Ethical Footprints
A newsletter for my thinking friends
January 2009The Moral Point of View

On the definition of the moral point of view Paul Taylor argues that six characteristics are necessary for a standard or rule to be a moral one:

(1) Generality (widespread, general application)

(2) Universality (for everyone alike)

(3) Priority (our first consideration)

(4) Disinterestedness (freedom from bias or selfish motives)

(5) Publicity (open for all to hear)

(6) Substantive impartiality (essentially fair and free from bias).
Having approached An Ethic of Hope from the point of view of a theologian, I took to heart a statement from William K. Frenkena, who said in 1964, “If however, the theologian does not resort to moral philosophy, how is he to decide between rival moral schemes? Unfortunately, contemporary moral philosophers are in no more agreement on this point than theologians are….In any case, the thinking theologian has no alternative but to become more adequately acquainted with ’the best that has been thought and said in the world’ of moral philosophy and then try to draw his own conclusions.” The moral point of view assumes that a morally mature individual has the mental (thinking) capacity to recognize in others the personal qualities – emotions, aspiration, values, consciousness – that we immediately experience ourselves. So, if I feel love or anger, I know that others have these same feelings. I also know that I don’t wish to be humiliated by others, that I want and need respect, and that I expect honesty and fair-play from my friends and associates. Of course, you have those same desires.

From this capacity arise the sentiments of empathy and benevolence that David Hume and Adam Smith believed to be the foundations of social morality. It is also the basis for Thomas Jefferson’s affirmation that “all men [persons] are created equal.” Of course, Jefferson did not mean by this that all persons are equivalent – identical in every respect. What he meant was that each individual is, as a member of the human community, of equal worth, equal political standing, and entitled to equal rights.

It took some time for our democracy to mature and a more complete understanding of the point of view of morality to unfold in our nation. Slavery and women’s rights were two issues that had to be resolved. Generally speaking, as our moral capacities grow and develop, there will be other issues of merit that will be measured by “the moral point of view.”

Thus, if I recognize that I am a person in a community of other persons, each counting as one and none as more than one, I can be a hypothetical “spectator” of myself as one equal citizen among many. As such, I might find solutions to difficult issues of morality and public policy that would be insoluble were I to take the perspective of “economic man” – the self-serving “utility maximizer” in the regressive’s revered “perfect market,” or were I “John Galt,” the perfect egoist and the hero of Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged,” and not coincidentally, also the hero of Alan Greenspan and other individuals who formulate and execute the US economic policies.From “the moral point of view,” I see myself as one of many residents of North Carolina who drives a car in a sea of polluted air. I am one of many potential patients who may some day urgently need a potent antibiotic. I am one of many herdsman owning sheep in a common pasture being utilized at carrying capacity. I am a prisoner whose desire for release counts no more or less than that of my fellow prisoners. From this point of view, I realize that if I act “selfishly” I will do so to the disadvantage of all others (and eventually myself), and because these others have the same rights and the same worth as I have, I am not entitled to exploit them for my own advantage.The moral point of view, and the entailed principle that “my rights and my worth count no more and no less than that of any of my fellow citizens” (i.e., “all men are created equal”), is the foundation of liberal democracy. It is likewise a cornerstone of Christian ethics, as expressed by Jesus in The Golden Rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you ..." (Matthew 7:12). It is a universal precept, found in all the great world religions.

With the moral point of view, we have arrived at the fundamental justification of government and the foundation of progressivism. It is impossible to overstate the significance of the moral point of view.

Ideally, governments are instituted to act in behalf of all members of a polity while protecting the rights, privacy and personal integrity of each citizen, and it does so by adopting the perspective of the “ideal benevolent observer and legislator.” Problems that are insoluble from the perspective of each individual, are solved from the perspective of the “ideal observer” as rules are laid down and enforced by a governing body that benefit the public at large – what Garret Hardin called “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon.”

Looking Out for Number One

An individual’s determination to “look out for Number One” and to act from that egoistic (selfish) perspective, frequently works to that individual’s disadvantage. The soldier who cares only for his own survival is in greater danger. The herdsman who puts still more sheep on the overstocked commons, is hastening the day when ruin is visited upon the entire community. The individual who lies on his or her vitae will soon be discovered because of his or her inability to live up to purported exaggerated capacities.In these cases, the individual’s “best interests” are defeated when he/she persists in taking only personal needs and goals into account – when he/she adopts what moral philosophers call the egocentric (or “agent-centered”) point of view.
The basic social principle is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself or herself, not a means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.The Right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action – which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his or her own life.”
The egocentric point of view is implicit in the regressive’s unyielding faith in the unfettered free market: the dogma that the optimum society emerges, “as if by an invisible hand,” through the transactions of self-serving (“utility maximizing”) individuals. “Good for each, good for all.”The egocentric perspective fails because political and economic problems are not problems of individuals, they are problems of groups, and therefore the interests of all affected individuals must be taken into account.

This is where the point of view of morality becomes a general principle that ought to be applied to all persons, groups, and organizations without bias. Kurt Baier, one of the most meaningful moral philosophers of the 20th century claims that moral rules are meant for everybody. They must be universally teachable, that is, they cannot involve beliefs or concepts not known to all normal adult humans. They cannot be self-frustrating, self-defeating, or morally impossible, that is, impossible or pointless if universally taught. Many moral philosophers after Baier have used these features as necessary conditions for a guide to conduct to count as a morality.
Baier recognizes that these features are merely formal and that moral rules must also have a particular kind of content. Baier describes this content by saying that moral rules must be for the good of everyone alike. However, when he gives examples of these rules (e.g., rules prohibiting killing, cruelty, inflicting pain, maiming, torturing, deceiving, cheating, rape, and adultery), it is quite clear that he means that these rules prohibit causing harm to anyone. He was prescient in recognizing that morality does not require doing the optimific act (the act having the best consequences), no matter how one determines what that optimific act is.
Like Thomas Hobbes, whom he acknowledges as a strong influence on his views, Baier put forward the principle of reversibility (a negative version of the Golden Rule), "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," as summarizing the moral guide to life. Although he does not use the language of natural-law theories, Baier also follows Hobbes in holding that morality has to be known by all those who are held morally responsible for their behavior, that is, moral rules apply to all who can understand the rules and can guide their behavior accordingly.

The Bible

How should we live? To answer that question, many people turn to the Bible. What they find is often inspiring, although it may set standards that are uncomfortably high: love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you would like to be treated, and walk humbly with God. In other words, ethical teaching in the Bible is centered on what philosophers call “the moral point of view.”

Inspiration, however, can be found in a great many books. To Kill a Mockingbird teaches the virtue of tolerance, and A Tale of Two Cities impresses us with the nobility of self-sacrifice. William J. Bennett, a philosopher who served as U. S. Secretary of Education, edited a collection called The Book of Virtues that includes dozens of stories and poems designed to teach courage, and responsibility. But the Bible, many people think, is different. It has an authority that other books lack. Therefore, they look to the Bible, not just for inspiration, but for answers to specific moral questions, such as questions about abortion and homosexuality.
The problem with specific morality and the Bible comes in choosing which principles to follow. Do we not eat pork and condemn homosexuality as the Old Testament says, or do we follow the teachings of Jesus and give love to all people, even adulterers and homosexuals?

Discussion Questions

1. Imagine that you are a hospital administrator and that you have been asked to set up an Ethics Committee in the hospital. The Committee will deal with moral dilemmas that may confront hospital staff and give advice in establishing ethical guidelines for the treatment of patients. (a) What kind of persons would you look for to fill this position? What values would you want them to hold? What types of moral sensitivity would you be looking for? (b) What basic moral principles would you advise the Committee to follow?

2. Imagine that you have been charged with the same task described in Question #1, but this time for an advertising agency instead of a hospital. What would the differences be? If there are any differences, what conclusions would you draw about the way we define the moral ballpark?

3. What are your own deepest moral values? What moral qualities do you look for in other people as well as in yourself? Are these values that you think everyone shares, or are some of your values ones that you feel are not always observed by our culture as a whole? How have your values changed, if at all? What influenced their development?

4. A friend asks you to pick out a tie for him to wear at a social occasion. Is this a moral issue? Why or why not? If you refuse, is that immoral, or just rude? If you pick out the wrong tie (one that causes him shame or great embarrassment in public), is that immoral, or just a mistake? Does it make a difference if you pick out the wrong tie intentionally or accidentally? The same friend asks you to transport some merchandise across state lines so that he can avoid paying sales tax on it. Is this a moral issue? Why or why not?

5. When (under what circumstances) is it right to tell a lie? Give some examples from everyday life. What does your answer reveal about the scope (or relevance) of morality in general?

6. Recently, an undergraduate student from Rutgers published Cheating 101, a guidebook to help students learn how to cheat. What moral issues do you see associated with publishing such a book? Should the campus bookstore carry it? What or why not? Should the campus newspaper carry advertisements for the book? Similarly, should the campus newspaper carry advertisements for companies that will write students’ research papers for them? Again, what are the relevant moral considerations here? Are these issues in the moral ballpark? Why or why not?

7. What is the moral issue that you are most undecided about? Describe the pro’s and con’s in regard to this issue. How do you go about arriving at a decision when it is unavoidable?

8. We have suggested that ethics is about moral health. When you think of a morally healthful life, what sort of a life do you imagine? What would be some examples of lives that (at least in some respect) are not morally healthy? Give examples from your own experience.

In my book, An Ethic of Hope, I take the position that the moral point of view ask that we now condemn, but give charity (love) and benevolence to our friends and neighbors (fellow human beings). Its underlying assumption is that the substance of our faith and the values of our culture constitute the strength and effectiveness of our moral personality. The point of this book is that the ethical life is the most enabling environment for the positive reconstruction of people, institutions, and nations. From the Christian perspective, we are summoned by God to this calling, which immediately makes our ethical life a spiritual experience. In An Ethic of Hope I say,

Paul’s paradigm of “faith, hope, and charity” reflects this cooperative message. Hope, in the sense that Paul used the word, provides this model. It is faith seeking moral action; it is people changing things—hoping that their actions are making ethical renewal possible for others. The narrow view of God and humans, spoken in terms of sin and salvation and through ancient myth and ritual is a view that excludes and claims superior knowledge of spiritual purpose. A more holistic vision is needed, one that advocates the continuous activity of God with people, and just not Christians, but all people. Paul was seeking to motivate and change the churches he had assisted throughout the Mediterranean world. His personal “faith seeking action” model was itself a means for revitalizing their energy and growth.

Hope offers a positive, constructive, and affirmative vision of Christian living. Its promise is to relieve us from our contextualized entrapment and subsequent domestication by custom and tradition. Hope challenges us to transform ourselves into active practitioners of the Christian faith capable of expressing our ethical commitments in the context of contemporary life, and help others care about one another in a much more effective way. We know that caring produces cooperative rather than conflicting homes, workplaces, and churches. Also, the energy required to serve others in a caring environment is much less than an environment where people are working against each other. Ethical deficiency results in a crisis of meaning and loss of hope, which affects our homes and schools in negative ways. Thomas L. Friedman, in writing about the American spirit after the 9/11/2001 tragedy, reminds us that hope flows from a “deep spiritual source—a respect for the individual, a spirit of tolerance for differences of faith or politics, a respect for freedom of thought as the necessary foundation for all creativity, and a spirit of unity that encompasses all kind of differences.

So, without nit-picking the moral principles of the Bible, I have taken the “high” road and located the moral point of view in the love of Jesus for all humankind and in Paul’s message of “charity.” In this way, I am able to apply my faith and spirituality to a changing world and avoid the trap of condemning others and avoid setting myself up on a hill as a perfect moral light for others to see.
To understand Christian ethics from a rational point of view means that we acknowledge that Christianity puts an emphasis on the motive or spirit in which an action is performed. Here, ethics and faith cannot be separated. It begins with a belief in God as creator, the origin of sin, and the necessity of living the good life. It is concerned with intention and purpose, which drive to the heart of moral character. Both incorporate an ethic of duty and an ethic of the right, but not of blind duty. This implies a reflective ethic, one that connects faith and reason in a universal association, working together, not against each other.

Kurt Baier has developed a formulation of “the moral point of view,” that lies at the heart of both a rational and faith-based ethic. Baier understands that “principles of behavior can be recommended to everybody (universally) if they successfully promote the best possible life for everybody, and that the best possible life for everybody cannot be achieved in isolation but only in social contexts in which the pursuits of each impinge on the pursuits of others.”91 According to Baier, the moral point of view looks and treats all people as “equally important centers of craving, impulses, desires, needs, aims, and aspirations; as people with ends of their own, all of which are entitled, prima facie, to be attained,” and he notes, that “from this point of view everyone of those individuals is required to modify his impulsive behavior, his endeavors and his plans by observing certain rules, the genuinely moral rules.”

Baier’s insights into the meaning of ethics are important because of the individual and social dimensions of its applications. Also, Baier’s insights are consistent with the ethical principles of the New Testament and other great religions.94 Faith provides a spiritual undergirding for ethics. Christian morality enriches our lives through an inclusive bringing together of people despite their differences with us, their economic status, the languages they speak, or the way they choose to worship.

Rational applications are indeed important to ethics. Baier points out that the application of the point of view of morality is quite flexible in the context of daily life. He uses the principles of differentiation and priority to make his point: “In the absence of morally relevant differences between people, moral rules must be applied to everyone alike.” But, he notes, if a social group or culture claims to be moral, then it must have certain rules, which lay down morally relevant reasons for treating people differently. The fundamental idea governing rules of differentiation and priority is that of nondiscrimination. Nondiscrimination is the idea that we all are to be treated equally barring special, morally significant, circumstances.

Although Baier presents ethics as rule-based, sometimes called “the good reasons approach to ethics,” and although we can always use reason to generate rules for ethics that are religiously oriented, this in no way diminishes the faith and spiritual foundation upon which Christian ethics rests. In other words, we learn from Baier, as we do from the teachings of Jesus that the moral person does not discriminate between people, but only differentiates between them on morally relevant grounds. To be moral is to have this outlook and to agree that moral principles and the moral point of view are for the good of everyone alike.


Website: http://www.josephphester.com/home.htm