Download When Rights Conflict

Prof. dr. sc. Maja Zitinski
University of Dubrovnik
Cira Carica 4
20000 Dubrovnik
Hrvatska
Tel: 38520/445734, 38520/450115
GSM 38591/5508563
Fax: 38520/435590
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
The 4th Annual International Scientific Conference
»The Lošinj Days of Bioethics«
Main topic: »Bioethics and the New Era«
Croatian Association of Philosophy - Section for Bioethics, Mali Lošinj, Croatia
June 13th – 15th, 2005
When Rights Conflict
Summary
The paper investigates why impartiality or rationality are ideals worth striving for. It deals not only
with an inquiry into normative ethical search for valid moral principles, but also for the meaning of
key meta-ethical concepts such as “autonomy” and “rights”. The portrait of the ideal moral
judgment plays an important role in the examination of both: our own views and the views of
others. Bioethical genuine quest for a correct method all moral agents ought morally to be guided
while answering moral questions, refers to the conviction that coming as close as possible to
fulfilling the ideal moral judgment is rational. Rights themselves are distinctive moral
“commodities”, that is, to have a right to anything means to have a very strong moral and legal
claim upon it. It is the strongest of all moral claims that all men can assert. Since human rights
must be possessed by all human beings and only by human beings, it would be irrational to
distinguish among persons, deny human equity and preserve rights only for the few. Rights entail
objects and areas within which every human being is entitled to act without further permission or
assent. Some philosophers point out to the important connection between the goals of normative
ethics and the concept of an ideal moral judgment. The approach to moral questions must be free
from fault and error and other objections raised against the considered method in placing a
justified limit on how others may treat the person possessing the right.
Sažetak
Referat istražuje zašto su nepristranost i racionalnost ideali vrijedni stremljenja. Referat se ne
bavi samo preispitivanjem normativne etičke potrage za valjanim moralnim principima, nego
također preispituje i meta-etičke pojmove kao što su “autonomnost” i “prava”. Obrazac idealnoga
moralnog suda ima važnu ulogu u testiranju obojega: našeg vlastitog motrišta i tuđih motrišta.
Bioetički istinski zahtjev za ispravnom metodom koja treba biti vodiljom svim moralnim subjektima
dok daju odgovore na moralna pitanja, odnosi se na uvjerenje o tome kako jest racionalno
približiti se idealnom moralnom sudu što je više moguće. Prava su sama po sebi vrijedne i
istaknute moralne “stvari”, prema tome imati na nešto pravo znači to vrlo snažno moralno i
legalno potraživati. Budući da svi ljudi moraju imati ljudska prava, te da ljudska prava pripadaju
jedino ljudima, bilo bi iracionalno razdvajati osobe negiranjem ljudske časnosti nekima, te
pridržavanjem prava samo za neke. Prava uključuju predmete i područja u kojima je svako
ljudsko biće ovlašteno djelovati bez dodatnoga dopuštenja ili odobrenja. Neki filozofi ističu
važnost ciljeva normativne etike i njihovu povezanost s pojmom idealnoga moralnog suda.
Pristup moralnim pitanjima mora biti slobodan (“očišćen”) od neispravnosti i od pogrešaka te od
ostalih prigovora prema odabranoj metodi u nastojanju da se odredi opravdana granica o tome
kako drugi smiju tretirati osobu koja posjeduje prava.
Introduction
According to the fact that bioethics is a branch of proactively oriented
applied normative ethics, it places no restrictions on the exercise of any moral
rights and protective provisions. Every individual is a moral agent, and therefore
he or she must have moral rights. Everybody is capable to attain objective moral
reasoning scope because the field of ethics concerns issues about all kinds of
policies that are desirable in social life. Reflective morality is there to genuinely
scrutinize the pattern of virtues and vices exerted in the behavior of the individual
when it affects rights of others. That is, reflective morality is intimately concerned
with evaluation of character, as well as goals. Although the field of ethics stems
from the wisdom of many generations, virtue is on every occasion an individual
accomplishment and it always presupposes freedom on the part of the agent.
If the autonomous act is to display the virtue of the person’s character it
must be morally justified, or it must follow reasoning and acting on the basis of
moral concern for all involved parties. Bioethics genuinely emerges out from
philosophical analysis, drawing directly on moral theory – but, in order to provide
guidelines for practical conduct, it deserves the effort required for a careful
examination of the relationship between theoretical and applied ethics. The right
action, if given on a background of earlier moral development, strengthens
moral autonomy in return, that is, morality deals with the kinds of persons we
should be and become!
Since many different reasons influence our character and behavior, moral
reasons are exclusive because they derive from both, virtues and principles of
conduct. In situations where two or more moral reasons come into conflict, the
person is sometimes required to pick one type of morality over another, in order
to pursue the right action. This paper also aims to present of how not to
confuse various reasons for moral reasons!
2
What are Rights?
As morality has significant influence on human actions, the political and
ethical theory brings the issue of rights into a dominant focus. Morality consists of
both: moral rules, and moral ideals. Hence, it is important to identify:
1. What happens when moral rules are disobeyed?
2. How about failing to pursue moral ideals?
Bernard Gert indicated that moral rules1 refer to acts that must not be
done, and moral ideals refer to acts that ought to be done in order to prevent
harm! In spite of the fact that failing to follow moral ideals does not require moral
justification, the prospective of moral equality for all men is a paradigm in the
civic society. Therefore violating, denying, and overriding of this proportion
lowers the ideal and brings moral reason in question!
Violating a moral rule always requires adequate justification because it
involves doing something that would be morally wrong unless one has a moral
reason for doing it.
Are rights a collection of logically independent propositions? How do we
decide and how do we resolve conflicts between two legitimate, but mutually
opposed rights when their applicability in circumstances of conflict must be
determined such that both rights cannot simultaneously be complied with?
An important aspect of a considerate approach is its epistemological
component. That is, if we do not develop several meanings of the central claim,
the task of resolving the issue will remain vague.
In deontological and utilitarian theories principles and rules have been
traditionally understood as principles and rules of obligation. This is probably the
result of the history, since (as some authors claim2), until the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, problems of political philosophy were rarely discussed in
terms of rights, perhaps because duties to lord, king, state, church, and God
had been the dominant focus of political and ethical theory. Although rights have
diverse origins, rights were primarily thought as liberty rights, that is, rights were
conceived as “rights against state intrusion or control”, or rights not to be
interfered with. Thus, historically, the notion of natural (or human) rights emerged
from a need to control the unlimited power of a state. Whether exercised by
individuals upon others, or groups upon society, rights were viewed as powerful
and justified claims that demand respect!
Some authors3 hold that there are at least two senses in which rights of all
kinds can be said to exist. There is first sense in which we inquire whether in a
given society there is intellectual or conceptual acknowledgment of the fact that
persons have rights at all. Secondly, we inquire to what extent in a society that
acknowledges the existence of rights, is there a general respect for, protection of,
and noninterference with the exercise of those rights. If the particular society
1
Bernard Gert: The Moral Rules, pg. 63
Ethical Theory and Business, Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L. & Bowie, Norman E., pg. 46
3 Moral Problems – A Collection of Philosophical Essays, Edited by James Rachels, pg. 13 - 14
2
3
finds acceptable to express hostility against powerless, it will not be clear
whether persons who are alike, are fairly acknowledged of each person’s wellbeing and freedom (which are basic propositions of human rights).
As Richard Wasserstrom4 stated, rights are constitutive of the domain of
entitlements, that is, a human right is a right possessed by human beings, as well
as only by human beings. Because it is the same right that all human beings
possess, it must be possessed equally by all human beings.
Philosophers typically draw a distinction between positive and negative
rights.
Positive rights pertain to human well-being, and include something
valuable to be provided to honor them.
Negative rights are simply rights to not be interfered with. Hence,
negative rights imply that people simply have a right to be left alone! Joel
Feinberg5 maintains, negative rights also require, not to be treated in cruel or
inhuman ways, and not to be exploited or degraded even in “humane” ways.
Rights can be (a) special, and (b) general:
(a) Special rights are of many sorts. They all are contingent on acquired
status or a position, and without that special status or position there
would be no rights of that sort.
(b) General rights are universal. Some authors6 maintain that these rights
are fundamental, because we have them irrespective of merit, just
because we are human! Therefore general rights refer to impartial
treatment in matters of justice, freedom, equality of opportunity
and any violation of them results in decreasing our human dignity and
self-respect!
Yet, equal legal rights are not equal rights, since legal rights need not
be universal! All countries do not have identical legislation. Obviously, the theory
of natural rights has not been a single coherent doctrine. This is the reason why
some authors7 indicate that the lack of any ground for any doctrine of natural
rights results in the vagueness of almost every formulation of a set of natural
rights. The failure of persons to agree upon what one’s natural rights are, lead to
the desirability of overriding and disregarding of these rights.
Martin8 assumes rights and duties are correlated, but rights rather than
duties are morally fundamental! The criteria that are necessary and sufficient
conditions of right possession as stated by Tom Regan9 include all and only free,
rational beings who have moral rights. Hence duties arise because humans are
moral agents, and therefore they must have moral rights! Yet, humans retain
4
Richard Wasserstrom: Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination (From: Moral Problems
– A Collection of Philosophical Essays, Edited by James Rachels), pg. 10 - 12
5 Joel Feinberg: Justice and Economic Income (From: Moral Problems – A Collection of
Philosophical Essays, Edited by James Rachels), pg. 213
6 Ethical Theory and Business, Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L. & Bowie, Norman E., pg. 46
7 Moral Problems – A Collection of Philosophical Essays, Edited by James Rachels, pg. 8
8
Martin, Mike W.: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics, pg. 61
9
Matters of Life and Death – New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, Second Edition,
Edited by Tom Regan, pg. 28
4
moral rights even in a coma because moral rights are universal. Among various
moral rights, the most basic moral rights are human rights simply because we
are human beings.
Human rights can never be equated with political rights since human rights
exist even if they are not recognized. On the contrary, political rights exist only if
governments recognize them.
The Roots of Bioethical Principles
If bioethics is to contribute to the solution of practical problems, specifically
to the problem of conflicting rights, than we must seek to develop a theory of
moral reasoning that will determine which arguments ought to be accepted. Or,
as Martin10 suggested, most valuable accomplishment of ethical choice is that it
liberates us from ignorance and prejudice by fostering “the virtues of intellectual
honesty, integrity, courage and truthful communication.”
The problem of conflicting rights in bioethics cannot be labeled as a
technical problem, on which only the expert can have an opinion. Bioethics
involves questions that affect human beings regardless of their expertise, and an
expert is only a man among men. Therefore, bioethics has to bring under
examination a number of fundamental human moral problems at once. And these
are not narrowly defined issues of bioethics; - or, as Ramsey11 advocated, of
medical ethics alone.
Moral growth presupposes activities needed to promote values that do
not only advertise what is good, but ordain what is right. Since the progress of
the western world has been equated with various dimensions of modern support
to the individual, personal autonomy is believed to be “the duty to maximize the
individual’s right to make decisions”12. Accordingly, value judgments in bioethics
make no sense in the absence of freedom, and Hobbs13 is one among many
professionals who assume ethics depends upon choosing, and choosing
depends upon freedom, even though the freedom is limited, or finite. Therefore,
reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, and happiness of other
persons – have no morally adequate justification if they usurp the right of these
persons to exert rights.
The issue of rights is important because it brings into focus such policies
that can discriminate against people in occasion when two parties have no
compatible goals. Conflict is always a form of communication and even in the
case when rights of conflicting parties both capture a very valid prospective, each
single prospective is simply partial! Therefore some other obligations are there to
justify the course of action in which people are so directly involved. If but only
one party’s rights were accepted as the exclusive authority, the misuse of a
Mike W. Martin: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics, pg. 31
Paul Ramsey: The Patient as Person, pg. XI
12 Normative Ethical Principles and Theories, http://www.stedwards.edu/ursey/norm.htm, pg. 2 of
5
13
Edward C. Hobbs: Teaching Medical Ethics; A Philosophical Approach (From: Veatch, Robert
M.; Gaylin Willard; Morgan, Councilman (editors): The Teaching of Medical Ethics), pg. 89
10
11
5
position of power is likely to occur, and no method for resolving difficult cases will
be developed.
One party model is wrong not only from the prospective of an agent who
usurps rights of the other and therefore becomes more and more corrupt!
Harming persons who are discriminated against, wrongs them, which is morally
unacceptable! That is, moral action involves two sides, the agent and the victim.
Therefore, the quest for moral progress always refers to our personal
responsibility of how we can make ourselves morally better and achieve our
goals but not at the expense of others!
In the past, due to the one-way (authoritarian) communicating style, the
moral agent was particularly ready simply to refrain from communication rather
than to develop options that would benefit both sides. Totalitarian history
contributed to such black and white approach, and developed extreme responses
to conflict. Moral agents had been expected to confront aggressively on one
hand, or withdraw and avoid conflict whenever possible, on the other hand. Both
strategies displayed one-way communicating style that produces winners and
losers who disregard the other party’s concerns. This means that unresponsive
communication is morally wrong because it always leads to frustration.
Violating rights can be justified only if a morally adequate reason is
provided. Consequently, the interfered person who has been put in the position
of an object is being treated wrongly because no double standards for rational
beings are allowed! If a person is pushed into the position of an object, in
circumstances there is no way to fulfill his or her human responsibility to create
his or her course of action! That is, moral reason is involved with practical
questions, not with the ways things are, but with the way things ought to be.
Conflicting rights highlight the problem of moral equality for all humans,
because rights of each party as related to virtue and derived from intrinsic values,
involve the same right all humans should be recognized to possess! If so, these
sorts of rights must be possessed equally!
If there is a duty, or a social obligation of the civic society to protect fair
equality of opportunity, than conflicting rights should be viewed under the scope
of both, personal autonomy and moral autonomy. Since moral autonomy is
universal and more specific than personal autonomy, applied ethics should be
directed toward the development of moral expertise, and involve greater
understanding of moral truth concerning practical issues. That is, as Ruth
Macklin14 points out, a knowledge of theoretical rules is crucial for being able to
identify the source of disagreements and for arriving at a resolution of conflicts.
Conflicts, no matter what the context, typically provide the rich insights of creative
strategies of proposed solutions. If no perfect solution can be found, it is still
possible to arrive at the least inadequate answer to the claim.
Since reflective morality implies investigation on the basis of a study of the
moral reasoning and their logical properties and implications, it is obvious that
moral reasons are neither created by laws, customs, or God, nor reducible to
14
Ruth Macklin: Theoretical and Applied Ethics: A Reply to the Skeptics (From: Applied Ethics
and Ethical Theory, Edited by Rosenthal, David M. & Shehadi, Fadlou, Volume 1 – Ethics in a
Changing World), pg. 53
6
laws, customs, or religion reasons. In spite of the fact that the essence of man is
imperfection, the reflective morality enables the man to attain possible
objective moral reasoning scope! Yet, God is perfect, hence, God is not
requested to obey rules, or comply principles, instead “God would recognize and
appreciate moral reasons as warranting divine commands.”15
The contemporary ethicists who share Kant’s duty orientation in ethics,
when referred to the meaning of categorical imperative still disagree with Kant in
respect of its absolute value. It is particularly true in the case of conflicting
duties. That is, in a crisis, some duties can be superseded with other duties! But
who and how is to decide which duty has a priority in the contrast with absolute
(prima facie) duties? Of course, it would be wrong to conceive of “prima facie”
duties as of an absolute value! It is the case when the “prima facie” duty
interferes with an agent’s right to protect his own life from harm.
The moment man’s freedom is taken away, absolute virtues (prima facie
duties) cease to be a means to achieving values and become rather an
impediment. Ayn Rand claims, if man’s freedom is taken away, it is fully moral,
and in fact mandatory, to lie one’s head off as a legitimate means of self-defense.
The same is true when you are confronted by a criminal who seeks the money.
Telling the truth to criminal men or criminal governments is not rational. That is,
the so-called “absolute virtues” have morally legitimate exceptions because more
pressing duties override them. The underlying principle is one’s right to one’s
own life, which means “freedom from the initiation of force by others.” So, if
duties were regarded basic, than for every duty a correlated right must be
acknowledged, that is: Lying is wrong in principle, expect in the case when a
moral agent has to protect rational values! If I have a duty to tell you the truth,
then you have a right to be told the truth.
Ayn Rand16 is one among many contemporary ethicists who share Kant’s
duty orientation, yet holds that virtues are absolute, but not an out of context
absolute! In her view religion looks at virtues as at dogmatic rules to be obeyed
without regard to context! She argues that the context cannot be dropped when
practicing virtues! In this respect dogmatic rules inevitably lead to moral conflicts.
(Ayn Rand states: “How do you obey the commandment: You should not kill, and
yet defend yourself against an aggressor?”).
Why Ought Anyone have a Right to Anything?
Human beings are not simply immersed in the present - everything
distinctively and essentially human would disappear from our existence if we
would not seek to clarify, organize, and enrich our grasp of principles involved in
right and wrong conduct. As contrasting moral perspectives increase moral
understanding of ideas, used in shaping responsibility with our daily lives, lacking
Mike W. Martin: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics, pg. 12
Ayn Rand: Why Businessmen Need Philosophy with additional essays by: Leonard Peikoff;
Harry Binswanger; Edwin A. Locke, John Ridpath; Richard M. Salsman; Jaana Woiceshyn, pg. 94
15
16
7
rights impoverish communication and prevent us to discuss moral issues with
one another.
Rachels17 appeals to the existence of rights because unjust denial of
these rights denies a man the standing to protest the way he is treated!
Denial of rights will prevent persons from having those types of expectations, and
will prohibit them from making those kinds of judgments, which a system of rights
makes possible. That is, duties without conceiving and recognizing of their
correlative rights are not simply mistakes of logic and definition. These are moral
mistakes which influence to the decrease of human fundamental dignity and
self-respect. If we observe what happens to any person who is required to
comply with imposed behavior in order to minimize the likelihood of physical
abuse, arbitrary treatment, or economic destitution, than we will realize how
important human rights are, and what their denial can mean.
Rachels even holds that a society that simply lacks any conception of
human rights is less offensive than the one which has such a conception but
denies that some persons have these rights. He points out that one among the
greatest of all human wrongs is not simply the inequality and unfairness
involved in differentiating for the wrong reasons among persons! Moral evil is
involved in the belief that there are some persons who do not, and would not
desire, or need, or enjoy, those minimal goods which all men do need, desire and
enjoy. In Rachels view, it is to discover certain persons, all of whom are most
certainly human beings, out of the human race!
Justifying Moral Judgments
Being morally autonomous means reasoning and acting on the basis of
moral concern, that is, on the concern to avoid causing evil to others, sometimes
in creative ways. As Martin18 reminds us, moral autonomy leads creative thinkers
to emphasize certain commitments and virtues over others. In this respect
Bernard Gert19 stated that, “Immoral action usually involves doing evil to those
we do not care about in order to please or benefit ourselves or those we do care
about.”
Therefore, those ethicists who wish to strengthen abilities to reason,
research and avoid vagueness and ambiguity, they find not conformity, but moral
autonomy a substantial prerequisite of any sound judgment.
Personal autonomy is a wider notion than moral autonomy because
personal autonomy extends to overall human reasoning, not just moral
reasoning. Nevertheless, personal autonomy should be recognized as a sort of
human excellency that should be preserved as an intrinsic good because it
makes human creativity possible!
Moral Problems – A Collection of Philosophical Essays, Edited by James Rachels, pg. 22 - 23
Mike W. Martin: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics, pg. 30
19 Bernard Gert: The Moral Rules, pg. 200
17
18
8
Yet, Martin20 asserts, the normative sense of personal autonomy refers to
the moral right to exercise personal autonomy, which is essentially the same as
the right to liberty – the fundamental human right that needs no further
justification. But, a real ethical judgment can be morally justified only if it relies
upon MORAL AUTONOMY, that is, if it presupposes the quest for moral growth.
This is the reason why self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice!
If self-development were selected as a predominant virtue required when
reasonably weighing conflicting moral reasons, than it will include the need to
enhance knowledge about people and the world, relevant to making wise
decisions. As Martin maintains, it will contribute to preparation for significant work
because professions are forms of work devoted to the public good and guided by
moral norms.
The issue of rights and duties came into a topical focus in moral and
political theory due to its extensive violation in recent history. If rights were
determined by the reference to the good of the community, than this good is the
ultimate value which suppresses rights as such! Violation of rights and duties
also involve making distinction between people on the basis of morally
irrelevant characteristics.
As Cloke & Goldsmith21 advocate, our experience of conflict is always
emotional! Although the reasons we cite for our conflicts are grounded in facts
and logic, the language of conflict is full of allusions, metaphors, and symbols,
drawn out from our own culture. The aggressive style is typically established on
whether politely or impolitely, disregarding the other side’s concerns. It is likely
to antagonize the other person who, in response will typically react negatively.
Power based processes always corrupt because they produce winners and
losers. Wahlstrom 22 assumes, aggressive behavior is characterized by concern
for one’s self at the expense of others. An aggressive communicator is labeled as
a selfish person who will work to destroy the enemy and achieve his or her goal,
whatever the cost to the others involved.
But if we try to understand the symbolism and hidden meanings of the
context, we would acquire a prospective for the assertive style, which can
eventually transform the conflict into an opportunity for shifting power-based
process into the rights based process. If moral equality for all men were
recognized, then accountability to moral reason would warrant the rights
interest, since in the civic society rights should be limitations on the exercise of
power.
Who is to Blame?
In spite of the fact that all human beings posses equal humanity, and
equal correlative duties and rights, the denial of these same kinds of equality
seems to be obvious. It is sometimes exerted on the grounds of physical
Mike W. Martin: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics, pg. 140 – 141
Kenneth Cloke & Joan Goldsmith: Resolving Conflicts at Work, pg. 24
22 Billie J. Wahlstrom: Perspectives on Human Communication, pg. 139
20
21
9
difference, whether it would be gender, or mere appearance, or even on the
grounds of conformity to particular groups. That is, the dichotomizing of human
qualities seems to be obvious - women are sometimes referred to as a minority,
which they observably are not. Who is to blame?
As every human being is equally a human being, this minimal qualification
entitles all humans to certain absolute human rights. But how to acknowledge the
common humanity with both, the victim and the offender, the oppressed and the
oppressor? The victim and the offender, the oppressed and the oppressor are
unequal in their power to control the circumstances under which they meet,
imbalance occurs typically in favor of the offender and the oppressor. Such both
rights cannot simultaneously be recognized as moral rights.
As Cloke & Goldsmith23 advocate, we are all skilled at rationalizing our
behavior, and each of us has our own list of perfectly good reasons for avoiding
honest behavior. It is because we want to protect one another from the
harshness of the truth, and partly because we think honesty will make us
vulnerable to our opponents. May be we live in an organizational culture that
does not support, or does not value honest behavior.
All cultures generate rules for deciding when it is safe to be honest and
when it could cost you your job or even your life. Cloke & Goldsmith state that by
calling attention to these behaviors, we automatically discourage them! Yet, if
the particular social environment lacks the context in which you can find internal
allies who will stand with you – and external consultants to support you in
developing new norms and consolidation new behaviors, the chances for shifting
power into rights based processes will be very low. But, moral autonomy and
creative decision-making typically lead to the emphasis of certain commitments
and virtues over others, and an autonomous agent can decide whether his
course of action will be in accordance with deepening understanding and
broadening appreciation of values!
Although ethics seeks to strengthen the ability to reason autonomously
about morality, moral responsibility remains a personal achievement!
According to the existence of the two levels of ethical thinking we should
take into consideration both levels. First level consists in application of learnt
principles which are general and simple; Second level consists in reflective
morality or criticism, and possibly the modification of these general principles in
the light of their effect in particular cases in which silence appear less risky and
more powerful than vulnerability, honesty and shared responsibility. We may hide
and repress our true thoughts and feelings because they are too frightening, or
too powerful to discuss openly. Cloke & Goldsmith argue, honesty is difficult
because we want to avoid blame and make ourselves appear good or right by
making others appear bad or wrong, yet the negative consequences we direct at
others, ultimately return to us! The deeper reason for not being honest is
suspicion from hearing the truth, since serious life consequences may result from
it, and force us to change so many things! Honesty is the precondition for
transformation!
23
Kenneth Cloke & Joan Goldsmith: Resolving Conflicts at Work, pg. 128 - 129
10
Cloke & Goldsmith24 consider that searching for quick solutions we fail to
listen to the conflict and involve our opponent in a collaborative search for
answers that meet both of our needs. As a result, we propose solutions for the
wrong problem, that is, our solutions are not well accepted because both sides
did not participate in creating them.
How to Avoid the Deficient Approach to Moral Questions?
Meta-ethics aims to explore the roots of ethics and for this reason the
conceptual analysis of key moral concepts represents the first major component
of its inquiry. The other component refers to the investigation of the correct
method for answering moral questions. As scientific method requires tasks,
specifying of how we must approach particular questions if we want to give
scientific answers to them, moral questions also demand analogous procedure.
Namely, moral disagreement over whether something is morally right or wrong,
are not the same disagreements as those in personal tastes and preferences! As
Tom Regan25 advocates, when people say that something is morally right or
wrong, it is always appropriate to ask them to give reasons to justify their
judgment. Yet, in the case of personal preferences, such requests are
inappropriate! Person’s feelings belong to the subjectivist realm and the validity
of ethical judgments is not determined by the nature of their author’s feelings!
Ethical judgments are importantly different, that is, ethical judgments must be
informed statements of conceptual clarity, rationality, impartiality and
information. Although it is not easy to meet the requirements needed for a sound
ethical judgment, it is not irrational to move some distance from the starting line.
Tom Regan26 asserts, moral questions cannot be answered theoretically.
Moral questions come up in the real world, and a knowledge of the real world
setting in which they arise is essential if we are seriously to seek rational
answers to them. Rationality here is understood as the ability to recognize the
connection between different ideas – in the sense that that if some statements
are true, then some other statements must be true, while others must be false.
Partiality refers to ignoring what justice demands and favoring someone
or something above others!
If we do not want to recognize that we judge similar cases dissimilarly than
our judgment will be clouded by stereotypes and prejudice. Even when we do not
explicitly say that rationality and impartiality were ideals worth striving for,
these ideals have been constantly used in all our examinations of other’s
behavior and our own behavior! Rationality and impartiality affect our beliefs,
values and fundamental commitments. Since rationality and impartiality clearly
have a strong and complex influence upon how we understand and shape all our
24
Kenneth Cloke & Joan Goldsmith: Resolving Conflicts at Work, pg. 149
Matters of Life and Death – New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, Second Edition,
Edited by Tom Regan, pg. 8
26
Matters of Life and Death – New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, Second Edition,
Edited by Tom Regan, pg. 12
25
11
own assessments, justified accusations for biases will endanger all contributions
to self-fulfillment and to the social good.
The principle of equal opportunity in not only an intrinsic good which is
desirable for its own sake, apart from any further appeal to duties or rights, but,
as Norman Daniels27 reminds us, it is a way to protect society against the
productivity lost when individuals are not given a fair opportunity to develop
their skills and talents.
Tom Regan28 claims that, while the formal principle of justice does not by
itself tell us what are the relevant factors for determining when treatment is
similar or dissimilar, that principle must be observed if we are to make the ideal
moral judgment. Not to observe it is a symptom of prejudice or bias! Rational
defects that must be identified and overcome if we are to make the best moral
judgment we can.
Conclusion
Philosophers sympathetic with bioethics hold that moral rights are
constituted on the unique worth of the individual. Since moral rights are a useful
means of promoting autonomy and thereby the conditions needed for human
flourishing, they must be universal. Hence they exist irrespective of merit and
refer to impartial treatment in matters of justice, freedom, and equality of
opportunity. Moral rights must be equal, since no one person has this value to
any greater degree that any other. Thus, violation of moral rights represents an
inappropriate archaic behavior. Moral reasons are not created by laws or by
God’s will, moral reasons are the result of proactive quest for truth and justice,
which are intrinsic values, but not an out of context absolutes! Absolute virtues
have morally legitimate exceptions because duty to protect rational values is
more pressing. Duties arise because humans are moral agents, and all moral
agents must have moral rights. Among the greatest of all human wrongs it is the
belief that there are some persons who do not and would not desire those
minimal goods, which all men do need, desire, and enjoy. As moral autonomy is
a substantial prerequisite of any sound judgment, it presupposes the quest for
moral growth. Thus, self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.
Violation of rights and duties involve making distinction between people on the
basis of morally irrelevant characteristics. The denial of rights leads to
diminishing self-respect, and honesty. Moral disagreements must be justified on
the basis of conceptual clarity, rationality, and impartiality and it is not irrational to
move some distance from the starting line. Even if we do not explicitly say that
rationality and impartiality were ideals worth striving for, these ideals have been
constantly used in all our examinations. That is way rationality and impartiality
are desirable for its own sake.
27
Norman Daniels: Just Health Care, pg. 42
Matters of Life and Death – New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, Second Edition,
Edited by Tom Regan, pg. 14
28
12
Bibliography
Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Edited by Rosenthal, David M. & Shehadi,
Fadlou, Volume 1 – Ethics in a Changing World, University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City, 1988
Arthur, John & Shaw, William H.: Justice and Economic Distribution, Prentice
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1978
Cloke, Kenneth & Goldsmith, Joan: Resolving Conflicts at Work, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco, 2000
Daniels, Norman: Just Health Care, Cambridge University Press, London, 1985
Ethical Theory and Business, Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L. & Bowie, Norman
E.; Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988
Fulford, K. W. M.: Moral Theory and Medical Practice, Cambridge University
Press, New York, 1989
Gert, Bernard: The Moral Rules, Harper & Row, New York, 1970
Martin, Mike W.: Everyday Morality – An Introduction to Applied Ethics,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1988
Matters of Life and Death – New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy,
Second Edition, Edited by Tom Regan, Random House, New York, 1986.
Moral Problems – A Collection of Philosophical Essays, Edited by James
Rachels, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1979
Ramsey, Paul: The Patient as Person, New Haven and London, Yale University
Press, 1972
Rand, Ayn: Why Businessmen Need Philosophy with additional essays by:
Leonard Peikoff; Harry Binswanger; Edwin A. Locke, John Ridpath; Richard M.
Salsman; Jaana Woiceshyn, Edited by Richard E. Ralston, Ayn Rand Institute
Press, USA s.l. 1999
Stacey, Ralph D.: Managing the Unknowable – Strategic Boundaries between
ORDER and CHAOS in Organizations, Jossey - Bass Publishers, San Francisco,
1992
Veatch, Robert M.; Gaylin Willard; Morgan, Councilman (editors): The Teaching
of Medical Ethics, A Hastings Center Publication, New York, 1973
Wahlstrom, Billie J.: Perspectives on Human Communication, WCB Wm.C.Brown
Publishers, Dubuque, IA, 1992
13