In
this paper I will briefly lay out W. D. Ross' ethical theory, Moral
Pluralism (MP), and apply it to Bernard Williams'
“George the chemist” case in order to
demonstrate how such a theory can resolve moral conflicts.
Moral Pluralism differs from what could be called “moral monism”
in that monism claims that there is a single principle that serves as
an explanation of morality,1
but pluralism claims there is a collection of principles where none
of them are more basic or fundamental than the rest.2
The major departure between pluralism and monism is that there is no
single justification of morality, the parts of morality, or
the plurality of the moral rules; the basic moral
rules exist together, they cannot be derived from one another, and
they are not grounded on some external principle.3
This
may seem less plausible than
other theories because determinations
in specific cases are usually
deduced from a combination of the basic principle and the derived
duties. Here, we have only a collection of duties with no principle
to make use of in deciding cases. Ross did not find this problematic
because he posited “prima facie” duties
(PFD), a
collection of basic moral duties, and what could be called
“all-things-considered” duties (ATCD),
the duties that are left after careful reflection on “one's duty
proper … [or] one's actual duty.”4
Imagine a driver of a car on
a snowy freeway. The driver
has a large number of legal duties that apply to her at any given
moment: the duty to keep the
car in working order, to use turn signals before
changing lanes, to drive safe
speeds, and to keep her
vehicle under her control in all weather conditions. Failing
at any of one of these might count as being legally blameworthy. If
an emergency vehicle should appear behind her with full lights and
sirens, all the PFDs
of driving are still there,
but her ATCD becomes to move
out of the way.
That
example may not fully illuminate the relationship between PFD
and ATCD,
but it is enough to understand that the thing
that causes a basic duty to become a proper duty
is moral judgment.5
It may not be safe for the driver to lock up her brakes while on the
snowy road, or drive at speed
onto the icy edge of the road, but she must use her judgment to
actualize the PFD that is most relevant at the given moment. In
short, she must reflect on the situation and identify the ATCD in
order to take the actions associated with that duty.
According
to Ross, there are seven basic moral duties that we all share:
fidelity, a duty to the truth; reparation, a duty
to make amends for past wrongs; gratitude, a
duty of repayment for benefits received; justice,
a distribution of merit-based benefits;
beneficence, a duty to benefit others;
self-improvement, a duty to
develop as an intellectual and moral being; and
nonmaleficence, a duty to avoid harming others.6
Each PFD counts
as a reason to set a particular course of action. These
are not the only possible duties, but they are
the most basic, and other identifiable duties
are often either derived from or are combinations of these duties.7
In
order to understand how MP uses PFD to reach an ATCD, it might be
helpful to think of the metaphor of the scales of Lady Justice. In
any given case, each PFD is a
weight placed on the scale that will count for or
against doing any particular action, but in
themselves, those PFDs don't make the action
right or wrong.8
The duty-making feature that takes the collection of PFDs and makes
an ATCD is that one action has the greatest weight of PFDs supporting
that action.9
The PFDs tip the scales in favor of the morally-right duty.
There
may be some situations where one PFD is so weighty that it overrides
other duties, but that does not excuse them, and may
require other PFDs, like reparations for the overridden but
failed duty.10
An action is required as an ATCD when the
scales tip in favor of it, wrong if the scales tip in favor of
forbidding that action, and optional if the scales are either empty
of moral consideration, or evenly balanced.11
Actions that have no relevant PFDs are not moral decisions. When it
is evenly balanced, reason alone is not sufficient to decide the
matter, and something like preference under discretion is available
to the agent. Given the wide applicability of the PFDs, there may be
few non-trivial situations where there would be no morally relevant
details to consider. Even my car example is loaded with moral
considerations.
Where this gets complex is in deciding the moral
weight to give to each PFD, seeing that there is no underlying
principle that directs which is most important. The first step in
the decision process is to recognize that PFDs are not robust duties
that dictate the strict rightness/wrongness of an action, but are a
“nonlexical pluralism”, a collection of variably weighted
principles that convey rightness/wrongness, but not “exceptionless”
absolutes.12
To make decisions under these conditions requires that we exercise a
form of moral judgment, similar to that of aesthetic judgments, where
the precise nature of the decision process is dependent on the
features the observer identifies as having important bearing on the
ATCD.13
Like judging a work of art, the more complex a situation, the more
difficult judgments become.
To illustrate this, one need only
apply the theory to a complex case, like that of George the chemist.
George has a Ph.D. in Chemistry, but it is difficult to find work in
that field and his failing health prevents alternative lines of work.
His family is financially supported by his wife, while he attempts
to look after the children—a task made burdensome by his health.
He believes this situation is damaging to his family, especially the
well-being of his children. A more influential chemist offers to get
him work with a company that conducts research on Chemical and
Biological Warfare (CBW). George opposes this because he is against
CBW, but the job offer was, in part, a pretext to stop a competitor,
who has no such reservations, from getting the position. George's
wife, whose opinion he values, has no qualms about that type of
work.14
To
apply Ross' theory to the “George” case, one must consider which
of the PFDs apply to his situation. His feelings toward CBW could
have an impact on the PFD of fidelity. He may never be able to fully
support any project since the research aims to perfect CBW, assuming
that is the goal. It is possible that the lab might be developing
countermeasures, disposal methods, non-lethal alternatives, or other
projects that George might not find morally objectionable. In either
case, he would have the PFD to be honest to his potential employer as
to his willingness to engage in research to further CBW. This PFD
also extends to himself, that he honestly assess and properly
understand exactly what he finds objectionable, and what conditions
would have to be met for him to work in that field. That
self-knowledge is likely a PFD of self-improvement.
To proceed,
we'll need to make some assumptions about the scenario because it is
necessary to know the nation's stance on CBW before one can possibly
make a determination. If George were considering working for a State
that actively supported the use of CBW, then, excluding some extreme
circumstance, he would have a heavily weighted PFD of nonmaleficence
to refuse the job; alternatively,
based on a PFD of beneficence, he
would have an option for a supererogatory action
of taking the job to sabotage the State's efforts. While
there are many historical examples of individuals that have done
similar deeds, and were considered heroes for their efforts,15
there are just as many that have been executed as traitors and
terrorists. I don't believe sabotage could ever be considered an
ATCD, simply because it is arguably impossible to have a rational
duty that requires that degree of personal sacrifice, a complete
overriding or even disregard for all other current and future PFDs.16
Assuming
that George is capable of and seeking employment in the United States
or US-like hypothetical country, we can conclude that any research
that George would be doing would either be under the Biodefense
program or the continuing program to destroy chemical agents. That
is because of the ratification of all relevant treaties since 1997,
and the continuing operations to destroy all CBW agents in the US
arsenal, although this claim is not without controversy, as there are
continual conflicting reports of US CBW research activities.17
Past attitudes and treaties do not guarantee future actions and all
technological and scientific research have the potential to be
weaponized, or otherwise abused. Still, stopping all research out of
a PFD of nonmaleficence would
arguably do more harm than good, provided that researchers in
all fields remain
ethically engaged. In either case, the only way George could
truly know the character of the work is to be employed, which may
generate new PFDs as he becomes familiar with the realities of the
job. His PFD to fidelity (admitting to a future employer that he is
morally against CBW) might work against him becoming employed, or it
might work for him. Either way, how his interviewer will respond to
his moral objections is beyond his control, but that does not excuse
him from the PFD to report his misgivings.
If
the work is to generate new CBW agents, then he has a PFD of
nonmaleficence, as clearly as if he
were manufacturing bombs or bullets. Beyond
that, the high probability of non-conventional retaliation of any use
of a weapon of mass destruction is so high (America's Guaranteed
Second-Strike
policy) that aiding in the development of new weapons is contrary to
the welfare of oneself and one's family. If
the work is in Biodefense,
there may be a PFD of beneficence, because
it protects
people from CBW attacks. Either way, an outsider is not likely to
learn the truth, and government actions are not
the only considerations.
Seeking
work that improves his family's lot is supported by the PFD of
beneficence, and may carry a special weight given the cultural
requirements of tending to your own family's
needs. However, the PFD of fidelity requires
that he isolate the desire to work from stereotypical
heteronormative/sexist
behavior patterns that may
prejudice him against the current situation. If
both he and his wife are
equally capable parents and
income-providers,
this disposition must be
explained. The situation
seems to indicate that he is a less-capable
parent, but four PFDs might override that
consideration: fidelity, beneficence, justice,
and self-improvement.
The
general duty to the truth requires that he confirm why he is
considering employment in a field he finds
morally wrong. The PFD of beneficence applies to
his wife and children although in different ways. To
his wife he has the duties to benefit/support
her if she wishes to seek her
own career, and to materially
support her if they agree she should stay home with the children.
These overlap with the PFD of justice, and
perhaps a general PFD of
reparation, as gender roles
have been a serious challenge to equality for some time.
To
his children he owes the PFD
of beneficence to provide for
their needs and development, but this duty is
shared equally with his wife. While
he has the PFD of self-improvement, it
is not possible to know what experiences will improve ourselves the
most until after the fact. His
time as a stay-at-home dad may
be the best opportunity for
self-improvement that he will ever have, but
it is not likely to improve
his career. In the scenario it seems that he has
resolved these as he is
seeking work, but since this
course has led him to consider becoming complicit
in killing people, he should reconsider
everything that led him here.
Clearly,
there is far more to be said about this case. One could also examine
the PFDs George has to, and because of the influential chemist, or
expand the survey of PFDs to better capture all his duties, but space
here is limited. If George's government is seeking weapons, his PFD
of nonmaleficence should override
other considerations because the likely consequences of CBW are
extreme. However, if he lives in the modern world, were a majority
of nation-states have banned CBW, then research projects he is likely
to encounter will be in line with his general PFDs of nonmaleficence
and beneficence. All
relevant PFDs to his family are also
supported. By my reading of the situation, he
has the ATCD to pursue
the job with both eyes wide
open. Accepting the job requires that he stay
ethically engaged, or risk becoming complicit.
Bibliography
Collina,
Tom. 2013. “Chemical and
Biological Weapons Status at a Glance.” Arms Control
Today armscontrol.org.
Washington D.C.: The Arms Control Association.
Timmons,
Mark. 2013. Moral Theory: An Introduction. Kindle
Edition.
Plymouth: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
1 Timmons
2013, 244.
2 Timmons
2013, 246.
3 Timmons
2013, 246.
4 Timmons
2013, 247-248.
5 Timmons
2013, 253.
6 Timmons
2013, 249-250.
7 Timmons
2013, 250.
8 Timmons
2013, 251.
9 Timmons
2013, 252.
10 Timmons
2013, 252.
11 Timmons
2013, 253.
12 Timmons
2013, 253.
13 Timmons
2013, 254.
14 Assignment
prompt.
15 Here,
I think of people like Oskar Schindler and Chiune Sugihara saving
Jews during WWII, and Charles Hippolyte Labussiére
destroying court records necessary for executions during the French
Revolution. Many other names could be placed on this list.
16 The
full set of all current and future PFDs that will be failed then
entail further PFDs of reparations, which are also failed. An ATCD
that requires death or comparably long prison sentence seems to me
to lead to an infinite regress of failed duties. It is therefore
unintelligible to say that ATCD could be rational. It might
balance against all other current and future PFDs and allow for
preference under discretion to decide the case, but even that cannot
be fully rational.
17 Collina,
2013. “Chemical and Biological Weapons Status at a Glance”.
No comments:
Post a Comment