Ethics is often presented as a ‘code of conduct’ or set of regulations, things that must be done, to protect others, ourselves, the safety of others … but how do arrive at a set of regulations, codes or guidelines?
Do ethical codes express underlying human experiences of truth about good? Or God-given and sanctioned laws for us to follow? Are ethical codes subject to difference between individuals across cultures and history? Or do ethical codes derive form the relative morals held within a particular society, or part of a society? (I use the terms ethics and morals interchangeably in this Blog).
As professionals, we can understand that there are constraints on our actions that are largely guided by written codes of conduct and unwritten ethical perspectives. It is harder however to understand how these codes come into being. As a human being, it is proper and good to lead a moral life, but where does this morality come from? Is it constant or does it shift depending on other factors?
This is properly the subject of debate for moral philosophers, but I though it might be worthwhile and thought provoking to set out my understanding of the philosophical terrain in terms of the major perspectives on this question:
Subjectivism: This perspective suggests that morality is subject to individual outlooks. If it is good to be a slave owner and you benefit from slavery then the Subjectivist perspective would be that slavery is morally good. Of course the slaves might hold quite a different viewpoint! It is this lack of universality that makes this perspective difficult to defend at times, yet very applicable in other cases.
Consequentialism: This perspective suggests that if some goal produces a happy result, then it is morally good. Morality can be viewed not as a description, but a prescription. In other words, if the result of a moral or ethical code is good, then the moral code itself is good. Thinking of our slave analogy, while a few individuals in a slave-owning society deem slavery to be good because it improved their wealth, the Consequentialist perspective might suggest the desperate suffering of the slaves outweighs the scales against slavery. Therefore, slavery is bad.
Theism (belief in God): This perspective suggests that morality is universal and derives from God. Therefore whatever God decrees must be moral and right. The main challenge to this perspective is it is arbitrary. If a particular god approved of slavery, then slavery would be good and moral thing to engage in. Yet this is nonsensical. While many religions share some broad moral beliefs, they also vary enormously, and have evolved over time. With so many gods saying so many different things, it is difficult to make a Theist argument that morality is universal simply because each religion denies the truth of all the others. We are left with the arbitrary position that morality is simply what a particular god approves of.
Relativism: This perspective suggests that morality can only be understood in relation to the society in which it operates. If we explore a new land and find a slave-owning society, Relativism would suggest that we should not judge the slave-owning society as immoral, because their own moral codes relate to their particular social structure and systems and they might deem slavery to be moral.
Natural selection: this is not strictly the territory of moral philosophy or ethics, but it brings an interesting and new perspective. The natural selection perspective suggests that good or moral behaviour exists because it has evolved over time as a survival ‘trait’. In other words, human societies that evolved specific moral codes have tended to survive better over the generations compared with societies whose moral codes were less than effective. Turing to our slavery analogy, slavery might be more or less moral depending on the extent to which it increases a societies or groups’ chance of survival. Morality is a set of traits that have tended, over time, to increase our chances of survival.
Well, that’s my limited grasp of moral philosophy! I hope it provides some anchor points for you to consider professional ethics in some broader and contextualised perspectives. I can suggest further reading in the form of Peter Singer’s ‘Practical Ethics’. It is one of those books you can keep picking up and reading because it tackles so many interesting moral dilemmas.
I’d also be interested to know whether you think it is sufficient for a professional to know and apply the relative professional ethical codes, or whether you think the professional should be able to relate the code (and their adoption of it) based on a deeper engagement in moral philosophy?
Alan: This is a very interesting discussion. I think there could be a difference between what I call 'business ethics' and 'research ethics'. It would seem to be sensible to think there is some connection between a personal moral code and the ability to undertake ethical practice. I will look into Singer's take on the issue.
ReplyDeleteAlan, I wondered whether there is an ethical perspective that says that it is intention rather than outcome that makes something morally good or bad? I was thinking about a american soldiers being sent into enemy territory to save the life of one of their comrades. Consequentialism seems to say that if they all come back alive then it was a morally good act. If however two of them die to save one man the outcome is bad and the action was now morally wrong. If however, we were judging it on the intentions of the men going in or the commanders sending them in, no matter what the outcome the action was morally right because it had good intentions behind it.
ReplyDeleteI thought at first that Deontology covers this but it seems to be too concerned with black and whites (i.e. lies are always wrong). I wondered if you had any clarifying thoughts.