Ethics are increasingly a part of the school curriculum, and
practical introductory classes in applied ethics are part of the training that
nurses, scientists and soldiers undergo.
Ethical education is ubiquitous, even though it may not
always involve complicated theoretical debates – but should it include a dose
of philosophy? There are powerful reasons for looking to moral philosophy to
learn about real-world ethical action – and of course, there are risks too.
Why we can’t do without moral philosophy
Moral education draws on the philosophical method. This
method requires understanding concepts and distinctions, knowing what makes
arguments valid, and attending to counter-arguments. Those skills are vital in
the age-old business of moral argument, which involves considering moral
principles, appealing to reasons, and comparing analogous cases. Because moral
norms are not tangible or scientifically testable, we need conceptual clarity
to avoid talking past each other. How can we tell that this is important? Look
to the comments section of any article on social or political issues. You will
find countless accusations that others cannot argue properly, that they misrepresent
what their opponents are saying, or the selectively ignore relevant evidence.
As well, being philosophically consistent can prevent us
from making exceptions for ourselves (a common form of hypocrisy).
But why is moral argument itself a good thing? Moral
argument allows us to keep engaging with others even when we disagree about
values. Values are not simply “given”, but can turn out to be amenable to
reasoned discussion.
As well, moral philosophy also helps us question
unhelpful assumptions and informs us about the ways our values
connect to our descriptive beliefs, such as scientific hypotheses about human
psychology.
Finally, notwithstanding all the endless debates – and some
debates really have been going on for millennia – advances do occur. Natural
rights theories were philosophical systems long before human rights laws
protected people’s equal rights. Many would agree human rights constitute genuine moral
progress. Moral philosophy stands as an enduring record of what we have learnt
so far.
Moral philosophy empowers us through its method and
substance to reflect upon and talk about challenging moral issues. Studying
ethics can even propel a personal journey, where we learn about ourselves and
the way we think. We might even learn that others think in different ways.
The risks
While moral philosophy offers great promise, it also harbors threats we need to be aware of.
Moral philosophy tends to focus on areas of disagreement.
Applied ethics classes explore disputed issues such as abortion and euthanasia,
rather than discussing the many issues on which we all agree. Furthermore,
moral philosophy explores our reasons for being moral. But often we can agree
on the right thing to do even when we disagree on the underlying principles. Jacques Maritain captured
this theme during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
when he summed up the UNESCO philosophy group’s thoughts by saying: “Yes, we
agree about the rights, but on condition no-one asks us why”.
The further we follow the trail of breadcrumbs into
philosophical rabbit-warrens, the more morality threatens to become the domain
of experts. Once we move from basic moral argument to high theory, philosophy
becomes hard – an elite domain for those with the mental
aptitude and the time to master the extensive knowledge required. When the
philosophical going gets tough, those without this acquired expertise can
easily feel out of their depth. For them, philosophical argument may seem as
much a weapon of intimidation as a tool of mutual exploration.
There is another worry as well. Much moral philosophy
involves studying comprehensive moral theories, such as those fashioned by Aristotle (virtue
theory), Kant (deontology)
and Mill (utilitarianism).
Philosophers have good reasons to develop these complex systems. Theories
provide systematic ways of explaining, describing and justifying moral action. Simply
put, we cannot do moral philosophy without moral theories.
But full-blown philosophical theorizing harbors a darker
side. Accepting one theory means rejecting all the others, and the unique
insights they can offer. Further, because each theory’s advocates demand they
have reason to believe their theory, they can become intolerant. They might
demand that their arguments must be answered and (if not demonstrated as false)
accepted. They can be tempted to conclude that all non-believers are
unreasonable dogmatists. Worse still, sometimes courses can expose students to
just one type of moral theory, without learning about other alternatives. Far
from expanding those students’ moral horizons, exposure to high theory narrows
them.
Where to?
If moral education needs moral philosophy, and moral
philosophy needs high theory, how should we proceed? I offer just one
suggestion.
Most moral theories build on a core insight. Utilitarianism
tells us consequences for others’ wellbeing matter. Deontology stresses that
morality requires each person accepting they are duty-bound to act in certain
ways towards other people. Virtue theory reminds us that character drives
action, and that ethical life carries its own rewards. These insights all
provide valuable perspectives on the larger mosaic of human moral life. Moral
education is at its best when it introduces students to these different
perspectives, and their unique insights.
For ordinary people trying to think through practical moral
questions, it is the insights (and not the theories) that matter most.
This
blogpost (in a slightly altered form) was originally published in The
Conversation: http://theconversation.com/why-moral-education-should-involve-moral-philosophy-31675
