In other words, another thread on situational ethics!
I’ll start by saying that I dislike the term situation ethics because the first thing that comes to most person’s minds upon hearing it is “The end justifies the means”. I would say, rather, that the end must justify the means–that is, one must always take into account the foreseeable and probable result of an action to determine whether that action is good, neutral, or evil.* The result isn’t the only thing that must be considered, of course–motive counts as well, and the rights** of other persons–but it’s the most important.
Consider the case of Tony and Genie. If Tony, one night, inserts his penis into Genie’s vagina and moves it rhythmically back and forth until he ejaculates, is that a good act, an evil one, or a neutral one?
To me it’s obvious that no answer is positive without a context. If Genie and Tony are in a committed relationship, for instance, and have both consented, and are making love both for the physical pleasure it provides and also in hopes of conceiving a child, I would call that a categorical good. If they just met in a club half an hour earlier and neither wants anything more from the other than an orgasm, and neither says anything to the other to imply anything different, the sex is neutral. If they met in that bar and Tony spiked Genie’s appletini with a roofie, and she is unconscious throughout, then Tony has committed an evil act; and if he overpowers her by force, it’s evil more evil.
Only by providing context can we ascribe any moral value to the act. This is likewise true of speeding, double-parking, lying, killing, and so forth.
I think almost everyone would agree in general, I’m not sure what the point is though. Do you have some category or type of person in mind who you would expect to disagree? What would their argument be?
Also, to nitpick, I’m not sure why consensual sex for pleasure would be neutral rather than positive based on the length of time that the people have been acquainted. I’m also unclear on why rape by force is more evil than rape by drugging.
I could name some specific posters whom I think will disagree, but I won’t. As for categories of persons: how about believers in Kantian ethics?
First, Because I define evil as the deliberate, avoidable, and unjust infliction of harm to another person, or the violation of that person’s rights in a way not outweighed by the good caused by the action; and, second, because more harm is done by a forceful rape than by a drug rape. In my example above, let’s say that Genie was given Rohypnol, which not only causes unconsciosness but also loss of memory. As a result, she was during the rape and does not remember the half-hour before. Her trauma is likely to be less than, say, Lucy’s, who is forced to submit by the threat of a beating, and who is conscious of being violated the entire time; and, in turn, Lucy’s trauma is less than Kat’s, who is beaten on top of being threatened and raped.
So you think that someone might show up and argue that sexual intercourse is always evil (surely it can’t be always good!). I wish one of them would show because this seems completely indefensible.
One problem is that your definition of evil is not the same as everyone elses. Some consider the infliction of suffering on sentient creatures and the violation of those creature’s boundaries and rights to be the utmost evil. Some consider it less of an evil, but consider attacks on social organizations (like the institution of marriage) to be evil.
As an example, Al Qaeda is just as convinced that they are fighting an evil force as we are.
In fact (not to bash right wingers or draw a comparison) but you can make the argument that Al Qaeda is just a right wing terror organization like the KKK. Their motives are xenophobia, a fear of a loss of cultural identity, feelings of impotent rage against an all powerful enemy, and fear of radical changes and radical egalitarianism in the social and economic systems. They want to revert back to an age of inequality, religious theocracy and a far simpler life with fewer shades of gray.
I say they are a right wing terror organization because those motives (xenophobia, fear of change, fear of egalitarianism, fear of a loss of culture, fear of interlopers destroying their cultural identity) also motivate people in the US on the far right who are the biggest opponents of groups like Al Qaeda.
So you have a situation where the psychological makeup of 2 groups seems to be similar, both are comfortable with killing, but both are convinced that the other is evil and they are good.
As an addendum, some people have lower fear tolerance than others. I have heard it theorized that this explains a good part of liberal/conservative dichotomies. As a generic stereotype, liberals are less afraid of threats and change.
I’m not saying that to attack conservatives, but to make a point.
People who are more conservative, because of the higher fear response, tend to become more dependent on authority figures (especially aggressive and protective authority figures like the police and military), as well as more afraid of radical changes. People desire a sense of stability during times of stress. As a result you end up with people who are very enamored of the military, and who react with passionate aggression towards anyone who wants to enact social change because these changes make it harder for them to be dependent on ‘their’ America for a sense of security and stability. Also, you see massive far right conservative uprisings during times of massive changes. The KKK came to power during the reconstruction in the 1860s, during the 1920s during immigration and women’s rights as well as the 1960s during women’s rights, minority rights and the hippie movement. You also see this internationally with the rise of right wing dictators during times of domestic crisis who sometimes have large popular movements behind them.
So who is evil? Is the person who is dependent on consistency and conformity for a sense of security a person who is evil for defending those institutions, even if it means making other people (as an example, members of the GLBT community) feel less wanted and welcome?
Or are the liberals who want to enact those changes and do not care if it rips conservatives security blanket away evil?
While there are some (many) acts that fit the moral relativism or contextual approach, I don’t think that applies to everything. You’ve picked on the sex act as your example, and agreed that can be “good” or “evil” depending on what surrounds it.
However, if my example is “Adult male rapes a six-year old child and murders her,” then I’m hard pressed to invent a context for which this is “good” or “morally neutral.” If my example is, “Woman hands out food to starving children in third world country,” then I’m hard pressed to invent a context in which this is “evil” or “morally neutral.” (I suppose, if the food contains rat poison, say, but then you’re changing the conditions beyond the description.)
So, while I’m certainly in agreement that ethics are largely contextual, I don’t think that they’re ALWAYS contextual.
I think it more likely that someone would argue that lying is always evil, or killing is. Someone who doesn’t think Immanuel Kant was a nitwit.
Dex, the problem with your counter-examples is that you are supplying context to the acts, which is the very thing I assert is required to move the act from null moral value to good, evil, or netural. Note the example from the OP:Tony … inserts his penis into Genie’s vagina and moves it rhythmically back and forth until he ejaculates. I didn’t phrase it that way by accident. When you say “Woman hands out food to starving children in third world country,” you are specifying the circumstances enough so that we can make a judgment. (A provisional judgment, of course; the more information we have on the circumstances, the better we can judge, as you concede with your poison qualifier.
I withhold drawing any conclusions (yet) on your overall point but, on this specific example, Hitchens has a lot to say (cite from slate) on women who hand out food in third world countries - he does not agree that it is a good thing at all. Oh no.
Thanks for the link. It cleared up the distinction between moral relativism and moral contextualism for me. I was pretty sure that I am not a moral relativist. Now I am certain.
The ‘torture’ example in the article is a good one. I am absolutist on torture and I wonder how many self-proclaimed moral absolutists supported torture in recent years.
I can’t think of many other acts that I am equally absolutist about…rape maybe?
So, put me down for “no action has any moral value outside of a specific context - except rape and torture”.
I was going to predict that you would say that but I decided to let you have the satisfaction
Certainly “rape” provides context. I’ll reluctantly grant you that. But torture?
Unless you are claiming that torture is wrong by definition, maybe?
Also I disagree on murder. I can think of contexts where murder would be moral (even if it were still illegal). Dr House covered this recently with the murder of an African dictator.
Sure. If I cut you with a scalpel while you’re under anesthesia because your appendix is about to burst and take you to join the choir invisible, it’s surgery. If I do the same thing, sans anesthesia, to get you to tell me where the plutonium is, it’s torture.
Context. Torture is the infliction of severe pain as a punishment or as a mean of interrogation or persuasion. Adding the qualifiers is adding context.
I would say that in addition to what Skald said, one would simply be accused of having a poor imagination if we cannot envision ANY evil in those contexts.
Mother Teresa has been criticized for her charity work because she was a staunch opponent of abortion even in the poor countries that she did much of her work. In this case, one can easily imagine charity work with an anti-choice message, and charity work without it. It doesn’t make her evil necessarily, but it makes her actions suspect
As for the rape and murder of the girl, suppose that act saves a hundred lives, what then? And one of those lives is a scientist who has the cure to AIDS.
