ETHICS

Canadian Dictionary, cited in "Ethics 101", a column in The Globe and Mail newspaper

The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), the writers of the American Declaration of Independence, and the Russian-American novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982) believed in the existence of objective natural human individual rights. I do not; at least as they seem to. And I am dubious about universal moralities.

And yet I believe in ethics. How is this possible?

What is ethics? And what is morality, that other word which seems to mean about the same?

Ethics is, I think -- first -- the name for a branch of philosophy often thought of (in the past) as a science. (A science, remember, used to be the name for an organized body or field of knowledge.) This particular branch of philosophy attempts to deal with right human conduct.

Second, ethics is also (like the quotation above says) a name for sets of principles within that science: these sets of principles attempt to provide codes of right human behaviour.

So ethics is the science or study of right conduct forming an important branch of philosophy, and also sets of principles within that branch that attempt to guide human beings aright.

# # #

Now you will notice that I have always mentioned ethics in a human context. For ethics applies, on the Earth, only to human beings. As the Russian-American novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982) used to point out,¹ ethics are unnecessary for brute animals. They have instincts (or as we tend to say nowadays, genetic programming) to guide them: they do not need codes of ethics. For they have no free will (presumably). But human beings are alleged to have free will. (At least, in Ayn Rand's philosophy they have.) And if this is so, human beings therefore have the power that animals do not, namely to make choices what to do in given situations. In similar situations animals would not choose, but would act automatically (we believe).

# # #

In general, what choices should human beings make?

Let us say that a human being makes a choice, and this choice results in its death. Obviously, from then on he or she can make no further decisions.

But suppose the human being instead makes a choice which does not result in its death. Its life therefore continues. And thus the human being continues to have choices.

So . . . the ultimate question seems to be:

Since a human being seems to have the power to choose its own death, should it ever do so?

For most human beings life is pleasant and gratifying. From time to time good things happen. One has a nice meal. One gets stroked or hugged. One makes love. One becomes pleasantly involved with other human beings and animals, and is gratified thereby. Or one has the pleasure of gratifying one's curiosity, and the pleasures of accomplishment in a career. And from time to time, one simply feels blessedly happy whether one deserves it or not.

But . . . life also involves pain.

From time to time one suffers painful losses. An embarrassing incident happens. One's business fails. A parent or child, relative or friend dies. One suffers an illness, or the pain of injuries or burns. One loses one's house in a fire.

From time to time dreadful things happen in life, and even to good people.

One may be staggered by these losses. They may come as heavy blows, one after another.

One may even fall into the hands of one's enemies. One may fall ill with a terminal illness that progresses steadily, debilitatingly, painfully.

At a certain point one may realize that one is never going to recover from the illness, pain, or injury of one's situation. As an aunt of mine said, as she lay dying of cancer, "Sometimes I wish it were over."

Perhaps one feels one's work is accomplished. Perhaps one feels (as a prisoner of war might feel) that continuing one's life will expose others to danger.

For these special reasons, these special circumstances, the decision to bring about one's own death in a painless way may seem logical. It may even be logical.

So -- in special circumstances like these -- one might logically choose to bring about one's own death.

But these circumstances are exceptional in human life.

So, since life is usually gratifying, for this reason I see no reason for a healthy, free human to make a choice that would result in its death. In nearly every situation in human life the choice to live is the logical, the rational choice.

# # #

What is involved in choosing life?

Well, first there is getting an orientation in the world. (See my discussion of why this is so important.)

But then there is a question of choosing a life; that is, choosing a productive occupation or vocation: right livelihood, as the Buddhists call it.

[To Be Continued and Revised]

Notes

¹The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet Books, pg. (softcover edition).

Important Books on Ethics

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Numerous editions.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy of Morals, translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vantage Books, 1970.

Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: New American Library, 1964.

Articles and essays. Rand's best statement of her egoistic ethics.

Home | About Grant | What's New | Links | Coming Soon | Send E-Mail

Last modified: 4:15 PM 3/4/2002