By Barry Newman
Barry is a retired intensive care consultant and a Humanists UK accredited schools speaker. In this article, he outlines the main philosophical ethical theories and how these might help humanists to solve ethical dilemmas. At the end of the article, we asked AI to analyse a moral dilemma.
The term “values” has a range of meanings but here is meant those principles on which ethical or moral decisions are made. To some extent, humanity divides itself into groups of individuals who share similar values. Humanists hold a common set of what we believe to be core values. These include respect for human autonomy, promotion of personal flourishing which includes constructing and maintaining a fair and just society, upholding of human rights, care for the environment and respecting the law where it serves these principles.
“Morals” or “ethics” are terms that are generally held to be identical in meaning and therefore interchangeable. They refer to behaviours that are considered to be right or wrong in a society. The question as to whether there are moral principles that are timeless and entirely independent of circumstances is an ancient one, and one that has yet to be answered.
Some religions attempt to define universal and timeless moral rules on the basis of directions from a deity and transmitted through holy texts, revelations and dogmas, called Divine Law. A fundamental difference between religions and humanism is that humanists hold that morality emanates entirely from us – humans. The humanist claim is that we are “moral agents”, not because we act with moral perfection, but because we believe that humans are intrinsically able to distinguish right from wrong acts by applying the attributes of empathy and reason to construct a moral framework.
“Empathy” assumes that we can accurately determine the experiences of others and reliably act in their interests by interpreting these through our own – certainly a false claim. “Reason” includes reference to the largely Western tradition of secular moral philosophy. “Moral philosophy” in turn refers to the ruminations and opinions of those intellects who have recorded their thoughts on right and wrong, a tradition spanning some 2,500 years. These intellects include some of the iconic figures of Western culture. So what have they given us?
Virtue ethics
It is commonly observed that Western moral philosophy has yielded three principal concepts. Historically speaking, virtue ethics was probably the first. This concept holds that acting morally is achieved through living a virtuous life. Virtue ethics does not attempt to answer the question “How should I act?” but rather “How should I live?”. And by living a virtuous life one naturally acts morally in most situations. Classical virtue ethics claims that virtue can be trained into someone so that virtuous behaviour becomes instinctive or natural, occurring without analytical thought. Virtue is not attributed on the basis of a single action or set of actions, but as a life of consistent responses to a wide variety of experiences. The assessment as to whether a person was virtuous and therefore moral is a retrospective one and is therefore made after death.
Duty ethics
The second philosophical model of determining right or moral acts is referred to as deontology (from the Greek word deon meaning duty). This involves determining universal moral rules, which one has a duty or obligation to obey, on the basis of logic. While it would be wonderful to establish timeless moral rules that are absolute – always correct and applicable under any circumstance – in reality, this seems impossible. In her influential essay in the late 1950s, the Cambridge philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe (Margaret Anscombe) critiqued the use of deontological concepts of duty and obligation, arguing that such notions must be grounded in a higher authority or lawgiver. She pointed out that it is logically inconsistent to speak of obligations and duties without implying a relationship to someone to whom those duties are owed, highlighting that the modern use of these terms was implicitly dependent on theistic assumptions. This observation, along with the fact that no universal moral rules (such as Kant’s "categorical imperatives") have been established solely through rational thought, suggests that deontology alone cannot serve as a source of morality.
Consequentialism
Finally, there is a moral framework that defines a moral or correct act as one that has the best outcomes or consequences. Not surprisingly, this framework is called consequentialism, of which utilitarianism is a subtype. But consequences are subject to influences over which the agent (you or me) can have no control and which can change an intended good outcome into an awful one! Proponents of consequentialism, and particularly utilitarianism, construct various arguments to get around this flaw, but I believe that these defences are weak and easily overcome by the fact that life is messy and one’s good intentions often do not yield good outcomes.
So where do these three imperfect moral theories leave us humanists trying to apply our reason to identify the right acts? I suggest that determining morality through reason requires us to accept the inadequacies of these moral theories and to accept that moral perfection is not achievable. The search for the right acts is a journey of discovery without end, in which we should use all the tools and techniques at our disposal. To this end, virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism may be seen as imperfect parts of a whole. No moral decision can be made without the intent to strive for the right moral answer. And we must recognise that moral rules have their place in our moral arsenal. Of course, we must always consider the consequences of our acts, even if the actual consequences may not be what we intended. And as humanists, we should envelop these three complementary moral approaches in a blanket of empathy.
While this formula may seem clumsy and unreliable, it seems to be the best we have, and using the best we have is the best we can do. Humans are a confused and confusing mix of conflicting traits, emotions and ambitions. We ought to strive do the right thing and use whatever tools come to hand to achieve this. And hope that we get it right – most of the time.
Case study question analysed by AI
Should a son put his career on hold to care for his elderly parent who has had a stroke and would probably be unhappy in a care home, considering he has no children, and his partner's salary could support them financially? Analyse this moral dilemma using virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism.
Under virtue ethics, putting his career on hold would be morally praiseworthy, as it reflects good character and the desire to act with empathy and love. However, the son would also need to balance this with the virtue of prudence (practical wisdom) to ensure that his decision does not lead to resentment or harm his well-being in the long run.
If the son believes it is his duty to care for his parent in order to uphold moral obligations and respect family commitments, he would put his career on hold. The concept of treating others as ends in themselves aligns with the idea that the parent should be valued and cared for personally rather than being placed in a situation where their well-being might be compromised. However, if there is a competing duty to maintain his career or contribute to society, he would need to weigh these duties accordingly.
Under consequentialism, if the benefits (e.g., the parent’s well-being and the son’s sense of fulfilment) outweigh the potential negative consequences (e.g., career loss or personal strain), the son should care for his parent. Conversely, if the net happiness is higher when using a care home with some adjustments to improve the parent's comfort, that might be the more ethical choice.
Each moral theory provides valid insights. Virtue ethics and deontology would likely advocate for the son putting his career on hold to care for his parent, emphasising personal duty and virtuous action. Consequentialism might align with this choice if it leads to the best outcome but also allows for the possibility of alternative solutions if they produce greater overall well-being. Ultimately, the decision would rest on balancing these moral considerations with the practical aspects of the son’s life, ensuring that whatever choice he makes is both ethical and sustainable for him and his family.
An editor’s comment on ChatGPT’s performance
“I think the responses have insufficient regard for the partner’s position, and a proper response would consider how long the situation is likely to last, and future deterioration in the parent’s health and capabilities, and changes in the circumstances of the partner. And suppose they wanted to have a child during the period the son is caring for his father? But this is a reflection on the shortcomings of the prompt as worded above. This shows the importance of wording prompts carefully, and following up responses that invite further prompts.”
Comments