another person. We dominate them through deceit and ignore their autonomy and thwart their right to honest choices. I would add to that yes we de-value them as individuals but we devalue our relationships too. Therefore lying in and of itself, outside of human interaction is meaningless. Lying is only an evil in as much as it destroys warranted trust. Lying is unethical because it destroys the integrity of healthy relationships and thwarts efforts to grow in love and communication to foster intimacy and friendship. I owe the truth to those I value and love and to those who value and love me.

There is a great proverb I think applies to what I am saying on the negative side of my ideal: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls to pigs because they will eat them up and then tear you to pieces". I do not owe what is holy (truth) to evil people when they intend to harm or kill me or my family and neighbor. There is no relational foundation upon which there is trust, friendship, or intimacy to violate with a cold blooded killer. There intent has already demolished my relational responsibility. To give the truth of the whereabouts of my family to a evil person to whom I have no relationship other than their unwarranted violence would be to devalue the trust, intimacy, and friendship I have spent a lifetime building with those to whom it is owed. I will have to violate the fundamental purpose of truth telling: valuing relationships, by divulging the truth to one with whom I have none. By giving what is holy to "dogs" or "pigs" I have capitulated that what I gave was not holy.

Truth is to build love, trust, intimacy, and friendship not to speak for in and of itself. This leads to rule totalitarianism.

　

　

　

　

　

　

Thoughts on love and utilitarianism

Mo Tzu was a Chinese philosopher born the same year of Socrates 470 B.C.E.   According to our textbook, Tzu was a utilitarian and believed that "Love" is what is beneficial.  Love is a virtue espoused by many philosophers but the question is what do we mean by the term love? It appears for Tzu it partially demotes what is beneficial or what is beneficial for the most involved or impacted by a decision.

On page 251 of the textbook the author ask,"Is universal love realistic?".  We have discussed worldviews and how our fundamental preconception of reality impacts the choices we make in life. Since there is no universally accepted world view it seems unlikely at this time that universal love is a possibility.  This does not imply that we should not strive to properly understand what love is, and practice what we understand, but we have to address the realities of differing views and priorities in conceiving of and living in love.

In my opinion our nature should proceed our definition of love.  In other words, human love would be qualitatively different from a dog who loves his master. There are expectations of love within human inter-relationships that do not exist between dogs, pigs, or goats and their offspring and fellow species. Also, We do not expect non-sentient objects, such as, rocks, sand, or stars to love each other or humans.  Our understanding and mutual expectations of love flow from our nature.  The difficulties I have with utilitarians such as Bentham, Mill, and Tzu and their ideas of love and pleasure are the following:

1. The only object with intrinsic value is happiness or pleasure.
2. The value of pleasure precedes human value
3. The right of pleasure for all species can only be recognized by human reason.
4. Mutual love cannot be mandated or expected of other species since we have little to no objective knowledge of if or what non-human sentient beings may understand, experience, or expect in relation to loving or being loved.

First, how can happiness or pleasure be a first principle unless those to to whom pleasure is required are owed this right?  There must be the first principle of the intrinsic value and rights of the being.  Does the being have a value or right worthy of being loved? Although human dignity is important to these philosophers, dignity is only valued in that the ideal may bring the maximum pleasure to most.  Bentham was a naturalist.  The world is a closed system with no transcendental, creational purpose or goal.  So how does Bentham logically enforce that humans are owed pleasure?  Throughout most of human history, nature seems to have ensured the misery of the weak and powerless, and the licentiousness of the powerful.  How does nature or history tell us we have an inherent value that affords humans a right to pleasure?  Personally I think we do, but the utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill, and Tzu give us no logical foundation as to why.  This is a profound weakness within their worldviews.

For Bentham only pleasure had intrinsic value, but how can pleasure have its own value outside of sentient experiences.  Is pleasure a being, a god, or entity with its own intrinsic worth outside human beings, knowledge and experience?  This makes no sense.  Pleasure only has objective moral value to the extent that the beings who experience pleasure have intrinsic value or worth.  Our existence is before our experience.

If all sentient beings have a right and obligation to pleasure, and humans are obligated to recognize this right, how is this ideal to be reciprocated by other sentient beings that may or may not have any knowledge or capacity for knowledge to recognize the utilitarian position? Is not moral duty reciprocal?  How can other sentient beings be held morally accountable to ensure maximum pleasure for all other beings?

Since love among different sentient beings is qualitatively distinct and only humans have the capacity and moral obligation to love, how is this equality?  Equality involves reciprocation of the same or similar conduct and equal moral obligation.  This does not conclude that humans are not morally obligated to love other beings, but only in proportion to their nature.  For instance: A woman is struck and killed by a car and is lying in the street dead, is this an equal tragedy to the dead armadillo laying dead in the street two blocks down the road?  Do we have the same moral obligation to the armadillo as we do to the woman? Now lets say an armadillo comes across the dead woman laying in the street, what is the armadillo's moral obligation? We have no moral expectations of the armadillo, quite frankly because it is an armadillo and not a human being.  So how can there be true moral equality?  There cannot!