The question of morality

The question of morality

The question of morality — what is right and what is wrong in human relations, may be the central issue of our time.
Other questions that often are thought to outrank this one in importance such as how we should relate to modern technology, or how nations should act in the interest of maintaining peace and of the future of the civilized world—also are moral questions. Classes in ethics are taught not only in the undergraduate curriculum but also in the professional schools. Doctors,
lawyers, and school and public administrators attend seminars about morality. Our techniques and skills have developed faster than our comprehension of our goals and values; perhaps the renewed interest in these ends will help to provide us with much-needed answers to the crises and anxiety that are part of our lives.
Individuals are continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows. They approve of some acts and call them “right” or “good.” They condemn other acts and call them “wrong” or “evil.” Moral judgments always have to do with the actions of human beings and, in particular, with voluntary actions—those actions freely chosen. Involuntary actions—those over which people have no control—are rarely open to moral judgment, as a person usually is not held responsible for an action that she or he did not initiate.

LEVELS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
A significant interpretation of three levels of moral development was presented several years ago. According to this model, people at the pre-conventional level make moral decisions based on avoiding punishment by authorities or on satisfying their own needs; morally right behavior is defined in terms of what brings satisfaction to oneself. An example of this level is the choice to behave in a particular way primarily to avoid punishment; another is generous or kind acts toward others primarily for the resulting good feelings within oneself. Individuals at the conventional level choose their moral options according to customary societal norms, in order to obtain the approval of others, or to preserve social harmony; right action is defined as loyalty to others and respect for law and order. At the post-conventional level of moral development, one relies on internalized personal principles of responsibility or on principles believed to be universally valid; right action is defined in terms of general principles chosen independently. The literary portraits we have of Socrates, Jesus, and Gandhi suggest their highly principled morality at the third level. Understood in Kohlberg’s way, we may expect to discover people who make their moral judgments ranging from reliance upon external authorities to carefully selected, internalized principles. In fact, a given individual might make social-moral decisions at the pre-conventional level, establish business-moral conclusions at the conventional level, and develop political-moral resolutions at the post-conventional level.
The moral situation
A moral situation involves moral agents—human beings who act, are empowered to make choices, and consciously make decisions.
As moral agents, demands are made on us and place us under obligations: we have both duties and rights. We are faced with moral alternatives, and we can better weigh those alternatives when we have an understanding of the ingredients of the moral situation.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES
“We generally understand ‘human right’ to mean a kind of universal moral right that belongs equally to all human beings simply by virtue of the fact that they are human beings.” 3 Human rights are universal rights and should be contrasted with legal or civil rights. 4 For example, it might be argued that parents have a moral right to their grown children’s care should they become
old or infirm or for some reason unable to care for themselves. Most people would, as a result of this view, hold that children of such parents have a moral duty to aid their parents.
Rights and duties are reciprocal: I have a right to my life and therefore have a duty not to take away your life. The same holds for my property. As regards legal rights, under the U.S. Constitution I have the right to free speech. I also have the duty to exercise that right such that other citizens may also exercise free speech, even when their expressions oppose my most cherished convictions. Rights and duties go hand in hand and are frequently the subject of debate in moral situations.
VIRTUES AND VICES
In society, certain approved traits, such as unselfishness, honesty, courage, and self-control, are almost universally encouraged; these qualities are called virtues. Other characteristics, such as treachery, murder, theft, and cheating are regarded as undesirable; these failings are called vices. The virtues and vices of one’s own society is another fact of life at a particular time in history.
AGREEMENTS AND LAWS
One way for a group of people to protect their rights and lead an orderly social life is through agreements, including understandings, principles, and laws. All human societies have well established rules of procedure. Some agreements are embedded in the customs of the group and are taken for granted; others are formally recognized, such as codes of law; still others may be subjects for discussion (e.g., whether to take one’s pet on a family trip).
CHANGES IN MORALS
Morals evolve, as do social life and institutions. Moral standards may be the customs of primitive humans or the carefully reasoned theories of modern life. A society’s moral practices and standards are influenced by its stage of social development, its general level of intelligence, and the knowledge (including new information from the social and biological sciences) available to its citizens. That moral insights and codes change, however slowly, is another ingredient in the moral situation.
ASSESSING MORALITY
Finding the right course of action, choosing the right alternative, is not always simple. When conflicts of interest arise, the solution may require the greatest intelligence and goodwill, and even then we may doubt whether we have acted rightly. In judging conduct we have to consider motives, means, and consequences.
Motives. Motives, as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out, are basic for a determination of morality. A good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that we approve without qualification. If a good motive is present when an act, through some unforeseen factor, leads to harmful effects, we tend to disapprove less severely and to say, “Anyway, he meant well.” Kant, for example, defined the good as the “good will.” “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.”5 For Kant, a rational being strives to do what he or she ought to do and this is to be distinguished from an act that a person does from either inclination or self-interest. In other words, a person must act out of duty to the moral law—that is, do what one ought to do. The truly moral act, for Kant, not only agrees with the moral law, but is done for the sake of the moral law—not only as duty requires but because duty requires. In Kantian thinking the seat of moral worth is the individual’s will, and the good will acts out of a sense of duty.
Means. Just as there may be many motives for desiring something, there may be many means for achieving it. The term means can be defined as an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end. Though we expect people to use the best available means to carry out their purposes, we condemn them if their choice of means impresses us as unjust, cruel, or immoral. On rare occasions we may approve of an act when means are used that under other conditions would be condemned. However, there is a danger in proposing that any means may be used, provided the end is good, or that “the end justifies the means.” Once chosen, the means become part of the general effect of an act.
Consequences. Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on a value. We expect the consequences of an act that we call “right” to be good. Ordinarily, when people ask, “What is right?” they are thinking about the consequences of the action. This depends on what ethical principle is in operation. Kant agrees to the good motive, utilitarians to the result. In general, society judges conduct “right” if it proceeds from a good motive, through the use of the best available means, to consequences that are good. If these conditions are not fulfilled, we condemn the action or approve it with reservations. We rarely approve an action when the results are evil or wrong.

Ethics: The Study of Morality
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS AND CATEGORIES
The terms morals and ethics are closely related in their original meanings. The former comes from the Latin moralis, and the latter from the Greek ethos. Both mean “the custom or way of life.” Modern usage of morality refers to conduct itself and ethics (or moral philosophy) to the study of moral conduct. We speak of “a moral act” and “an ethical code.”
The word right comes from the Latin rectus, meaning “straight” or “in line.” It implies conformity to some standard. The term good applies to that which has desirable qualities, satisfies some need, or has value for human beings. In descriptive ethics, we consider the actual conduct of individuals—or personal morality—and of groups—or social morality. This purely descriptive examination is distinguished from normative ethics, which is concerned with the principles by which we ought to live. From the time of the early Greeks, principles of explanation have been formulated and ethical theories have been set forth. Plato expressed the importance of these principles more than two thousand years ago: “For you do see, Callicles, that our conversation is on the subject which should engage the most serious attention of anyone who has a particle of intelligence: in what way should one live one’s life.”6 The highest values by which moral judgments are made are often referred to as norms, principles, ideals, or standards.
For example, happiness is chosen by some philosophers as the highest value by which we should judge morality; happiness may also be regarded as a norm, a principle, an ideal, or a standard. As one considers this norm, one might develop additional principles consistent with happiness, such as pleasure.
Norms regarded as absolute are unchanging moral certainties; in this view there are absolute moral truths to which we must adhere in all situations.
There is also the area of critical ethics, or metaethics. Here interest is centered on the analysis and meaning of the terms and language used in ethical discourse and the kind of reasoning used to justify ethical statements. This area has received considerable emphasis in recent years, and involves highly technical issues. We shall be more concerned with normative ethics, as we seek to establish criteria by which individuals can judge whether an action should be regarded as right or wrong.
A Variety of Ethical Standards—Normative Ethics Awareness of the moral situation leads us to the issue of ethical standards. Ethical standards are principles by which we judge whether a moral action is right or wrong; examples are statute law, religious authority, public opinion, or conscience.
These standards often conflict; we need to have a hierarchy of values to help us make satisfactory moral decisions.
Since the time of the early Greeks and Hebrews, humanity has been reflecting on the principles and problems of right and wrong.
Ethical thought has been expressed in many forms. Some that have been influential and that have persisted include the writings about pleasure such as those of Epicurus; the philosophy of Kant, the ablest representative of principles of duty and obligation; John Stuart Mill, the outstanding proponent of utilitarianism; and Plato, the supreme humanist. Other standards have stressed civil law, self-realization, or religious ideals.
PLEASURE OR HAPPINESS AS THE ETHICAL STANDARD
Teleological ethical theories are those that judge conduct as right or wrong in relationship to some end or goal considered good. The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the greatest good in life has been known by three labels: hedonism, Epicureanism, and utilitarianism.
The first of these is derived from the Greek word for “pleasure”; Epicureanism is named for Epicurus an early Greek exponent of the pleasure theory; since the time of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century, the term utilitarianism has been used.
According to John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), utilitarianism “accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”7 Mill’s brief but brilliant treatise Utilitarianism should be read by all students of moral philosophy. Mill accepted the general position of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who used the phrase “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Bentham asserted that nature has placed humans under the guidance of two masters, pleasure and pain. Humans are “pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding” creatures. Bentham stated his theory in quantitative terms and hoped to establish utilitarian ethics on a strictly scientific basis. In answering the criticisms directed against Bentham’s position, Mill modified the position and added some new elements. The most important change that Mill made in utilitarianism was to add a qualitative standard. Human beings with refined faculties are not satisfied with the pleasures of the body; they seek the higher pleasures of the mind. The pleasure of the intellect, of feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments have a higher value than the pleasures of sensation. Although Mill had referred to these higher pleasures originally to answer the critics of utilitarianism, his concern over higher pleasures led him to criticize the very foundation of Bentham’s doctrine of utility: he said that “it would be absurd that . . . the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.” Once an individual has lived on a higher level, he or she can never wish to sink into a lower level of existence. This is because of the human sense of dignity. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Mill vigorously defended utilitarianism against the charge that it encourages selfishness. He maintained that the good of all, or the greatest happiness of the greatest number, must be the standard of what is right in conduct. Because we live in an unjust society, some have to sacrifice themselves for the happiness of others. Such sacrifice is not an end in itself; it is a means to the greater happiness of a larger number of people. Although all people may not actually seek happiness, they ought to do so. To promote not individual pleasure but the greatest total happiness is the essence of Mill’s position.

THE MORAL LAW AS THE ABSOLUTE
One of the great systems of ethics was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) To good, but they may be used to promote evil.
Happiness may be gained in ignoble ways: we may contribute to charity because we want publicity or lack the courage to refuse requests. The
good will is the dutiful will, which acts solely out of respect for the principle of duty. If an individual acts from a good motive, the act is good regardless
of the consequences. Kant did not say that consequences are not to be considered or that they are unimportant; he did say that the moral quality of the act is not determined by the consequences.
If the will or the motive is governed by reason and not by mere desire, it is absolute and unconditional—that is, obeying it is one’s duty, admitting
of no exceptions. This call to duty that comes from within is the moral law, or, to use Kant’s phrase, “the categorical imperative.” He gives us three criteria, or formulations, of the moral law.
The Principle of Universality. “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only, which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.” Actions should spring not from desires or inclinations but only from principles that can be universalized. Kant uses the example of the man who, after a series of misfortunes, contemplates suicide. When he attempts to universalize such behavior, he realizes at once that it cannot be approved. If everyone were to commit suicide, it would lead to the elimination of humanity. Kant universalized the general type of conduct and not the particular act under particular circumstances. The latter interpretation might lead to extreme laxness; the former leads to a rigorism that admits few if any exceptions to moral principles.
The Principle of Humanity as an End, Never as Merely a Means. “Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always as an end, never as merely a means.” This principle has received more widespread approval than any other part of Kant’s moral philosophy. People, as rational beings, are ends in themselves and should never be used merely as means to other ends. We may use physical things as means, but when we use people simply as means, as in slavery, prostitution, or commercial exploitation, we degrade them and violate their innermost beings as people.
The Principle of Autonomy. The moral laws that we obey are not imposed on us from the outside. They are the laws that we impose on ourselves. The sense of duty and the reason that we obey come from within; they are expressions
of our higher selves.

SELF-REALIZATION AS THE IDEAL
The theory of self-realization considers as right that which tends to promote the development of all the normal capacities of humans as thinking, feeling, and acting individuals. Many able philosophers in both ancient and modern times have subscribed to this theory. It has frequently been referred to as humanism and has two essential characteristics. First, it does justice to the entire nature of humanity. Enjoyment of pleasure, on which the hedonists build their theories is only one part of our nature. A sense of justice is equally our concern. Second, the ethics of humanism finds its center in humanity and does not reduce people to a fragment of some larger whole—whether nature, society, or God.
Platonic Humanism. In his great work, The Republic, and in other writings, Plato says that there are three active principles within humans. There is, first, the rational part; this is the mind, or intellect, the proper function of which is to rule other parts of the soul. Reason alone comprehends the true nature of things. There is, second, the “spirited” part; this includes the emotions and is the seat of the heroic virtues. There are, third, the appetites, or the desiring part. There is no order within the human soul except as the appetites and emotions are controlled by reason. Each part or function has its proper place and role in life, and when the three parts operate in harmony, each carrying out its own function, of humans lies in the fulfillment of their function as human beings. The function peculiar to humans is their life of reason. They should live a life that fully actualizes their rational capacities, and by principles that best express what it means to
be a human being.
According to Aristotle, human action should aim at its proper end. Everywhere people aim at pleasure, wealth, and glory. But none of these ends, although they have value, can occupy the place of the chief good for which we should aim.
To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient and final—“that which is always desirable itself and never for the sake of something else”— and it must be attainable. Aristotle seemed certain that all people would agree that happiness is the only end that meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of action. Indeed, we choose pleasure, wealth, and glory only because we
think that “through their instrumentality we shall be happy.” Happiness, it turns out, is another name for the good for human beings; like the good, happiness is the fulfillment of our distinctive function as human beings—our self-realization.
The highest good is eudaemonia, or well-being. The good life avoids the extremes of both excessive repression and excessive indulgence.
The good life involves the harmonious development of the normal functions of the organism. The theory of self-realization has emphasized the development of all the functions of the person as the greatest good. Nothing short of the harmonious development of all sides of human nature can be accepted as a satisfactory standard.
Classical Moral Philosophy. Plato and Aristotle’s use of reason to discover moral truths is representative of classical moral philosophy. Ethical absolutes, like the certainties of their notions of geometry, may be determined rationally; after self-evident moral norms are established by means of disciplined reflection, other moral principles can be deduced logically. (John Locke, a seventeenth-century philosopher, argued that all rational persons would agree on those self-evident moral absolutes.)
NATURAL LAW ETHICS
The medieval period (thirteenth century C.E.) revived interest in Aristotle by showing the compatibility of Aristotelian thought with Christian dogma. At the center of medieval ethics was the concept of natural law. This ethic stemmed from Aristotle’s view of nature as teleological—as having a purpose and end. According to these thinkers, there is an inherent tendency in the nature of man expressed in moral conscience and informed reason; by conforming to this nature, man fulfills the commands of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Natural law is the divine law as discovered by reason; the teachings of the Church and the Bible, therefore, are a standard of ethical judgment. Today, belief in natural law ethics is the basis for the Roman Catholic Church’s position on abortion and birth control as well as homosexuality.

RELIGIOUS ETHICAL IDEALS: JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN NORMATIVE VIEWS
There are two broad types of religious ethics, and these two approaches are found in Judaism, Christianity, and other religions. The first view is that ethical duties neither have nor need a justification or reason beyond the fact that they are God’s will. This keeps ethics strictly theological and requires that it be expressed in theological concepts. The more conservative form of this approach is a biblical literalism in which religion is viewed as a final body of truth that has been completely revealed. All we need to do is to discover
this truth through reading the sacred writings, and obey its laws. God does not require certain things because they are right; they are right because God requires them. The task of ethics is to ascertain what God expects us to do.
According to the second type of religious ethics, we are inspired by our view of humanity and of God and our love of God to discover the good and to live so as to achieve it. Loyalty to Christ or to God means leading the best possible
life in the situation in which we find ourselves. The religious or ethical spirit is best expressed as a supreme concern for people. We discover through experience and growing knowledge the tasks that we need to do; then we view these tasks as part of our duty to God. Religion is thus a strong motivating force, emphasizing both purity of motive and the continuous quest for a more abundant life for all.
Judaism. The ethical ideals of Judaism are based on the Hebrew Bible (Law, Prophets, and Writings) and the belief in ethical monotheism, or the doctrine of the “One only and Holy God” who has disclosed his righteous will for all to follow.
Religion and morality are bound together; Judaism is a way of life that has to do with the individual, the home and family, and the welfare of the group as a whole. To do God’s will, one must “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly
with God.” Truth, justice, faithfulness, and loving kindness are stressed. Depending on the branch of Judaism, the emphasis varies from strict obedience to the revealed Law among the more orthodox to an emphasis on the changing experiences and needs of people as they seek fulfillment in today’s world.
Christianity. Christian ethics regards ethics and religion as inseparable. To live the good life is to obey God. Central to all Christian ethics have been the teachings of Jesus as found in the New Testament. Jesus swept aside many old requirements that did not appear to have a vital relation to persons or to human need and welfare.
Jesus brought together certain central convictions of morality and religion in a simple and direct fashion and exemplified them in his own life. Inheriting a rich legacy of morality from Judaism, he gave it a different emphasis. He took
the rather exclusive nationalistic morality of his day and made it into a universal morality that embraced all humankind.
Central to the ethical teachings of Jesus is his emphasis on the value of the self, or person. Individuals are treated as ends in themselves.
Humans, who are seen in relation to God, are of greater value than anything else. When asked a question regarding the observance of the Sabbath, the most sacred of institutions at that time, Jesus replied, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Only people are ends in themselves; all other things are means. For Jesus morality was inner and positive, a matter of the “heart” or a disposition of the feeling and will. Goodness resided not simply in obedience to The Law, but in one’s heart. Love was the supreme virtue. When asked about the great ommandments, Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Love of God and love of other humans is required. Each of us is under an obligation to promote the interests of the other people with whom we come in contact. Mutual love, unselfishness, humility, equal regard, and generosity of spirit received a new emphasis in human relations. As a general rule, Christian ethics has included belief in God’s grace (gift) as necessary for human beings to behave morally; people are unable by their unassisted efforts to be good.
Throughout history, some Christians have thought that Christian ethics is a repository of absolute truth revealed by God. For an increasingly large number of Christians, however, the Christian life is a loving concern for the welfare of persons under the inspiration of devotion to the ideals of Jesus. We are thus encouraged to discover the tasks that need to be done and then to view these tasks as part of our duty to God and to our fellows.
Approaches to Ethical Standards
There are three quite different approaches to the problems of morality. The first, called absolutism, is to hold to some belief or line of conduct and to appeal to some absolute authority for its support. The second is to claim that morality is entirely relative and that there are no fixed moral standards; the ethical relativists regard morality as a matter of personal or group opinion, preference, or custom. The third approach is situation ethics: a norm is applied to situations, each somewhat unique and perhaps calling for varying applications of the norm; the situational approach is often confused with relativism, which acknowledges no norm.
AUTHORITY
Reliance on authority has been widespread in human history. The authoritarian was almost entirely in control in the past, and even today most people behave as though right conduct means conduct in obedience to some established authority. For some people, it is a matter of habit and inertia; they are glad to let others do the thinking or deciding for them, because they do not want to assume the responsibility. Others want the assurance of certainty that comes when they invest some established authority with final wisdom and infallibility. Many authorities have been chosen. They include custom and tradition, moral codes, creedal statements, churches and other institutions, sacred literature or some portion of it, natural law, commands of the state or of “divinely ordained” rulers, statute law, or the word of some individual. Much of our knowledge is gained through the testimony of others, or from authority, and authority that is open to free and honest examination is a legitimate source of knowledge under certain circumstances. Authority accepted without regard for the extent to which it harmonizes with one’s experience and reason, however, is a dangerous thing and is regarded by some philosophers as fallacious. Today, we live under rapidly changing conditions, and we face problems about which the ancient authorities were silent. They did not tell us whether it is right to prosecute homosexuality as criminal behavior, to impeach a president of the United States, to grant amnesty to those who refuse to fight in what they regard as an unjust war, or to withhold life-support from a severely impaired infant. Authoritarian ethics are likely to delay progress in a changing society. They also are likely to be destructive of a sound moral perspective; acts are condemned because they violate the code rather than because they are injurious to human welfare. Whatever tends to discredit the authority tends to discredit all its pronouncements, leaving no system at all. Many people in our society accept custom or public opinion as the basis of right and wrong. Although many customs are beneficial insofar as they represent a sort of collective wisdom, custom may not be a good gauge of morality. To accept custom and tradition as the standard is to submerge the individual’s morality to that of society. In the past, progress has come mainly through some individual’s challenging the customary actions of the group. Divine law in one of its forms is not as certain a standard as it may appear to be at first. Even if we decide that it is right to do the “will of God,” there is no set of rules that can be identified as “God’s will.” The codes and commands attributed to God are diverse, and they have changed with the development of society. Many modern religious leaders say that God inspires us to discover the good and to live in pursuit of it. They do not think of religious ethics as an authoritarian and fixed system. The role of authority has been weakening in modern society, partly because of the influences of the Renaissance, the Reformation, modern science, the democratic spirit (which stresses the worth of people and their right to think and judge for themselves), historical studies, and rapid changes in our life and work.
RELATIVISM
The position that rejects ethical absolutism and the appeal to any external authority is ethical relativism—the view that there are no fixed moral values. Some people, having rejected the older authorities, have discovered no new ones that they believe have any objective validity. Many people also have been influenced by the findings of anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists concerning the great diversity of moral practices and codes found among the cultures of the world.8 Human views of what is right and wrong vary over time and from place to place. Morals, ethical relativists assert, come from the mores, the folkways that have grown up and are considered the right ways.
The ethical relativists claim that there are no standards accepted by all people everywhere and that custom can make anything appear right.
They do not merely say that what some people think is right in one place or at one time is thought to be wrong by some other people in another
time or at another place; they claim that what is right at one time or place is wrong at another time or place (or even at the same time and
place, if judgments differ) because there are no objective or universal standards.
Subjectivism. Ethical relativism holds that all ethical norms and pronouncements originate in the human intellect or emotions and are therefore subjective. There is nothing about moral standards that is objective or independent of human experiences; there are no moral absolutes.
Moral principles are not divinely revealed, built into nature, or rationally self-evident. Value statements, including moral values and their diverse elaborations, express only sentiments or feelings.

APPEAL TO THE SITUATION
In the 1960s, especially in the United States and Great Britain, philosophers have been interested in situation ethics. It has appeared in various forms and has often been confused with relativism; proponents see it as a middle ground between two extreme approaches: absolution
and relativism.
On the one hand, absolutism in its legalistic application consists of final codes, prefabricated rules, and regulations that permit few if any exceptions.
These absolutes are derived philosophically through reason (Kant); through divine revelation in the form of natural laws; or through
consensus, tradition, and laws enacted by human beings. On the other hand, schools of relativism stress freedom from all norms other than what is the practiced morality of a given time. This view is concerned not with the rightness or wrongness of what is chosen, but with what actually has been chosen and is practiced in a given culture. In theory, situation ethics has an absolute norm or standard; this approach calls for the selection or acknowledgment of an absolute, but a nonlegalistic, flexible application of the standard to each individual situation. This norm could be love, personal power, or any other principle around which one could build an interpretation of morality. Guidelines that assist in the application of the selected norm may or may not be included in a given interpretation. For example, a certain dictator views personal power as his moral absolute; if he takes a situational approach, he reflects on every situation in which he finds himself and involves himself such as to acquire personal power. He may or may not have useful guides in mind as he enters new situations. The uproar that occurred in religious circles in the 1960s was the result of a view interpreting Jesus as a situationist. Many Christians understood the Old and New Testaments as containing clear-cut moral laws. Some scholars now claim that Christian ethics is situational, not authoritarian in the legalistic sense. Advocates of this position respect the ethical maxims and the wisdom that have come down from the past. As Joseph Fletcher proposed in his controversial book Situation Ethics: The situationist enters into every decision making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any situation to ompromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so. For these Christians, the only absolute is love (agapé); only love is universally good. “Anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation,” says Fletcher, because the good is the most loving, concerned act.11 Love can rightly be directed only toward a person and not toward some abstract good. The supporters of situation ethics claim that many cases or decisions are unique and must be considered on their merits. This approach allows freedom in a changing society. Ethical judgments are meaningless apart from the benefiting or the injuring of persons. The critics, on the other hand, say the view that circumstances alter cases is as old as Aristotle. In its modern form, perhaps situationism places too great an emphasis on the motive and attitude of the one who makes the decision and carries out the action, and not enough on the fact that we always act within a community that is affected by our acts. Love can be blind and uninformed; it may be prudent to add some principles or guidelines based on knowledge and reason.
Contemporary Principles
rightly be directed only toward a person and not toward some abstract good. The supporters of situation ethics claim that many cases or decisions are unique and must be considered on their merits. This approach allows freedom in a changing society. Ethical judgments are meaningless apart from the benefiting or the injuring of persons. The critics, on the other hand, say the view that circumstances alter cases is as old as Aristotle. In its modern form, perhaps situationism places too great an emphasis on the motive and attitude of the one who makes the decision and carries out the action, and not enough on the fact that we always act within a community that is affected by our acts. Love can be blind and uninformed; it may be prudent to add some principles or guidelines based on knowledge and reason.


A DILEMMA
If the question of morality is the central issue of our time, we may appear to have a dilemma! On the one hand, we might agree on such matters as the levels of moral development, ingredients of the moral situation, and the many basic terms and categories of ethics. On the other hand, philosophers and other reflective people have never agreed on a method for doing normative ethics. Varying methods employing reason, inferences from nature, divine revelation, and/or intuition have led to contrasting moral standards both ancient and modern. Where does this variety leave us as we attempt to make sound moral choices individually and as a society?
PRINCIPLES IN USE TODAY
Hospital ethics committees—often composed of nurses, physicians, clergy, ethicists, lawyers, and others—would never be able to offer advice or make decisions if consensus on the many issues we have been studying were required. Instead, several principles have been widely adopted, because they seem to offer practical guidance for discussion of specific cases. These principles are justified on the grounds that their opposite sare repugnant to the cross section of people wrestling with moral dilemmas. For some persons on a committee, these principles are of divine origin; for others, they are reasonable; and, for others, they are built into human nature or the very fabric of reality. For some individuals, these norms are absolutes; for others, they function as highly valued guidelines. In all instances, the meanings of the principles must be interpreted and applied, and sharp differences frequently remain.
Respect For Persons.
There is, however, one clear area of agreement: human beings should be treated as subjects, not objects; human life is of significant value. This principle is essentially the same as Kant’s Principle of Humanity as an End, Never as Merely a Means. A primary value of this norm is that it excludes its opposite—treating individuals as objects, as things, whether in medical research, business activities, or social relationships. However, this standard’s application to specific situations of health care, employment, or human relationships is subject to debate and may result in more than one reasoned conclusion. For example, when an employer must fire 10 percent of her employees for legitimate financial reasons, how does respect for persons apply to issues of age, seniority, gender, competence, severence pay and benefits, possibilities for future recall, personal and vocational counseling, and so forth? Although different policies will result from the application of this principle, at least employees will be treated as human beings instead of mere numbers or objects. The final choice of policies will be made according to the decision-making process in place, such as a negotiated compromise, a management committee, the “boss,” or the courts. May this principle ever be set aside? If a maniac is about to lower an ax on your head, are you morally obliged to respect this person? One might affirm the principle and call for martyrdom of the intended victim. Others might claim that such attackers have waived their rights to personhood and may be killed in self-defense. No doubt other reasoned options are possible; in this situation, the intended victim is the decision maker, who will be accountable morally and legally afterward.
The following principles are equally difficult to apply; our discussion of them will be brief.
Autonomy. Human beings deserve personal liberty in order to make informed judgments and decisions about their lives; individual informed consent is valued. Women and men should be self-determining within the context of their own societies. (Note Kant’s principle of autonomy;.) As with the principle of humanity as an end, the ideal of autonomy rejects its opposite—absolute external control. However, the degrees of autonomy in actual situations are subject to debate; to what extent should autonomy be offered to prisoners, the mentally ill, children, the military, property owners, and employees? Resolution will occur, according to available decisionmaking procedures in each case.
Beneficence. Do good; promote goodness! This standard rejects knowingly doing evil.
Nonmaleficence. Do no harm; prevent harm. This principle rejects knowingly doing harm.
Justice. Human beings ought to be provided with what is fair and what is deserved; goodness should be distributed among people in fair and equitable ways. Does this mean distribution according to need? according to merit? or equally without regard for need, ability, or merit? Calculated injustice is ruled out, but arguable interpretations of justice remain.
Honesty. Telling the truth is the norm; it is essential to promote and maintain respect for persons and for autonomy. However, there is a question as to whether a “moral lie” may ever be justified.
Other Principles. In addition to the principles heretofore discussed, others are helpful; they may be viewed as deriving from those we have mentioned or as having equal status. Informed consent is the understanding of and consent to a procedure an individual is about to undergo.
Confidentiality is the restriction of information based on the right to privacy. Double effect means that the intended good result requires a secondary
harmful or bad effect. Paternalism involves the interference with an individual’s liberty of action.

WHEN PRINCIPLES COLLIDE
In certain situations, honesty may conflict with confidentiality; for example, a supervisor might not be able to reveal pending dismissals to workers in her department. Autonomy might be in opposition to paternalism, as when adult children face the problem of nursing home placement unwanted by their parents. Beneficence collides with nonmaleficence when individuals defend themselves from unjust agressors. Solutions to such conflicting norms are shaped according to the principle(s) valued most highly by the decision maker(s) in the actual situation.
Reflections
MORAL CERTAINTIES
“I just want to do the right thing,” is a familiar statement made by morally concerned women and men. The moral codes of some absolutists are persuasive to people seeking clear-cut ethical certainties. When their absolutes and implications are perceived as divinely revealed, unmistakably located in nature, or discovered by infallible reason, one can live “by the book” with moral clarity.
MORAL RELATIVISM
Other people also wanting to do the right thing propose that the global community will continue to develop contrasting and conflicting moral norms and practices. This observation will lead some individuals to the conclusion that no universal norms are appropriate and the practice of the moment is the only actual norm.

MORAL PLURALISM
Others will formulate and/or choose principles believed universally applicable, principles such as those explored in the previous section of this chapter. Where these ideals originate is less pivotal than our agreement to apply them with utmost care and reasonableness. Hospital, business, political, and educational committees attempting to come to grips with current moral
dilemmas are already functioning quite well with these principles. Only those individuals convinced that their positions are the only viable ones are difficult to deal with, but they deserve to be heard, too. “Moral pluralism” refers to the existence of thoughtful, contrasting interpretations of moral matters. The use of moral principles, such as those discussed in this chapter, does not lead to one clear and certain conclusion. For example, a committee might adopt these principles and yet conclude differently about the morality of capital punishment. Schools of thought exist in virtually all areas of human inquiry, including the range of moral issues. Nonetheless, the principles outlined above provide a reasoned framework for moral discourse, a distinct alternative to relativism.