(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

The past few days my thoughts have been on the matter of ethical relativism. This is the idea that ethics are partially or entirely "subjective," or variable from one person to the next.

I am not an ethical relativist. That is to say, I believe that no matter what approach and logic we start with, we should end up with a fairly consistent core set of ethical principles. The details may vary from one system to the next, but I think that most people, and most ethical approaches, would recommend a fairly consistent set of actions for given types of situations.

I am also, on balance, a consequentialist. This approach suggests that ethics are "situational," IOW that there are no ethical absolutes, but rather sets of principles that have to be weighed for each situation. Consequentialism is on the whole a pragmatic approach, which makes me fret a bit, because I don't feel that ends always justify means. But this is all stuff that I'm sorting out at present, and lucky you, you get to see my thoughts and perhaps play a role in helping them formulate.

Now, consider this excerpt, which is quoted on this page on ethical relativism:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death; among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, pp. 45-46)

I'm not sure from the context whether or not Benedict's examples given above are actually to be found, or are simply illustrative. But in either case my thought is that societies where homicide has been more acceptable (probably considered akin to euthanasia) are not the ones which have succeeded; is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

Comments

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I think this ignores the false scaricity of resources, however - also overlooks the artificially inflated cost of medical care.

While I agree with both your points, I still say throwing public money into medical procedures which have very little chance of increasing quality of life or lifespan are a waste -- whether it be $25,000 or a million bucks a person.

America now has a far higher taxrate than any country in the history of the world. I fully agree that waging war needs to be cut out. But even so, the public funds need to be aportioned. And a lot of spending results in some people getting rich while everyone else suffers. Each society will determine what gets spent on babies, on old folks, and on highways. There is never enough for everything. No matter what a society chooses, some people will die.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"While I agree with both your points, I still say throwing public money into medical procedures which have very little chance of increasing quality of life or lifespan are a waste -- whether it be $25,000 or a million bucks a person."

The enitre medical system is screwed up. Even a simple check up costs more than many people can afford. Why does it cost $200 for an adult to get a physical, not including blood tests or unusual procedures? Why are hospital beds - not the care or anything else, just the bed space for a night - in excess of $500? Why do pills which cost pennies to make end up costing $5 a piece to the person they are prescribed to? Why are people who have almost no chance of surviving a pervasive cancer tortured with pointless radiation and chemotherapy and surgery until the very end instead of being given adequate pain medication and whatever else they need to be comfortable in their last days?

When I was in hospital hell last year, my roomate was a 98-year-old woman. She had developed complications to her already difficult breathing due to a heat wave (it was late August.) Every night she had panic attacks at least three or four times becasue she felt like she was choking to death. THe nurses tries to be patient, but it got to where they ignored her incessnant call button pushing because there was little they could do. She would yell over and over that she was choking, she couldn't get a deep breath, she was dying. The nurses in the day would tell her she would be better soon and could go "home" - to the nursing home she lived in. Her family came to vist on the same day Aaron came to see me. She saw him and asked her 65 year old daughter if that was her child - she didn't know who her grandchildren or children were anymore. She didn't know anyone. She kept asking where she was. I found out she will be on oxygen the rest of her life. After four days of hearing this woman in constant misery and confusion I had to wonder why the hell they didn't just stop torturing her and let her die.

There are "pro-life" people who sneer at quality of life arguments in favor of abortion or euthanasia. I have to wonder if they've ever witnessed people in truly miserable situations such as this.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately what history has shown is that egalitarian or socialist economic distribution does not generate wealth fast enough to compete against capitalism. I'm not certain it is more ethically viable, either.

America is at the moment operating as an empire, which as I have written in other responses below is artificially-skewed economically. Empire cannot stand very long against its economic excesses. And yet despite the many examples in history as to why empires inevitably collapse from within, it looks attractive to those in power because they stand to gain immensely in the short term.


Each society will determine what gets spent on babies, on old folks, and on highways. There is never enough for everything. No matter what a society chooses, some people will die.

It will be interesting to see if humanity ever gets this right. We seem to be heading towards an era of global post-scarcity. That is, if we don't nuke ourselves or die amidst environmental disasters of our own making.