X-VMS-To: in%"ethics-l@polygraf.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:06:00 EST
From:         JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Response to Murray - Ethical Systems
Comments: To: ethics-l%polygraf.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

William Hugh Murray said:

>> The point is you cannot have an Ethical Code based on "Everybody
>> do what feels right to you!"

> It may be useful to distinguish between a system of ethical analysis and
> a system of ethical behavior.  In fact, most people behave most of the
> time out of ethical habit, not analysis.  They do not behave out of
> their ethical analytic system or even out of their conscious belief
> systems.  That is to say, most people behave out of their feelings most
> of the time.

And it is especially important to distinguish between drafting a "code
of ethics" and developing a "code of ethical behavior based on an ethical
system."  The former being just a codified list of what is believed to be
ethical, the latter being a code based on a firm foundation of systemically
applied principles (i.e. natural rights) from a cohesive theory...

My ethical problem with a "code of ethics" is that it is always determined
by those in power, while not giving any consideration of basic foundations...
In the U.S. Navy we used to call folks that attempted to enforce such codes
"by the book" or "Gung ho Navy."  Generally, even though it was recognized
that these folks were trying to do good, these folks were viewed as imprac-
tical and unrealistic because of the extremes they would apply... The "book"
could not be tempered by an appeal to justice, truth or alternatives...

In terms of leadership, these "gung ho" types did more to cause problems
than accomplish the intended mission...  This is not to say we should not
have such "books" or "codes", just that the codes have to be developed and
implemented with an ethical foundation that can be applied unilaterally
while maintaining justice, rights and choices...

> It may also be useful to distinguish between a code and a system.  The
> "Ten Commandments" or the "Categorical Imperative" are codes, but they
> are not systems.  Even those who support them, or would argue for them
> consciously and intellectually, do not act out of them consistently.

The "Ten Commandments" is a pretty good example...  It states "Thou shalt
not murder (kill)" but is tempered with justice in most societal systems
by allowing such an act in defense of Life, Limb or Liberty (and in some
systems, property)... recognizing that there are some human circumstance
that calls for a violent response...  Even the Old Testament/Torah documents
"just wars" waged against the enemies of Israel...

In the New Testament/Christian Scriptures, the Law of Moses is affected by
the words of Christ when He intervenes in the stoning of a woman for
adultery by saying, "Let those among you without sin cast the first stone."

Disregarding the religious issues, the ethical standard is one of tempering
a codified set of rules with justice...

> Our system is not the application of a code or even an intellectual
> belief system.  There is no code that commands a consensus.  There is
> no code that commands consistent behavior from its adherents.

And any policy/professional code of ethics must emerge with the above
in mind...  If it is based on one person's belief or a group's majority
opinion, it sets up a dynamic of the "haves" and the "have nots"...  Those
in power versus those who are not...  Majority vs. minority...  Which does
little to effect an ethical solution to an ethical dilemma...

> Our ethical system is what results from our collective habitual
> behavior, perhaps weighted by our influence.  It is the collective
> application of "common sense," where "common" means widely held.
> Saturday I opened a fortune cookie that said "One century's philosophy
> is the next century's common sense."

Which is exactly the sense that Aristotle seeks to apply in his principle
of the "golden mean" and the "avoidance of extremes."  But Aristotle adds
the idea that the "common sense" is also based on universal rights, natural
laws, and individual choices...

> The system is what happens when most people do what "feels good," at
> least on balance, most of the time.  This may not be a good basis for a
> code, but "If it feels good, do it," was the code for much of a
> generation in the sixties.  However, you felt about that, the world did
> not come to an end over it.

Perhaps not...  But it is an extreme of hedonism and was not a just
approach... It set forth a clash of competing powers and authorities over
what was pronounced as ethics, but in reality had very little to do with
anything more than power... and, historically, did very little to resolve
any of the dilemmas presented during that era...

Hedonism was/is not a system of ethical principles...

> The system includes both individual and group action and social
> reaction, that is, how the community responds to, rewards and punishes,
> initiatives.  Note that in such a system neither individuals nor groups
> enjoy complete freedom of action.  Individuals give up some freedom, or
> incure group sanctions, in return for the benefits of participation in
> the group, and groups are dependent upon the participation of their
> constituents in order to act.

Justice, freedom, truth, etc., involve both rights and responsibility.  The
society structure can not effect laws that do not responsibly allow
freedoms...  Nor can it act in a fashion that violates rights and continue
to be legitimate...  Machiavelli was genius in his recognition of this as a
dynamic (even if his views were based on power being the base of all things).

If the above dynamics are without adherence to some universal principles, then
revolt will be incurred...

> Such a system is conservative, i.e., it is very stable and
> extraordinarily resistant to change except over time, at the margins, or
> in novel situations where there are no established habits.  Generally,
> we would expect a system with many components to be stable.  We would
> even want it to be so except in dynamic times or when dealing with a
> novel technology such as the computer.

In social systems theory, the system is said to be in a constant process of
homeostasis, always attempting to maintain that stability...  If the social
system has a cohesive bond based on reliable foundations, the system is
functional...  Far too often, systems are not based on some form of reliable
foundation and dysfunction occurs...

> About the best that we can expect or even hope for is that some people
> will resort to the application of ethical analysis or an ethical code
> when they are confronted with a situation that they recognize to be
> significant or novel.

And we can hope that some of these people will have some say in policies,
common laws, codes, etc.

> Thus, the role of ethical analysis is not to arrive at A code but at a
> habitual consensus.  A code may or not may not be helpful in doing so.
> A poor code may even be destructive or divisive.

I'm not sure that I can agree with the 1st sentence in the above quote...
Could you expound on it some more?

> For example, in western culture most people support the "Ten
> Commandments" as a code, at least intellectually.  However, in a world
> in which more by far identify God as Allah than Jesus, and more as Jesus
> than as Yahweh, the first commandment is divisive.

Not really an effective example since the canonical foundation of the 3
religions you imply in the above is Leviticus of the Old Testament...
Upon which there is much agreement...

> In a community in which most people believe that a woman's right to
> control her own body is superior to the right of her fetus to life,
> the fifth commandment is divisive.  In a community in which most people
> do not mate for life, the sixth commandment is, arguably, destructive.

My argument is that if you examine the rights of the individual and the
society, you'll always come up with an ethical position...  The mores and
norms of the society are circumstance, not mandates...

> Likewise, in a nation in which little boys are taught that peer loyalty
> is a very high value, the "nontoleration clause" of the West Point
> Honor Code is at least confusing, at worst destructive.  Most cadets
> have far less trouble with don't "lie, cheat, or steal," than they have
> with "do not tolerate those that do."  Far more code violations, if not
> charges or sanctions, result from the nontoleration than from any other
> provision of the code.

Many studies have shown that a peer or community environment can cause
several behavioral changes without regard for ethical foundations...  The
non-toleration clause of West Point, if left as a social dynamic as you
describe it above, is culturally relative (and indeed the intent of West
Point is to create an elite group)... But there are underlying rights,
choices and natural laws in the whole of the West Point code...

Which is why I posited the idea that you can apply an ethical view
provided that the ethical foundation rest on the Nature theory... (I'm not
sure that I have enough space to clarify this concept).

> In the short run, a community influences group and individual behavior
> by its habitual or institutional system of rewards and punishments.  In
> the long run, it can exert such influence by ideas, including codes.
> Saturday I opened a fortune cookie that said "One century's philosophy
> is the next century's common sense."  This ought to suggest the ideas
> and codes that are influencing today's system may be dated or even
> reactionary.  Given this risk, what kinds of ideas and codes should we
> adopt?

This would appear to be reductionist... reducing the whole of ethics to
either behaviorism or social learning theory...  Not sure I can agree with
this approach...

> Our system is more pluralistic and flexible than most of our codes.

Exactly the problem of elitism...

> Those codes, such as the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative, that
> tell us how to judge behavior or identify right behavior, rather than
> those that tell us specifically how to behave, probably work best in the
> long run.

This is Kantian in nature...  But succumbs to Kant's major downfall...  The
"golden rule" and the "categorical imperative" does tell us how to behave,
but does not allow us to identify right or wrong... The Kantian view is that
one must always act in a certain manner...

> "If it WILL feel good, do it (but be certain that you know
> how it WILL feel.)" would likely be in the former class and not a bad
> rule.  RTM did what felt good at the time.  In retrospect, he would
> think twice; he would compare the current feeling of power and fame,
> with the future of criminal sanctions, peer rejection, and public
> embarrassment.

And this is hedonism, a complete rejection of Kantian ethics...  Kant's
imperatives are not so flexible...  His view is that even if it does NOT
feel good, one must always act in a certain way...  As a rule it ain't bad,
but as an ethical system it is irrevocably flawed...  as is hedonism...

Very good points...  Enjoyed the post.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU