Ethics and Morals and Values! Oh My!

Taken from: http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/007/895/7895/original.0

Dorothy (and her little dog too!), after heading down the Yellow Brick Road, befriend the Scarecrow, and shortly the three friends enter a foreboding forest. They meet the Tin Man, who warns them about the lions, tigers and bears that await them. Scared, yet undeterred, the three continue on, eventually confronting the Lion...

There is deep metaphor in the Wizard of Oz fable, what with following a narrow path through a troubled forest, fending off challenges, and trying to decide upon right action.

Morality, ethics, and values are similarly disconcerting. We all know that they are things to be reckoned with, but few can really delineate between them. Like Dorothy and her friends, we feel them to be vague concerns that can trip us up, yet we aren’t quite sure what to do when we come face-to-face with them.

Philosophers have worried themselves sick over morals, ethics, and values: I’ll not be able to definitively settle the matter. What I can do is touch upon what they are, how they differ, and why - even if they might be disconcerting in the abstract - like the Lion, they are best as your friend.

There are many flavors of “morals,” even more combinations of “ethics,” and probably as many “values” as the tongue can taste. Are they all equivalent? What shall we make of them? Who gets to decide if a thing is “moral” or not? I have spent quite a bit of time with some of the best society has to offer: Selfless individuals who care more for others than themselves; who protect the weak, comfort the suffering, and defend the frail. I have also spent much time with with the worst: Predators who want only for themselves; who care not one whit for other’s feelings or needs, who take advantage of the weak, inflict suffering, and harm the frail.

What separates The Good from The Evil? How can we honestly decide between the two? Is it always bad to cause harm? Is it always good to seek pleasure? Aren’t there any objective criteria by which we can choose a Path of Righteousness? Must we rely on others to tell us? How do we know we aren’t being tricked or used?

This will be the first in a series of explorations on the lions, tigers, and bears we must address on our trip down the golden highway. To begin, let us start at the beginning...

Words have meaning, and different words not only mean different things to different people, but - perhaps even more importantly - mean different things in different contexts. Let’s try to discover some basic definitions so that we can think clearly about what it is we are talking about.

I tend to take a humanistic - and epistemological - view of morals, ethics, and values. Many platitudes abound: “Morality is what you do when no one else is looking” is a perfect example. This assumes folks know what right action is, and are only going to do it when there is a Watcher, whether the Watcher be a deity, karma, or their own internal Jiminy Cricket. I find such sayings to be decidedly trite and deliberately vague. Does that mean the serial killer who tortures in remote areas is moral? How about the person who, in front of others, escorts an elderly woman across a road? Or the accountant who hides their thefts has behaved ethically? Or the soldier who, in front of his unit, covers a grenade with his own body? Or the minister who by day exhorts against homosexuality, but by night smokes crack with gay prostitutes? Who has true values? Which one acted ethically? Isn’t there a better way than to cross our fingers and hope that people will take right action?

I propose the following definitions: “Moral” behavior consists of actions taken that tend to improve individual and social flourishing. “Ethical” behavior consists of actions that tend to comply with standards of conduct. “Values” are things we hold dear.

These definitions, on the surface, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Politicians, on the other hand, love to confuse them, because each word has a strong emotional component. By thinking clearly about what each is, we can avoid the traps that emotional confusion sets for us.

Consider this: John Smith is accused of raping and murdering his four year old son. An attorney defends him, and after looking into it, argues that serious errors were made. Smith subsequently is not held accountable for the crime against his child.

Was any of this moral? Ethical? And what can be said of the values involved? Did Smith value his own gratification over his child’s life? Did the Attorney value his client’s rights more than the rights of the Child? What are we to make of this scenario?

The careful reader will raise objections: “Was Smith actually guilty? How can we tell? What was the fact pattern that makes us believe he raped and murdered his child? Did someone else do it, and he’s being scapegoated? Did the Attorney uncover real errors, or were they merely loopholes that he exploited? I deliberately phrased the scenario to a) strike an emotional chord and b) be as vague as possible. My scenario - and your reaction to it - are as much affected by ambiguity as your feelings about police officers, defense attorneys, and the rules of the game.

Therefore, based on the definitions I offered, moral behavior might not be ethical, ethical behavior might not be moral, and values might insert themselves into the emotions we experience when deciding if a behavior consists of right action.

If I act in a way that increases suffering, does that mean that I’ve behaved in an immoral way? What if the suffering I cause tends to limit worse suffering? If the standards of conduct that my actions are compared to decreases suffering, did I behave ethically? What if my actions violate the standards, but lead to worse outcomes? What if my values are conflicted between wanting to behave ethically and morally?

Can anyone ever find a hard and fast rule that will help us determine right action?

The short answer is no. The long answer is yes. This kind of uncertainty is discomfiting to many. Lots of folks just want to know what is right as compared to wrong. As much as we want things to be different though, the world doesn’t work that way.

Now that we’ve discussed the differences between morals, ethics, and values, we’ll discuss in the next post how to use our moral intuition to guide our rational thought process to find the best possible outcomes in ways that satisfy our values. To do that, we need to explore what constitutes a value, where it comes from, and what to do when our values are not internally consistent. Let’s walk into that foreboding forest together in my next post.