Last week, l concluded on how l have come to understand and appreciate- through research- that ethics can be taught in two different ways.That, it can be taught using the model of absolute values, or as some theologians and philosophers say, first principles, or it can be taught in terms of how we all have our own individual way of seeing things, so values are relative to individuals and the situations in which they find themselves.
Well, could that be the reason why people who pride themselves on being highly moral stray from their principles when money is in the offing? It certainly must have something to do with it.
In the 1990s, George Carey, who was then the Archbishop of Canterbury, commented that the people who hold the view that morality was relative to individuals and situations were responsible for the wickedness of the world. That means, to me, that there must certainly be absolute values.
Debates about ethics have raged on for a very long time because of people’s disposition to what ethics is. For instance, whereas one school of thought considers the consequences of an action to determine whether it is ethical or not-teleological theory-, another school focuses at the decision itself-deontological theory. And there are still a variety of ethical philosophies such as the rights theory that holds that certain human rights are fundamental and must be respected by other humans.
Now consider this to make your own mind up: An 18th Century German philosopher called Immanuel Kant (many describe him as a strict deontologist) proposed that humans are moral actors free to make choices and are able to judge the morality of any action by applying his famous Categorical Imperative
– “Act only on that maxim whereby at the same time you can will that it shall become a universal law.”
In other words, we judge an action by applying it universally.
So for example: Borrowing money even though you know you will never repay it. Using the categorical imperative, you would state the following rule/maxim: “When I want money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know I won’t repay it.”
Therefore, according to Kant, you would not want this maxim to become a universal law because no one would believe in promises to repay debts and you would not be able to borrow money when you wanted or needed to. So, the maxim fails the categorical imperative test, and you are compelled ethically not to promise falsely that you will repay a loan.
So the morale is that always act to treat humanity, whether in yourself or others, as an end in itself, never merely as a means. In other words, we may not use or manipulate others to achieve our own happiness. In the example above, you are using the individual/entity that you are borrowing from because if they knew all the facts, they wouldn’t agree to the loan.
Ah, am sure you are now getting worried over the categorical imperative test, right?
Okay. Now let us consider another example so that you can make your own mind up as to why people just flip over their dearly held principles when money is in the offing.
There is another school of thought, the modern rights theory, that propose mixed deontological theories because they believe that strict application of Kant’s theories are absolute and sometimes create inappropriate results.
The theorists are of the view that one must abide by a moral rule unless a more important rule conflicts with it.
In other words, don’t compromise a person’s right unless a greater right takes priority over it. So an example is as follows: Members of society have a right not to be lied to. However, if you could save someone’s life by telling a falsehood, such as not telling a criminal the true location of a witness who will testify against him, you would be compelled under the modern rights theory to save the witness’ life by not telling the truth. Again, one can never lie or kill even though in some circumstances -- such as self-defence -- it may be acceptable to do so.
In our normal dealings with one another, we often refer to situations of this sort as “holy lies”.
But is there anything like holy lies?
Sadly, even the church has a problem with this. When in 1994 the Church of England Commissioners had 2,700,000 shares in GEC, valued at 1,772, 000 million pounds, a company that was involved in arms trade, a press release on behalf of the “Archbishop of Canterbury” stated that, “In its report today, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s working party on sin proposes a radical new approach to the whole question. In future, it suggests, sin should be defined as ‘immoral behaviour in which a person engages for not less than 30 per cent of the time’”.
This was to accommodate the fact that the total shares held by the Commissioners was less than 30 per cent of the total holding and therefore could not be deemed as “sinful” to support a company engaged in that trade.
Indeed, commenting, the Archbishop himself said that “Our approach to sin has always been subject to ethical criteria and is continuously reviewed….we need a practical definition based on the realities of the modern life…”. And that is where the problem is.
Well, such is life. It is for these reasons that you shouldn’t be too surprised when morals are dropped because there are a few dollars involved!
Source:
