Moral Ethics and Moral Standards - Essay Example

Introduction Moral ethics is a very contradictory that requires careful consideration and evaluation. Throughout historythe society has been struggling to understand what is the right thing to do or what is wrong given the circumstances and according to moral standards of the society. Is the right thing to do morally good or not? Some would assume that if something is right then it is morally good but as Ross puts it, ‘right’ in every sense is not the same as ‘morally good’ (2). Something that is morally good arises from a good motive and it is never an obligation to do so. However, according to Kantian principle, our duty is to do certain things irrespective of the motive, at least not from a sense of duty. Sometimes one may do something he or she thinks is the right thing to do but in the end the act is wrong. For example, killing one person to save more others may seem right but killing is a crime and as such it is wrong no matter what reason it was intended. So what makes right acts right? Is morality relative or absolute? These are questions that we need to ask ourselves in order to standard ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions. The specific ethical issue to be tackled by this paper is whether it is permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to saving some larger number of innocent people’s lives. I will argue that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person as it leads to the greatest good of all at least based on Professor Moore’s moral theory. There is no question that society aims at ensuring the happiness of all and this would be achieved if many lives are saved. The argument in this case, is the means to achieve this goal. Is it by sacrificing an innocent person or allowing others to die? In order to answer this question, we need to understand what it means to be morally permissible. First, it is essential to understand that moral standards are set by the society and since different societies have different things that they value, and then it follows that they have different moral standards. Morality is thus not absolute but relative since what is considered immoral in one society may be moral in another society. For example, some people view Euthanasia or abortion as morally good while others think it is immoral as it defies sanctity of life. In this paper thus it will be taken for granted that morality is relative. As such, it depends on the circumstances at the time of the event. It may not be the act one ‘ought to’ has done thus a duty to do as expressed by Kant but the right action given the circumstances. For example, if one man threatens the life of others it is only right to kill that person to preserve the rights of those others. However, everyone has a duty to protect life and as such killing is wrong. One ought not to take another person’s life irrespective of the situation. The subject of morality is thus very confusing and always leads to ethical dilemmas. According to normative ethical theory such as utilitarianism it is assumed that the right act is always the one that results to greatest possible happiness (PHL 275 Week Six p.1) or according to Professor Moore’s ideal utilitarianism “actions productive of more good than could have been produced by any other action open to the agent” (Ross 16). This means that we often do not know what is right or wrong because we cannot tell what the outcomes of doing a certain action will be. Every member of society has an inalienable right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness and as such, promoting the good of the community is the ultimate aim. Now consider killing an innocent person for the sake of other innocent people. For example, a driver may opt to knock down a pedestrian to avoid colliding with an oncoming vehicle thus saving the lives of many innocent people. Is this morally permissible? According to consequentialist utilitarianism, the act is right only if it leads to producing more good or happiness. I would like to assume that many people would appreciate the action taken by the driver and consider it right because many lives were saved. Even in the biblical teachings, Christians do accept that Jesus sacrificed his life in order to save humanity. However, opponents would argue that that action was wrong since it led to death of an innocent person. Deontologists would argue that killing is evil and as such cannot be morally acceptable even if it led to saving of more lives; that person’s life is also essential. However, morality is relative and as such; given the circumstances it was only right or moral to kill the innocent person although the consequence would turn out to be wrong. Besides, Ross argues that whatever are morally good proceeds from good motive (Ross 4). Since the motive of killing the innocent person was good, that is, to save more lives then it follows that the act was morally good. Is there a general character that makes right acts right? At least according to Ross moral philosophers do agree that the so many theories advanced concerning what is right are not satisfactory and as such no character can be singled out (17). If the right act for Moore is one that produces more good than could have been produced by any other action, what other options did the agent or driver have? In this case, there were only two open actions available: either hit the innocent person and save the rest or collide with the oncoming bus and kill many people but save the one person. Whatever action he took, something wrong was bound to happen, death was bound to occur. For consequentialist utilitarians “a right act is always the one with best overall consequences” (PHL 275 Week 8 Class One). Even if we introduce the concept of doing/allowing and intending/foreseeing the outcome would still be the same. The utilitarian theory is based on the idea that the end justifies the means (Week Seven Class One) thus saving more innocent people required the driver to kill the innocent person. In deciding how to act, Ross added more duties such as agent-relative permission which is given everyday (Week Eight Class Two). This allows people to weigh all duties or obligations and choose the right thing to do. But different actions have countless effects on countless people thus “any act, however right have an adverse effect on some innocent people” and a wrong act could have beneficial effect on those who deserve it (Ross 41). Doing (in this case killing innocent person) is more objectionable than allowing the people in the bus to die. This is because allowing people to die is less serious than killing them but whatever the case doing or allowing would have led to a wrong consequence. On the other hand, intending is more objectionable than foreseeing. If the driver had intended for the person to die then it is morally wrong but if the death was unforeseen it is less objectionable. One could intend the death of someone so as to gain happiness for most of the society but that is not permissible as life is being used as a means and not an end in itself. If there is any way the death of an innocent person can be avoided then that would be the proper decision to make. However, I will still argue that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save many innocent people since it is the desirable outcome given the situation. According to utilitarianism, it is the duty of the agent to observe rights and furtherance of interests of others, whatever cost to the agent (Ross 17-18). In this case, to do what is morally right becomes the duty of the agent whatever the motive of doing an action. The agent should thus not be concerned about his or her own interests or pleasure but that of others. Hedonist utilitarians believe that the only good thing is pleasure and the only bad thing is pain thus maximizing pleasure is desirable. If the driver killed the innocent person with a motive of saving his own life, then that action is not morally permissible. Assuming a person has a deadly disease which he could spread to rest of society causing more deaths. Is it not right to isolate that person or kill him if need be to save other innocent people? The death is not intended but it is inevitable hence justified. Hedonists could argue that they did so because they thought it will bring more good to kill one person than allowing more people to die. If they let the one person to survive, then all of them would eventually die thus bringing no good in the end and this means they would have failed in their our duty of ensuring the maximum pleasure of others. If one person can be sacrificed for the good of the community, then it is our duty to do so, just like it is our duty to pay debts and keep promises. In this case, it is the duty of imperfect obligation or prima facie duty as Ross calls it (Ross 19). This is where one looks at the situation and makes a decision as to what is more important to do; let many die or kill one to save them. Perfect obligation on the other hand, refers to acts like paying debts and telling the truth. Moore a consequentialist utilitarian recognizes various divisions of duty: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence (Ross 21). Fidelity is fulfilling promises; reparation is paying for wrongful acts; gratitude is based on previous good things done while justice involves equality in distribution of pleasure. Beneficence is helping others in less privileged position while non-maleficence is not doing harm to others. It is thus our duty to ensure that other people are free from harm and that is why it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to prevent others from harm. Even if all individuals have an inalienable right to life, that life can be breached if it leads to harm of others. However, it not only pleasure that is the only good thing in life or good in itself as Hedonists think. There are other good things such as good character and knowledge and virtue (Ross 24). These are intrinsic goods that compel a person to do certain things without thinking if it is our duty or not. If one is faced with a situation of choosing to save one person or many, he is compelled to save many people because that is what his character tells him to do. He is sympathetic to those people and as such, would is forced to sacrifice one person for the benefit of many. It does not mean that the life of the one is not as important as the rest; it simply means he is contributing to the happiness of many. The agent may derive pleasure by doing this but it cannot be avoided. Virtue is intrinsic because you cannot force some other person to have it. A virtuous person will always do what he or she considers being good. The principle is to produce as much good as possible thus saving many innocent people. Another attribute that makes a right act right is that it is self –evident just like geometrical axioms. The prima facie right is not inborn but develops as one matures and doesn’t need any proof. If one does any action presumed to be good, there is no way of proofing that that is the right action (Ross 30), Right actions do not need to be proven and even if moralists would engage in an inquiry to ascertain what is right, they would never come up with conclusive evidence as it concerns the far future. As such, moral theorists have never engaged in enquiring whether prima facie rights are self-evident. It is only the course of time that can prove if the action was right or wrong and as such killing an innocent person to save more innocent people is morally permissible as it brings good consequences at that particular time. Whether it brings wrong consequences in future is not a matter of consideration. Besides, there is no way to prove that it was the wrong thing to do given the circumstances. Furthermore, every moral action involves taking risk; some people will like it and others will disagree with you based on their moral convictions (Ross 40). A right act according to utilitarian is a fortunate act as only fortune can tell if it was a good act in future. Ross’s moral theory is based on plurality of duties unlike Hedonism which is based on one principle of pleasure and pain. It is neither absolutist like that of Kant nor consequentialist like Moore’s theory. It is in between the two theories and as such, the right act according to Ross does not always result to best consequences some acts are wrong even the consequence is the best. Besides, whose good is the act aimed at serving? The actor, benefactor, society or any person whom the actor has no relations with? Whatever the case, Ross just like Bentham believes that pleasures and pains are multiple (Week Nine Class One). In this case, it is possible to add pleasures of different people and make comparisons between them. What matters is not the pleasure gained but the feelings felt out of the action. Pleasure and pain in this case are intrinsic goods thus it is better to have more intense and longer-lasting pleasures. If the death of one innocent person could lead to more intense pleasure, then the act is right or good. However, this proposition has been criticized by many as it purifies sadistic pleasure, that is, pleasure of seeing someone suffer as a result of victimization instead of purifying compassionate pain. However, Ross solves this through his objective-list theory emphasizing plural goods. According to this list, some things are bad or good regardless of our desires (Week Ten Only). Virtue is also a higher-level good compared to other goods like pleasure. All people’s goods are to be weighed equally when making a decision thus death should be avoided unless it would cause greater harm. As such, even though people have equal rights to life, if life of one would cause greater evil, death of that person is allowed. However, death should be the last resort if justice is to be served. Quality of life is more valued than sanctity of life. Conclusion Moral questions are very difficult to deal with as there is no formula of telling what is wrong or what is right it all depends on moral convictions of intelligent experienced people. Should one kill an innocent person in order to save more innocent people? This poses great challenges but if we take the hedonists view, if it would result in maximum good or pleasure then it is right. For consequentialist utilitarians like Professor Moore, if the act leads to the best consequences given the circumstances, then the act is right. For Ross, either way the act is bound to lead to suffering of an innocent person or wrong act can result to benefit a person who deserves. Pleasure is intrinsic and it is desirable to have more pleasure and other goods such as virtue and knowledge. If maximum pleasure would be derived from killing an innocent person, then the act is good. However, deontologists believe some acts such as killing are wrong no matter the consequences hence should be avoided at all cost. Since, we can never be certain whether an act is right or wrong, it all depends on our moral convictions. It is therefore, morally permissible to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people. Works Cited PHL 275. Week 6 to Week 12. 2013. Ross, William David. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1930] 2002. Read More