Section Two Ethics Problems
From Thiroux and Krasnow’s Ethics: Theory and Practice 11th Edition
Choose ONE of the following Ethics Problems and answer it to the very best of your ability. These questions are fairly complex, and will require a minimum of 4 full pages (double spaced, not including the title/header) pages to answer completely.
Chapter 5 – A slice of Samurai culture – Are ethics relative?
In her much anthologized article, “Trying Out Ones New Sword,” philosopher Mary Midgley (1919 – ) present’s a variation of the problem of ethical relativism that demonstrates the trouble we often have in understanding cultures strange to us.[1] Specifically, she talks about “moral isolationism,” the view that because we cannot understand another culture, we cannot judge another culture’s Ethics.
The word tsujigiri in Japanese literally means “cross-roads cut.” However, as used in Samurai culture it meant something like, “to try out one’s sword on a chance wayfarer.” It seems that the only test that would guarantee that a samurai’s new sword was sharp enough was to slice a human being in half diagonally from the shoulder to the opposite hip. In order to accomplish this test, the samurai would wait at the crossroads for the next (unfortunate) traveler. Is this practice morally acceptable?
Sharpen your mental sword and see whether you can cut through problems associated with ethical relativism and moral isolationism. Discuss these problems and offer reasons to support your position.
Chapter 6 – Freedom and Control: Are Freedom and Human Happiness Incompatible?
For many, human happiness and freedom are incompatible. If people want to be happy and secure, then what is needed is not freedom but control. Dostoyevsky’s (1821-19881) “Grand Inquisitor” boasts that he and his church “…have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy.” Individuals who demand autonomy and free choice are in ongoing rebellion against God, and such individuals continually make trouble. People need to be controlled to be happy.
Twentieth-century psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) argued that humans must get “beyond freedom and dignity (moral autonomy and choice) if they wish to be happy.” For Skinner, the controls are put in place through technology (“a technology of behavior”) and social structures that are rationally and scientifically engineered to produce certain defined (controlled) results. Because we live in an increasingly secular world, the controls will be set through various types of social engineering, not religion. The key to happiness, well-being, and a good society is intelligent control, not freedom.
Do you agree that freedom is a barrier to happiness and well-being? Do you feel that our society is on a path similar to the one Skinner suggested? What kinds of social control are currently being put into place? List the various mechanisms by which our lives are being controlled. Does this control make you happy? Discuss the relationship between freedom and control. Noam Chomsky (1928 – ), and American philosopher, linguist and political activist, criticized Skinner’s works as being highly conducive to justifying or advancing a totalitarian state. Comment on the paradox of freedom and control.
Chapter 7 – Who gets to stay on the lifeboat?
Ecologist Garratt Hardin (1915-2003) proposed the metaphor of a lifeboat to help us think about resource distribution in a world fast approaching limits.[2] Hardin’s view, called “Lifeboat Ethics,” looks at trends such as population increase, resource depletion, and the carrying capacity of land to make a case against helping the poor. Although we all have basic needs, some people must be denied. Lifeboats, metaphorically, refer to wealthy nations.
Consider the example of a lifeboat with a capacity of 50 persons. The ship is sinking and there are not enough lifeboats. You are safe on a lifeboat filled to capacity, but there are still 100 people in the water. What do you do? All need to get in the lifeboat, or they will not survive. But, the lifeboat is full. Who should stay and who should go, and why? What criteria do we use to make decisions in a world of limited resources? Do an internet search on lifeboat ethics and also see Alfred Hitchcock’s film Lifeboat.
Chapter 8 – There is no Ethics Problem given in this chapter.
[1] Mary Midgley, Heart and Mind (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981).
[2] Garret Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics: The case Against Helping the Poor,” Psychology Today, September 8, 1974, 38-43.
Chapter 5: A Slice of Samurai Culture – Are Ethics Relative?
Ethical relativism, the idea that moral principles are not universal and can vary between cultures, presents significant philosophical challenges. One such challenge is “moral isolationism,” the belief that because we cannot fully understand another culture, we cannot judge its ethical practices. Philosopher Mary Midgley, in her article “Trying Out One’s New Sword,” addresses this issue through the concept of tsujigiri, a Samurai practice in which a warrior tests his new sword by cutting a random traveler in half. This practice raises questions about moral relativism and whether we can or should judge the ethics of another culture.
Understanding Tsujigiri
Tsujigiri, which literally means “cross-roads cut,” was a practice in feudal Japan where Samurai tested the sharpness of their swords on unsuspecting travelers. This test ensured the sword’s effectiveness in battle. While this practice may seem barbaric and morally unacceptable from a modern Western perspective, it was embedded in a specific cultural and historical context. The Samurai followed a strict code of honor, Bushido, which dictated their behavior and justified such actions as necessary for maintaining their martial prowess.
Ethical Relativism and Moral Isolationism
Ethical relativism posits that moral standards are culturally bound and that no single ethical framework is universally applicable. Moral isolationism takes this a step further, arguing that we cannot judge the ethics of other cultures because we lack the necessary understanding. Midgley challenges this view, asserting that understanding another culture sufficiently to judge its practices is possible and necessary. She argues that complete moral isolation leads to a form of ethical nihilism, where no actions can be deemed right or wrong outside their cultural context.
Analyzing Tsujigiri Through Ethical Relativism
To analyze tsujigiri through the lens of ethical relativism, we must consider the cultural context of feudal Japan. The Samurai class held a privileged position in society, with the authority to dispense justice and maintain order. Their practices, including tsujigiri, were seen as expressions of their social role and responsibilities. From this perspective, tsujigiri can be viewed as a culturally specific practice with its own internal logic and justification.
However, ethical relativism does not imply that all cultural practices are beyond criticism. While we can strive to understand the context in which tsujigiri was practiced, this does not mean we must accept it as morally acceptable. Midgley argues that understanding a practice is the first step towards making a moral judgment, not a barrier to it. We can recognize the historical and cultural significance of tsujigiri while still condemning it as a violation of fundamental human rights.
The Problems with Moral Isolationism
Moral isolationism, the view that we cannot judge other cultures’ ethics, leads to several problems. Firstly, it undermines the possibility of moral progress. If we cannot judge other cultures, we also cannot advocate for change or improvement. Secondly, it creates a paradox where we demand tolerance for all practices, even those that are intolerant or harmful. Lastly, it can lead to a form of moral paralysis, where we refrain from making any ethical judgments, leading to a lack of accountability and justice.
Midgley contends that we can and should make moral judgments about other cultures, provided we do so with humility and a genuine effort to understand the context. This approach allows for respectful dialogue and the possibility of mutual learning and moral development.
Conclusion: The Ethical Implications of Tsujigiri
In conclusion, while tsujigiri may be understandable within its cultural context, it does not absolve it from ethical scrutiny. Ethical relativism encourages us to consider cultural differences and contexts, but it does not preclude us from making moral judgments. Moral isolationism, on the other hand, hinders our ability to engage in meaningful ethical discourse and promote human rights. By understanding and critically evaluating practices like tsujigiri, we can navigate the complexities of ethical relativism and affirm the importance of universal moral principles that transcend cultural boundaries.
Chapter 6: Freedom and Control – Are Freedom and Human Happiness Incompatible?
The relationship between freedom and human happiness is a complex and debated topic in philosophy. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” and B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist theories present compelling arguments that freedom can be a barrier to happiness, suggesting that control and security are more conducive to human well-being. This section explores the compatibility of freedom and happiness, examines contemporary social controls, and analyzes whether these controls contribute to or detract from our happiness.
Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor
In Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor,” the Grand Inquisitor argues that people are happier under control and authority than with freedom. He asserts that freedom burdens individuals with the responsibility of choice, leading to anxiety and dissatisfaction. By surrendering their freedom to a higher authority, people gain security and the illusion of happiness.
Skinner’s Behaviorism
B.F. Skinner, a prominent behaviorist, argued that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and that freedom and dignity are illusions. In his book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity,” Skinner proposed that society should use behavioral technology to engineer environments that produce desired behaviors. He believed that such control would lead to greater happiness and social stability.
The Path to Social Engineering
Our society increasingly employs social engineering techniques to influence behavior and maintain order. These mechanisms include laws, regulations, surveillance, and technological interventions. For example, social media platforms use algorithms to shape user behavior and preferences, while governments implement policies to regulate behavior for the collective good.
Mechanisms of Social Control
- Laws and Regulations: Legal frameworks control behavior by establishing norms and consequences for deviance.
- Surveillance: Technologies like CCTV, online tracking, and data mining monitor and influence behavior.
- Education: Curriculums shape beliefs and values, promoting conformity.
- Media: Media content can reinforce societal norms and values.
- Economic Incentives: Financial rewards and penalties guide behavior.
Does Control Make Us Happy?
While these controls provide stability and predictability, they also raise concerns about autonomy and personal freedom. Critics argue that excessive control stifles creativity, individuality, and the human spirit. Noam Chomsky criticized Skinner’s theories for potentially justifying totalitarian regimes, where freedom is sacrificed for the illusion of happiness.
The Paradox of Freedom and Control
The paradox of freedom and control lies in the balance between individual autonomy and societal stability. Too much freedom can lead to chaos and insecurity, while too much control can lead to oppression and loss of individuality. A healthy society must navigate this paradox, ensuring that controls are in place to protect and promote well-being without infringing on essential freedoms.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance
In conclusion, the relationship between freedom and happiness is not straightforward. While control can provide security and stability, it must be balanced with individual freedom to foster genuine happiness and human flourishing. Contemporary social controls play a crucial role in maintaining order, but they must be implemented with care to avoid stifling personal autonomy and creativity. The challenge lies in finding the right balance that allows for both freedom and control, ensuring a society where individuals can thrive and be truly happy.
Chapter 7: Who Gets to Stay on the Lifeboat?
Garratt Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics” presents a stark metaphor for resource distribution in a world with limited resources. In a lifeboat scenario, where not everyone can be saved, we face ethical dilemmas about who should be rescued and who should be left behind. This section explores the criteria for making such decisions and the broader implications for global resource distribution.
Understanding Lifeboat Ethics
Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor highlights the challenges of limited resources and overpopulation. A lifeboat with a capacity of 50 persons represents a wealthy nation with limited resources, while those in the water represent the world’s poor. The ethical dilemma arises when the lifeboat is full, and additional people cannot be accommodated without risking everyone’s survival.
Criteria for Decision Making
- Survival Potential: Prioritizing those with the greatest chance of survival.
- Contribution to Society: Considering the potential contributions individuals can make to society.
- Vulnerability: Prioritizing the most vulnerable individuals, such as children and the elderly.
- Random Selection: Using a lottery system to ensure fairness.
Ethical Theories and Lifeboat Decisions
Different ethical theories offer various approaches to lifeboat decisions:
- Utilitarianism: Maximizing overall happiness by saving those who contribute most to society.
- Deontology: Following moral rules, such as not discriminating based on age or status.
- Virtue Ethics: Acting with compassion and justice, prioritizing the most vulnerable.
The Broader Implications
Lifeboat ethics extends beyond individual scenarios to global issues of resource distribution. Wealthy nations face ethical dilemmas about aiding poorer countries, balancing self-interest with humanitarian responsibilities. The metaphor challenges us to consider the moral implications of our resource use and the responsibilities of the privileged.
Conclusion: Navigating Lifeboat Ethics
In conclusion, lifeboat ethics presents a complex and challenging ethical dilemma. The criteria for making decisions in a world of limited resources must balance survival, contribution, vulnerability, and fairness. By critically examining these criteria and their broader implications, we can better navigate the ethical challenges of resource distribution and global justice.