Why to save a bleeding, dying man near you - ethically.
In class on Thursday, Eli cited Utilitarianism - doing the most good for the most people - and Kantian ethics - the belief in the value of each human life - as the reasons why he would save the man. He stated that he would rely mostly on Kantian ethics.
I, too, would save the man. Of course. But I would do so from quite a different ethical perspective. I would save him, not out of Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics - but out of Objectivism and Ethical Egoism. Let me explain.
Objectivism - absolute moral truths exist. Or, more simply, it means doing the right thing. The universally right thing - call me crazy - is to save the life of a human being. Sure, I believe in the value of the man's life. But ethically, I place more importance on the fact that saving his life is doing the right thing. Even if I didn't place a value on this man's life (in particular), I would still save him; preserving life - or, more simply, living - is the morally absolute right thing. Death is not.
Ethical Egoism - doing what's best for yourself. Knowing that saving this man's life is the right thing to do, I could not imagine having to go on, living my life, with the constant reminder that a man died because I didn't do a thing to save him, with the constant guilt stemming from the fact that I could have saved a human life - but didn't. That would be hard to overcome; that would not benefit me; that would not be doing what's best for myself. I would save him because saving him would be better for me (and, well, him, of course). Not only would I not feel the guilt I would feel if I did not save this man's life; I would also feel the great satisfaction of saving his life, of not cowering in the face of difficulty - of doing the right thing. Simply, my life would be better off by helping him rather than by not helping him. In truth, helping others is often doing what's best for yourself. Being an ethical egoist doesn't mean only caring about yourself; it means doing what's best for yourself - in this case, saving the man. That's why I would save him.
Different moral philosophies... same conclusion. Interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A agree- this is interesting.
It's also why I'm starting to see myself as an ethical relativist- it seems the "right" course of action is something that is correct for several different approaches, and limiting myself to one or two would perhaps lead to some poor calls.
Matt...great discussion of how the same view could be reached from different angles. That said, I would push you a bit. How do you know that, as you say, "preserving life - or, more simply, living - is the morally absolute right thing. Death is not." I agree with you, and I agree that this is an objectivist-sort-of-thing to say, but how have you come to know it?
As for Bjørn, I would say that you are perhaps not as much of a relativist as you would think. You may acknowledge that there are different ways of determining what is right, but you seem to maintain that there is such a thing as right for more than just yourself. This takes beyond subjective relativism at least.
I think living is the morally absolute right thing... because I don't think we'd be here right now if the opposite were true. If death were the right thing, then I wouldn't see any purpose in us living. I believe we're here right now not just to die one day, but to live while we're here.
Perhaps I arrived at that knowledge through reasoning - like I explained above - or perhaps I arrived at it through instinct - as a human being, I have an innate desire to live, to survive - to not die.
Under this logic, in which living is the more instinctual trait of human beings than is death (living has a purpose, death is a result), doesn't it make sense that living - as opposed to death - is the morally right thing? I think so.
That's at least how I rationalize my belief about the issue.
What if we choose a single ethical viewpoint? Can we still come to more than one conclusion, even within just one moral philosophy?
What if my ethical viewpoint tells me that self-preservation is right and that I shouldn't unnecessarily risk my life, but at the same time it tells me that the man's life is important? He could be a rapist, so I want to keep myself safe, but I also want to save him if he really is hurt. Two different conclusions, one moral philosophy.
Also, Matt's last comment assumes that morals are instinctive. Are they? Do we inherit morals or learn them? How do you know?
Post a Comment