What were you thinking?

31 Oct 2013

By The Record

How we can act morally: The Scottish, Catholic philospher Alistair MacInyre, above, a leading proponent of Virtue Ethics.

By Geetanjali Arora

Discussions about difficult ethical questions have abounded for me recently.

Sadly, a tete-a-tete I was having with one person about the vexed issue of euthanasia disintegrated all too quickly.

It gradually dawned on me as the conversation progressed that the other party had very little understanding of the ethical model she was appealing to, that is, she had no idea how to look at what the (morally) right thing to do was.

For most Catholics, the thing that makes euthanasia so abhorrent is that it is viewed as identical to committing an act of murder, the person in question actually dies. The truth of the situation is merely repackaged and labelled differently, so that it looks nicer.

So what philosophical models of thinking can we use to assess euthanasia, or any other moral issue for that matter?

Throughout history, almost every possible response to this question has been categorised into one of three ethical positions.

Some people may feel inclined to act based upon a set of rules, others will focus on possible consequences, and others again on the virtue of the action in question.

The first view is known as Deontology; the second, Consequentionalism; and, finally, Virtue Ethics.

Deontology

The term is derived from the Ancient Greek deont, meaning ‘necessity’ or ‘duty’, and logia, meaning ‘discourse’.

It is an ethical position which looks for what necessarily must be done; a position which holds that there is a set of rules which you must obey in order for your actions to be moral.

It seems relatively easy: there are rules, we follow them and, in doing so, we are acting morally.

Well, OK, but what are the rules? This is where disagreement usually starts, particularly when it comes to euthanasia.

For example, a rule may be, “treat each person according to their intrinsic dignity”.

For you, that might mean, “let the person die with some dignity, let her choose to go while she can still function normally in some way”.

I may disagree and say “no, that means that we must value human life above all, even if the person can no longer function on her own”.

What has happened here is that the discussion has boiled down to a difference in values, not ethics; the values used to arrive at, and in applying, the rule.

The Christian, at this point in our hypothetical discussion, should explain Christian values, where they come from and why they’re good values to adopt.

You can then explain the basic rule in Christianity, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Matt 7:12) and the rich tapestry of values which underpin it.

The best known exponent of Deontology was Immanuel Kant, hence the name of the sub-field  ‘Kantian Ethics’.

Consequentialism

This is the most popular ethical viewpoint today. It is quite slippery because it does not focus on the action itself, but rather the consequences of an action, as the name indicates.

That is, the moral worth of an action depends on its outcome, and whether it is the best possible outcome.

This is quite a nice view, after all, we’re just working together for the overall good of mankind.

So, does euthanasia contribute to the overall good of mankind?

Someone may say yes, since it reduces suffering or the burden on the medical system.

Others will say no, because what is fundamentally good is life, and in this scenario you’re eliminating life.

The issue that we’ve come across here is that the words ‘good’ and ‘best’ (the superlative of good) don’t really mean anything on their own.

We don’t really disagree with the fact that consequences are worth considering, simply how to judge what the best outcome is.

Some people will argue that the ‘good’ we’re working towards is pleasure, others may say happiness or even the most useful outcome.

Once you can show that the focus of your discussion is, once again, values, not ethics, you’re set.

As an aside, this is the view that most easily allows for euthanasia to be seen as morally good, since it is quite easy to adopt values such as ‘minimising pain’ or ‘suffering’ as your overall good, and show that euthanasia does this.

The Christian’s duty is to explain why these values are not the ultimate good, and conversely, what is, from our point of view.

If you’d like to do some further reading, JS Mill has a very interesting construction where he considers the ultimate good to be the most useful outcome: this view is known as Utilitarianism.

Virtue Ethics

This ethical system is quite old, in fact Aristotle came up with it. It differs from the other two systems in that it focuses on the virtue of the moral act.

Here, it is not your motivation/rule or the consequence which is evaluated but the action itself.

Put simply, this take on ethics encourages you to act in accordance with virtue.

Excellent, let’s get back to euthanasia.  Is euthanasia virtuous?  Well, that really depends on how you define your virtues.

By now you should have noticed the pattern, just as you needed a value system for the rule in Deontology and to determine the ultimate good in Consequentionalism, you also need a system of values to determine what your virtues are in Virtue Ethics.

Euthanasia may be seen as both compassionate and cowardly, because in your compassion you wish to end the suffering of someone else, but you lack the courage to see the illness to the end.

On the other hand, perhaps it is more cowardly to keep someone alive if you lack the courage to end her life.

Here, the virtue courage actually conflicts with itself depending on your reading of the situation.

If only we truly knew what the virtues are! But we don’t. Aristotle has quite an amazing guide to virtues but, of course, his entire discussion, even the fact that all virtues are some skewed midpoint between two excesses, depends on his values and perception of the world.

The Christian Virtue Ethicist, just as the Deontologist and Consequentionalist, needs to do some work for himself.

He needs to understand what Christian values are, and then discern how these values translate into virtues.

I’ve tried very hard to be unbiased in my explanations on the various ethical systems, but I do have to say that Virtue Ethics is my favourite.

It has the same issue as the other two: you need to insert personal values in order to make the ethical system make sense but, in addition, it addresses the moral worth of the action itself.

Deontology focuses on motivations – rules by which you decide that euthanasia is (im)moral.

Consequentionalism looks to the outcomes, the consequence(s) of euthanasia, but neither really looks at what actually happens in the same way as Virtue Ethics.

Virtue Ethics would consider whether the act of aiding a sick person who wishes to die, to die, is virtuous or not, regardless of the motivations or consequences.

Regardless of which system you sympathise with, remember, the truly important thing in any ethical discussion is your values.

If you can reduce a conversation to one about values (as above), and Christian values in particular, giving clear explanations as to why Christians, and yourself in particular, adopt these values, you’re more than half way there.