Any discussion of ethics will occur on one of three levels, perhaps all three. It is important that students understand these levels as discussions move forward and has various students move back and forth often confusing one level with another.
Level One:
Level One is what is called the “meta-level.” “Meta” means “before” when used in the term “meta-ethics.” That is, before we can clearly discuss issues of good and bad or right and wrong, we must be clear about the meaning of our terms, including the words “ethics” and “morals.”
At the meta-level the purpose is to seek out and give reasons for the point of view of morality. Once that foundation has been established, one can generate the basic terminology of ethics from it.
The meta-level of ethics is therefore a discussion of the meaning or meanings of the language and terms being used in ethics. These will include the following but are not limited to them:
Right
Wrong
Good
Bad
Ethical
Moral
Responsibility
Honesty
Fair-minded
Discrimination
Nondiscrimination
Reciprocal
Truth
Level Two:
Level Two is where general principles are developed from the basic concepts of ethics and morality. Level Two seeks a foundation for ethics in general principles. An example of these is the Golden Rule from eight of the world’s great religions and Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
The Golden Rule reads as the following:
Christianity: “All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even unto them for this is the law of the prophets.”
Brahmanism: “This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others which would cause pain if done unto you.”
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”
Judaism: “What is hateful to you; do not to your fellow men. That is the entire law, all the rest is commentary.”
Confucianism: “There is one maxim of loving kindness: do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”
Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”
Zoroastrianism: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”
Islam: “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a similar principle:
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” We also gather from Kant that ethical duties cannot be externally imposed on us; we must impose them on ourselves. What we learn is that other people are not to be used as means to our selfish or self-centered ends. This is thought of as immoral behavior because it not only violates the rule of the categorical imperative, but its spirit—that all people are spiritually and ethically significant.
Kurt Baier also has developed a moral principle that is consistent with these and has some promise:
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.” 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.”
Level Three
At level three we find the social, institutional, and personal rule-making power of ethics. This is the level of moral judgment. It should be understood that whatever ethical rules we generate, they should be consistent with the principles in Level Two and the definitions in Level One. If they are not, then serious discussion needs to be entered into. A lack of consistency and foundation renders our personal or social or institutional moral judgments arbitrary and irrelevant.
If a person or church says that gay marriage is wrong, they have made a moral judgment, but what is their definition of “right” and “wrong”? Also, what moral principle has been violated by a gay marriage?
If the appeal is to one’s religion or religious teachings, then one can say that according to my faith, gay marriage is wrong. Unless they are willing to reexamine the principles of their faith against a background of moral principles and precepts, no objective or rational discussion can move forward. The most one can say is that this is a judgment of faith and not of reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment