It becomes evident quickly that we need a method to decide on the ethicality of the knowledge’s pursuit, be it medical research, or an inquiry into the latest schoolyard gossip.
The Utilitarian ethical stance is: something is ethical provided that it brings more good than harm to the greatest number of people. This seems fair and it does indeed have considerable merit, for example this is a very cliché hypothetical moral dilemma: you are given a innocent baby and told that if the baby is killed then all the world’s ills shall be cured: no sickness, no starvation; can you kill the innocent child? It is an example of utilitarian ideals if you find yourself capable of killing the baby. The most common arguments used to defend controversial research of all types are utilitarian arguments, and this has been demonstrated recently in stem cell research. Researchers argue that their research could potentially save countless lives so the sacrifice of hundreds of unborn foeti is justified provided the research is manifested in a product. In pure utilitarian ethics people do not have any inherent “rights” but provided that they are acted towards ethically, they can expect that people will treat them in a manner pursuant to the greatest possible gross benefit to all parties. It would be an oversimplification to try and summarise utilitarianism with “The end justifies the means”, it is better approximated by “the greatest good to the greatest number”.
To apply this philosophy practically: is it ethical to pursue my hunch that Sal is being unfaithful? Should I pursue it, I would hurt both Sal and Warwick, and their would be no gain but my piece of mind, whereas if I do not pursue it then I would risk only Tom’s prides (my feelings are irrelevant as I do not sit on this scale, I find myself instead the fulcrum). Thereby I do not enquire. Whilst the ideologies involved in utilitarianism have many merits, when they are applied to human problems they often become legalistic and calculating, I feel they lack the empathic side that is required to make an ethical decision.
It was a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who created an entirely new school of ethics in “Kantian” ethics. Under Kantian ethics, rational moral individuals have a certain intrinsic value, and so cannot be weighed on a scale as Utilitarian ethics suggest. Kantianism holds that individuals should not be sacrificed for the common good. Finally, it argues that motive is of the utmost importance, i.e. an action is unethical regardless of its outcome, if its initial intent was malicious.
Closely linked to Kantian ethics is the ‘natural rights theory’ that is, that rational beings have intrinsic rights, the right to live, the right to freedom, property. Few ethicists can agree on exactly what these ‘rights’ are.
Under these the ethicality of stem cell research depends on both whether you regard a foetus as a moral being, thereby privy to rights and liberties and whether you regard the research as violating those rights. My relationship problem is less controversial, in undertaking a relationship with Sal she has trusted me with her feelings, and has the right to have that trust honoured, and it would violate her right to hurt her. Ethical theories that imply a set of natural rights are indeed well merited, but as with utilitarianism it is a flawed ideology. In order to make a moral judgment, we would have to determine which natural human rights are indeed intrinsic to the human existence, something that it has been impossible for philosophers to agree on.
The ‘divine command theory’ tells us that the ethicality of an act is dependent on its conformity with God’s will (or that of any other deity.). This seems at first difficult, because it appears impossible to abide by this school of ethics without knowing the mind of God. However despite this, it is possible to apply this theory to every day ethical decisions: to do so, we must simply live according to the ethical principals set out by the deity that we worship, should one live one’s life according to the ten commandments, then you are living according to the ethical principals of the Christian religion. My proposed method of decision is closer to this than to the more formalised ethical doctrines of Utilitarianism or Kantianism.
Moral theories are part of normative ethics, where as the issue of pursuing knowledge is part of applied ethics: many philosophers when dealing with applied ethics prefer to deal with set of ethical principals (Akin to those set out by a religion) rather than a moral theory, because it allows them to pass judgement on an ethical decision without having to decide on or defend an entire, possibly controversial, moral theory. The use of moral principals also simplifies ethics, because it allows a decision to be looked at through a simple set of perspective without the decision maker having learnt an entire school of ethics. The use of the principal technique also adds flexibility in the situations that we can apply ethics to: in our society today ethical decisions are becoming more and more complex, particularly in the field of research and the method chosen for making ethical decisions has to be adaptable to any situation.
The principals around which I will base my test will be the 8 put forward by Fox and DeMarco in 1990:
“Nonmaleficence: Do not harm yourself or other people.
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people.
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free, informed choices.
Justice: Treat people fairly; treat equals equally, unequals unequally.
Utility: Maximise the ratio of benefits to harms for all people.
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements.
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead.
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.”
(D. Resnik 1998)
My proposed test is thus: we will apply all of the above principals to a situation where it is necessary to decide whether the pursuit of knowledge is ethical giving equal weighting to all. We shall ask all those who are directly affected by the decision, and are capable of doing so to, to score out of ten, how well a particular decision conforms to the criteria above, with a score of zero totally opposing the principal, ten totally conforming to it, and 5 being neutral. Using the mean of the scores, we can decide whether an action is ethical.
Obviously this system has its faults: first some of the criteria are not pertinent to every decision. Also it is sometimes difficult for all parties concerned to participate: for example if one were to decide on the ethicality of aborting a foetus, then the decision concerns the potential person in question, but they are unable to submit their opinion. Likewise if we were to consider my initial example of my girlfriend, then the decision concerns both her and Warwick certainly, but if I were to ask them to offer their opinion on the ethicality of the matter, then the decision would be made already. These faults are simply something inherent to the method, and must be tolerated, they are not ideal, but neither are they so gross as to invalidate the system totally. The system has many merits and despite its faults is likely the best proposal here, basing the system around principals rather than theories makes the system simpler for the layman, less controversial for the philosophers, and flexible in its application.
I feel that the best way to make an decision on the pursuit of knowledge, or for that matter any ethical dilemma is to weigh it against the principals which are set out above, but all techniques are flawed in some way and it is the prerogative of any rational being to make her own choice.
List of references
Resnik, David B. The Ethics of Science: an introduction. Routledge 1998.
Singer, Principa Ethica Second edition.
Welfel, Elizabeth R. Ethics in Counselling and Psychotherapy: Standards, Ethics and Emerging issues Wadsworth 2001
The events are based on true events which I was party to, the names and places have been changed to protect the innocent.
