Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:17:00 EDT
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Codes, systems, and feelings
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

>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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  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.

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.

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?

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

William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, CT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU