The Reason for Ethics

According to the class definition, ethics is the application of reason to our moral behaviour.  This definition sets up an interesting distinction between that which is rational and that which is moral.  Studying this frame of reference can lend some worth to understanding what a moral action is, what purpose reason serves in ethics, and what the reason for ethics is.

First and foremost is the consideration of moral behaviour.  It has to be addressed in brief: moral behaviour is a complex thing. The fact of several theories about how to determine ethical behaviour points to this fact.  Like many things in life moral behaviour defies the simplicity of our communicative symbolism.

That being said, part of the beauty of the human experience lies in the communicative process and the way that we are able to convey information between each other using symbols and language.  Effective communication provides a survival incentive for human beings, as it allows for the observations of physical dangers, predators, and resources to be shared among the human collective (tribes, cities, countries, etc). Reason underlies the communicative process of human beings because definite symbols in our language have clear definitions, and constructions based upon these symbols have clear meanings. Reason,  then,  serves as the tool through which humans attempt to relate the dearth of human experiences to each other concisely thus maximizing the survival incentive in language.

By applying this tool to our moral behaviour, we ask ourselves as humans what things we value.  The complexity of the ethical theories starts here.  In the logical model there is a action followed by a consequence or a response.  Utilitarianism suggests that the most important value in the ethical equation should be in the result that maximizes usefulness (and it is worth noting that the focus tends to rest on the individual as an actor).  Deontology suggests that a principle in action should have the most value and infers that the value of the principle supersedes any value of consequences.  There are other models that suggest the relationship between an actor (or group of actors) and the choice being made matters the most. (Any Walking Dead-heads remember Dale?)  The purpose of studying our moral behavoiur, then, is to be able to concisely relate these experiences to others.  It would behoove us as scholars to recognize that the logical model that underlies the communicative symbolism is limited in its ability to accurately represent the experiences of one human to another, and so over-focusing on either potential source of value (in either action or consequence in the logical model) might be the result of the inefficacy of the logical model through which we analyze the experience of moral behaviour.

While a minimalist can say that the survival of the most people at all times is the most ethical course of behavoiur as it is the most rational course of behaviour,  it belies the complexity of the human experience.  It also assumes a positive answer to the question of whether or not life has value.  An interesting point in Utilitarianism is that it suggests that maximizing pleasures and minimizing pains is the ultimate course of action.  In that model,  a intelligent person with a propensity for murder can maximize his personal pleasure (as well as his personal pain) by eliminating everyone on the planet in an planet wide extinction.  That particular action would also have the added benefit of minimizing the pain experienced on the whole of the planet in the course of the next few years.  Remember,  then,  that the focus of the action in ethical quandary seems to be on the individual as an actor. Can we consider his action ethical? If he is the sole survivor (perhaps a bunker of sorts), then his pleasure is maximized, and pain (on a planetary scale) is minimized.  His presumable eventual death would maximize his pain and remove all of his pleasures, but it would allow an elation that would be unparalleled in that instance. If his survival is not predicated as a worthy goal,  this action might be construed as ethical along those lines. (consider a slightly off point suggestion, too, that the pain of a death for this man is unavoidable, it is just a matter of propinquity).  The question of value matters a great deal to this question, then, and the focus of consideration on an individual actor might bear some consideration as well.

Ethics,  then, suggests that the communication of a set of moral information is important,  but it capitalizes on the survival incentive that is provided by reasonable understanding between humans.  Ultimately, I don't disagree with this suggestion, but i do hope to point out the challenges of living and learning through a rational brain in an irrational world.  The locus of behaviours in our lives (and the conversations we have had in class) suggests that we need to refine the things that we try to communicate to others about what moral behaviour is,  in order to do so more effectively.  In doing so,  we become more ethical.