Final Practice Essay

‘Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well supported as those provided in mathematics.’ To what extent do you agree?

Philosophy is said to be the study of leftovers, a study that tries to provide explanations for abstract concepts that we have not yet been able to define in society. One example of this would be ethics, a complicated and abstract concept for which society has not been able to apply logic to. Philosophers of many centuries have attempted to define various rules and regulations that could shape our understanding of ethics, leading to the implementation of laws and other such ethical barriers in society. Men have tried to come up with the correct solution to the issue of ethics, what is right and what is wrong, but we have still not reached a proper conclusion. There are several hypothetical, and real issues in society that tend to test the justifications of certain ethics, thereby bringing us back to point A (no proper justification of conclusions in ethics). Hence, I agree that there are many logical justification processes that provide a decent argument for certain ethical conclusions, however hypothetical situations, as well as ethically complicated situations we face in society tend to test, or even counter these conclusions.

Firstly, I would like to deal with the ethical justification of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a concept brought up by a man named Jeremy Bentham, deals with maximizing utility. Here we are brought back to basic mathematical arguments, 3 are more than one, therefore 3 lives are worth more than one life. This relates to a very famous philosophical question called The Trolley Problem, which involves a situation in where the lives of 6 people are in your hands. You are driving a train when you notice that the train you are driving is about to hit, and probably kill, 5 workers working on the track. There is a lever you can pull in which you can shift to a different track, with only one worker. Here we are faced with the issue, one life versus 5: What would be the ethically correct thing to do? According to futilitarians, the basic justification is that by killing one, you are saving five; however, there are many modifications that can be made to this problem to make this situation a lot more complicated.

Now we must deal with the issue of emotional involvement. When dealing with mathematical logic, there are no emotions involved, for we are not dealing with matters such as life or death. Certainly the justifications for ethical conclusions do follow the pattern of mathematical conclusions, however the two are so different that they cannot be compared. In mathematics, one can reach logical conclusions without any real life impact. Saying that 3 are more than 1 is mathematically correct, but it does not have any personal or emotional implications. In the case of the trolley problem, we don’t know if the 5 lives are in fact more than one. What if that one was the president? What if the 5 workers were convicted criminals? Who are we to decide, regarding ethical situations, if 5 really are more than one?

Another reason why ethical justifications are not as thorough as mathematical ones is because in mathematics, certain theories and formulas are always true (with regard to their limitations). If I say that 1+1=2, It will always equal 2, there is no doubt in that. However, an ethical conclusion that states, “The end justifies the means”, may not always be true. One has to think of the various detrimental implications of certain, presumably ethical, actions. A certain example of this in real life would be the murder case of Stephanie Crowe. The authorities dealing with the case had no evidence suggesting a subject, so they took in the family for questioning. Without any evidence, they decided that Stephanie’s brother Michael Crowe was the murder, and induced a confession through manipulative methods. They convinced him that he had a personality disorder, and murdered his own sister without any knowledge of it. The justification of the authorities was that they were doing it for a good cause, so that the murderer would be caught and justice would be served. If all they ended up was a false confession and hence a mentally deranged 14-year old boy, were their actions ethically justified?

Certain real-life issues such as this make it very hard for us to reach ethical conclusions that can be applied to society. In regards to the end justifying the means, what if the end is not perfect (as it almost never is)? What if from certain points of view, the pros do not outweigh the cons; whose opinion matters? Other examples in law would be the insanity defense, is it ethically correct to discharge a murderer just because he was insane at the time of the crime? Is the crime what should be punished, or the motivation beneath the crime? Since we cannot come up with such answers, law, especially when dealing with the insanity defense, becomes very complicated. Therefore, such ethical justifications are not as thorough as those in mathematics, for they cannot be applied universally throughout society.

Ethics is a very complicated area of knowing, one that cannot be compared to that of mathematics, which is much more clear-cut and has fewer emotional complications. Logic in math cannot be applied to logic in ethics, for there are many more complications that one has to asses when deciding between human lives. Although the justifications of certain ethical conclusions follow appropriate logic, the fact that we face complications when applying them to both hypothetical and real-life situations depict the flaw in their logic. Ethics as a way of knowing cannot be purely logical, for we as humans will always be impacted by our emotions when dealing with ethically challenging situations.

Words: 990

Sources:

"The Confession - 48 Hours - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines:        Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. N.p., n.d. Web.        19 May 2011.        <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/14/48hours/main649381.       shtml>

I'm worth a million dollars

Over summer my philosophy tutor was a student at Harvard. He was majoring in economics and minoring in philosophy. At first thought, one would think this combination is quite strange and unrelated. However, apparently there are several economic schools that actually require students to take a class in philosophy. My tutor said he had chosen this combination because both philosophy and economics deal with the logical part of the mind, as well as the study of human nature. In this lecture, Sandal discusses the cost and benefits of certain aspects of life in relation to the concept of utilitarianism. The concept of the cost of a human life comes into play. This concept of utilitarianism deals with both philosophical and economic concepts. From an economic standpoint, costs and benefits can be assessed according to money values. This deals with the concepts of externalities (Marginal Costs and Marginal Benefits). However, when dealing with a human life, how is one to asses the 'marginal costs and benefits'? Is a person's money value how much they had when they died? How much they impacted the world? Is their value decreased for every damage they caused to the planet? How are we to asses the value of a human life? Personally, I don't think we can. Here is an example of where economics and philosophy do not correspond. There is no logical way to put a price on life, even from the point of view from a utilitarian. The value of a life will hold different impact to different people. Do we average those values in order to determine the true value? Here and again we return to The Trolley Problem. In economics, we must produce at the 'socially optimum level'. Who are we to decide whether one life is less valuable than 5? Would it be socially optimum to kill the one and save the five, although we don't know the exact social value of each human life. And even if we did, would it make it okay?

Nom Nom Richard Parker

An item of debate that was discussed when dealing with the case Queen vs Dudley is morality. Given the circumstances of the case, was it morally just to murder Richard Parker in the hopes for survival? My answer is no. Human beings rely completely on the basis of their morals. The moral code of human beings is what separates us from other species on our planet. Morals are what allow us to live in a civilized manner, instead of digressing to our original primitive state, and letting our animalistic natures take over. In my opinion, the killing of Richard Parker was morally wrong in the given situation and therefore was not the right thing to do.  My opinion is based on the definition of murder. Taking the life of someone without his or her consent for your own personal motivation is considered first-degree murder. The other members stuck on the boat most certainly did not respect the wishes of Richard Parker when taking his life, thereby taking away his free will. It is unethical and unjust to take away the free will of another human being, and therefore the murder of Richard Parker was not morally justified. 

The main opposing argument for the justification of this murder is based on the Machiavellian theory that ‘the end justifies the means’. It is derived from the idea of utilitarianism, killing one in order to save the four. Opponents argue that since more people would die had they not sacrificed Richard Parker, it would be wrong to allow themselves to die. From a practical point of view, this argument would make sense. If this situation were being judged statistically, the amount of survivors would definitely be more if they were to have killed and eaten Richard Parker. However, the question isn’t practicality, it is morality. It is the difference between pulling the lever, and pushing the fairly large guy off of the bridge in relation to The Trolley Problem. In both cases, it would be more practical to kill the one in order to save the rest; however, Queen vs Dudley relates more to pushing the fat guy off of the bridge, because the murder being executed is a lot more personal, therefore the issue of morality comes into play. No matter how many lives are being saved, it is still morally wrong to take the life of someone unwilling to give it up because you are taking away their right to free will. In addition, the end of this scenario is not necessarily perfect. Firstly, it is not a given that all of the four people will survive if one man is sacrificed. The possibility of being stuck at sea for a longer period of time is very likely, and it may be necessary to kill another in order to survive. When looking at this from a statistical point of view, is it okay to kill two in order to save three? Proponents of the Machiavellian theory would agree with this but what if the sailors were stuck at sea for longer and they were forced to kill three to save two. In this case, does the end still justify the means? Furthermore, those that do survive are more prone to mental disorders due to trauma. This is also displayed in the Queen vs. Dudley case where the two survivors were haunted by the events of their past actions.  Their psychological deterioration therefore portrays that the end is not always sufficient enough to justify the means. 

Another excuse for this inhumane behavior would be that in dire circumstances like this, the animalistic nature of human beings is released and survival of the fittest comes into play. Some could argue that their actions were circumstantial, and therefore justified. Some say it is not right for people to determine whether what they did was moral or not, because we have not experienced what they went through and therefore we cannot make an informed decision. In my opinion this argument does not withhold. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to say that those of us that are not in their situation should not judge what they should have done. From a court’s perspective, I agree that this argument would come into play, because it’s impossible to determine a fair punishment for this case. However, when discussing morality, it does not make a difference. The idea of morals is that one should have and apply them in any situation they are in. Laws may differ according to the situation, but whether something is morally right or wrong should stay consistent. The question that arises in this situation is ‘where is the line’? Shifting morals based on the circumstances could possibly justify atrocities even crueler than those displayed in Queen vs Dudley. For example, could the killing of 6, 000, 000 Jews for Germany’s economic progress be justified? If moral codes are stretched far enough that such atrocities can be permitted, is this moral code still considered moral? In dire circumstances humans should still be expected to maintain a humane nature? One must consider that our morals are the only thing that separates us from other animals.