principles
Periodically, I think about principles and how they--and their lack--influence our behavior. The intellectual difficulties are greatest, I find, when there are competing goods although there can be huge practical issues even when the ethical issue itself seems clear-cut.
When I was young (high school and younger, I guess), I tried to develop a set of self-consistent moral principles to guide my behavior and then act on them. I recall having been more successful than most of my peers in adhering to them although obviously there were times I fell short. My principles were not called into action much in college and graduate school as I recall. From the standpoint of moral/practical conundra, those were fairly straight-forward times--at least in terms both of what came before and what came afterward.
My first big challenge (as I recall) came when I started teaching at sjs. There was a large cheating scandal on take-home, multiple-choice math tests that I broke open. The issue there was ethical vs practical. It was essentially analogous to the "too big to fail" argument that led Chrysler to be given its original set of government-guaranteed loans many years ago and that led to the Savings and Loan bailout awhile back. (As perhaps none of you remember the S&L scandal, no doubt "awhile back" means different things to me than to most of you...)
There were more issues when I was Head of Upper School, though none of that breadth. As I had to deal with more and more of these cases (or perhaps just as I got older), I sometimes had more trouble balancing individual and societal goods. I think most of the decisions that I made (many of the cases those of you from sjs would remember had outcomes that were not actually decided by me)were good though as was apparent when there are other division heads whose decisions could be compared to mine, they're not necessarily the ones others would make.
My point (yes, there is one, for those of you still reading) is that after much reflection shaped by readings of history and my own decisions in my life I have become skeptical of those who make decisions "by principle" and at least equally skeptical of those who don't. I am particularly skeptical of the common practice of using principles as an excuse for not thinking. Especially if one includes under the general heading of "principles" religious tenets/mandates, as I think one should, then acting on principle can lead to appallingly (in my opinion) inhumane actions. Consider "honor killings" as just one example. Or the actions of some of the Spanish inquisitors. Lord Acton was definitely right, though that's a post for another day.
On the other hand, those who are without principles (I exclude the tenet of "whatever it takes to get me what I want" as a "principle" in the sense I'm using the word) to guide them can be equally appalling in their behavior. Lenin and Stalin come to mind as exemplars you might know from history readings. There are some obvious either contemporary or recent (i.e., in the last ten years)examples in the political and business arenas, but it would be indiscreet to name names--and we might have different names, anyway. But I think the key for the purposes of what I'm writing now is that we would all have some names...
So, assuming you actually want your behavior to be at least occasionally influenced by thoughtful consideration (although from a pragmatic basis, one might easily question why you should want that), the question must be how does one best acquire and live by one's principles? And when (if ever) does one admit exceptions? And how does one make those judgments in a reasonably consistent framework?
It seems to me that these questions are another way of asking what are one's responsibilities to self and one's responsibilities to others? ("Others" might include god, one's society, and in general things/people/beings outside oneself, not just (but not excluding, either) one's family, friends, peers.) (I used to teach an English course with that theme, btw)
The golden rule is perhaps a good starting place, but it takes us less far than you might think. For one thing, what others need/want in certain circumstances isn't necessarily what we need/want. For another, what we need and what we want aren't necessarily the same. For a third, there is often a conflict between different things that we need--or different things that we want.
As the King (in "The King and I") said, "Is a puzzlement."
Passivity is not, to my mind, an acceptable answer. (For those of you who are sheep, the existentialists agree with this position--as do the three major western religions.) It's generally good, I think, not to impose one's values on others who don't (want to) share them. On the other hand, not to act against others when their own actions, perhaps justified by or even demanded by their own principles, are harming others too much can also be bad, I think. What is "too much", though? And who decides?
When is one justified in stepping back and saying, "Hey, I believe in individual freedom, so I'm not going to try to influence the actions of others"? While that attitude can be humane, it can also result in people who stand aside and do nothing when something needs doing.
So, we're in the awkward position of not having an unequivocal guide to moral/ethical action (unless we are willing to foist the consequences of our actions or inactions on others--from the "God tells me to do thus-and-so" to "Hey, everybody does it") while simultaneously not being permitted the freedom (I would call it "license" or "self-indulgence") to do nothing.
When I was young (high school and younger, I guess), I tried to develop a set of self-consistent moral principles to guide my behavior and then act on them. I recall having been more successful than most of my peers in adhering to them although obviously there were times I fell short. My principles were not called into action much in college and graduate school as I recall. From the standpoint of moral/practical conundra, those were fairly straight-forward times--at least in terms both of what came before and what came afterward.
My first big challenge (as I recall) came when I started teaching at sjs. There was a large cheating scandal on take-home, multiple-choice math tests that I broke open. The issue there was ethical vs practical. It was essentially analogous to the "too big to fail" argument that led Chrysler to be given its original set of government-guaranteed loans many years ago and that led to the Savings and Loan bailout awhile back. (As perhaps none of you remember the S&L scandal, no doubt "awhile back" means different things to me than to most of you...)
There were more issues when I was Head of Upper School, though none of that breadth. As I had to deal with more and more of these cases (or perhaps just as I got older), I sometimes had more trouble balancing individual and societal goods. I think most of the decisions that I made (many of the cases those of you from sjs would remember had outcomes that were not actually decided by me)were good though as was apparent when there are other division heads whose decisions could be compared to mine, they're not necessarily the ones others would make.
My point (yes, there is one, for those of you still reading) is that after much reflection shaped by readings of history and my own decisions in my life I have become skeptical of those who make decisions "by principle" and at least equally skeptical of those who don't. I am particularly skeptical of the common practice of using principles as an excuse for not thinking. Especially if one includes under the general heading of "principles" religious tenets/mandates, as I think one should, then acting on principle can lead to appallingly (in my opinion) inhumane actions. Consider "honor killings" as just one example. Or the actions of some of the Spanish inquisitors. Lord Acton was definitely right, though that's a post for another day.
On the other hand, those who are without principles (I exclude the tenet of "whatever it takes to get me what I want" as a "principle" in the sense I'm using the word) to guide them can be equally appalling in their behavior. Lenin and Stalin come to mind as exemplars you might know from history readings. There are some obvious either contemporary or recent (i.e., in the last ten years)examples in the political and business arenas, but it would be indiscreet to name names--and we might have different names, anyway. But I think the key for the purposes of what I'm writing now is that we would all have some names...
So, assuming you actually want your behavior to be at least occasionally influenced by thoughtful consideration (although from a pragmatic basis, one might easily question why you should want that), the question must be how does one best acquire and live by one's principles? And when (if ever) does one admit exceptions? And how does one make those judgments in a reasonably consistent framework?
It seems to me that these questions are another way of asking what are one's responsibilities to self and one's responsibilities to others? ("Others" might include god, one's society, and in general things/people/beings outside oneself, not just (but not excluding, either) one's family, friends, peers.) (I used to teach an English course with that theme, btw)
The golden rule is perhaps a good starting place, but it takes us less far than you might think. For one thing, what others need/want in certain circumstances isn't necessarily what we need/want. For another, what we need and what we want aren't necessarily the same. For a third, there is often a conflict between different things that we need--or different things that we want.
As the King (in "The King and I") said, "Is a puzzlement."
Passivity is not, to my mind, an acceptable answer. (For those of you who are sheep, the existentialists agree with this position--as do the three major western religions.) It's generally good, I think, not to impose one's values on others who don't (want to) share them. On the other hand, not to act against others when their own actions, perhaps justified by or even demanded by their own principles, are harming others too much can also be bad, I think. What is "too much", though? And who decides?
When is one justified in stepping back and saying, "Hey, I believe in individual freedom, so I'm not going to try to influence the actions of others"? While that attitude can be humane, it can also result in people who stand aside and do nothing when something needs doing.
So, we're in the awkward position of not having an unequivocal guide to moral/ethical action (unless we are willing to foist the consequences of our actions or inactions on others--from the "God tells me to do thus-and-so" to "Hey, everybody does it") while simultaneously not being permitted the freedom (I would call it "license" or "self-indulgence") to do nothing.