Friday, June 23, 2006

On morality and being a bastard

I was briefly bought up to speed by a Persian recently. Basically there's three schools:

Consequentialism - produces two subsets which form the first two schools:

Egoism - 'Ed justifies the means' Machiavellian logic can be interpreted as 'I don't care how I achieve it so long as I recieve my payload' but I wrote earlier that this isn't a proposal of immoral behaviour as justified it simply states that with an aspiration to an outcome you interpret to be morally consistent the means employed to get there do not matter.

Utilitarianism - 'The greatest good for the greatest number' most famous promoter is John Stuart Mill but who raises the limitation of such moral codes. Good example of limitations is Nazi Germany. Basically the inverse application of the same concept as egoism where you determine what is morally consistent by observing those around you and choosing your behaviour according to the greatest number of stakeholders. Which of course gives rise to the tyranny of the majority whic in the age of A Current Affair and Today Tonight in prime time and phone in polls becomes more and more of a concern.

Deontology is the seperate third school worked heavily on by Emmanual Kant - operating out of a sense of duty, a fundemental understanding of right and wrong. Note it disregards consequences. Relying on moral imperitives and intuition for example you just couldn't kill a man in perfect health undergoing a minor procedure to use his organs to save four terminally ill patients awaiting donors

I remember in my year eight philosophy class (ah the advantages of a private education) we got given the hypothetical: you are a train driver coming into the docking yard. At the last minute you notice a janitor is sweeping the tracks (?) it is too late to brake or alert him however you have a split second to change tracks. Then you notice some kids are playing on the other tracks. What do you do?

Now my teacher just about ripped his hair out as we collectively tried to find every loop hole out of the predicament 'derail' 'sound the horn' you know and ultimately the writer of the hypothetical is to blame for leaving it so full of holes.
I think hardcore Tohm at the time said 'Kill the kids, they know they're not supposed to play on the tracks' a disciplinary code my grandmother probably agrees with. But if you observe the three codes they all can be consistent with eachother:
egoism - it feels relatively better to kill a janitor than children and probably less people to explain my actions to.
utilitarianism - I assume less people will be hurt by killing a grown janitor than three children
deontology - children are the future and I cannot kill them to save the life of another.

Although I imagine each from each school could argue cases for all the choices and I must admit I am lay in the morale schools like most of the people of influence in the world (read: I don't do anything more influential than write this poorly punctuated blog)
Infact if you are interested in ethics in the workplace take this survey to help them out. Most corportions operate on a variation of the golden rule most common response from CEO's was ethical conduct is 'what feels right to me' reassuring isn't it.

I must admit there are certain immoral behaviours I fully endorse. Eating the last potatoe gem off of someone else's plate. Drawing penis's all through someone's notebook/textbook they leave in the commonroom. Stuffing someone's glasses in your underpants while they are not looking. Grinding your ass on someone who's homophobic's crotch. The wet willie.

Harmless little things that over time snowball and do major emotional damage to the most frequent recipients.

So what's my opinion, I say use them all, fuck it why not. From various board meetings and strategic meetings and readings on stuff n shit generally the best decisions are made not by following a formalised set of moral behaviour but by considering as many stakeholders as you can concieve of, over the longest possible time frame and then finding a way that everyone can prosper.

No comments: