does moral practice make perfect?

a couple of interesting points came out in a response to the post on whether ethics should focus on problems. the first is just the idea that perhaps by focusing on moral problems and discussing them as hypotheticals, for instance, we can exercise our moral muscles in hopes of improving our response when faced with new moral problems. if moral practice does help make us more 'perfect' moral agents then ethics has good reason to focus on moral problems. so even though scenarios like the trolley problem mentioned in an earlier post may seem far fetched and irrelevant even to 'real life' trolley problems, we may be learning about how our moral reasoning works and how it can best be applied.

however, as often happens in philosophy, a further question arose in relation to this thought which brings us to the second point. and that is...how do the problems arise in the first place? or another way of posing this issue, how do we identify moral problems? when is a problem a problem?

should ethics focus on problems?

in ethics moral dilemmas or problems are frequently the focus as seen in the previously discussed trolley problem. but does focusing on hypothetical problems or even moral dilemma case studies actually help us to live better lives?

is this a problem?

if you allow the trolley to continue on its course some say this is akin to allowing the people to die but to switch the tracks in this case would be seen as active act of killing.  

however, the majority of people feel it is permissible to switch the tracks in order to maximize the number of lives saved.  this seems to lend support to the ethical theory of Utilitarianism which argues one should choose actions that maximize utility (the greatest good for the greatest number of people).

but the problem does not end here, a variation of the trolley problem was then introduced to challenge this Utilitarian interpretation of the choice to switch the tracks.  here, instead of switching the tracks to prevent the trolley from killing the three, you can push an innocent bystander onto the tracks who is large enough to stop the trolley.  however, this will kill the innocent bystander.

given this innocent bystander scenario, most of the same people who thought it was permissible to switch the tracks to redirect the trolley to kill the one will argue that it is impermissible to push the bystander onto the tracks.  

this, according to some philosophers, shows a stronger difference between killing and let die. to switch the tracks is more akin in this interpretation to letting die and pushing the innocent bystander to killing

the trolley problem

so last time I mentioned the distinction between killing and let die in ethics briefly.  one way this idea has been explored is through the hypothetical case called the trolley problem.  what's the problem? well, here's one version of the dilemma...

you are the driver of a trolley that is headed perilously towards three people on the trolley tracks.  if the trolley continues on its path the three people will be killed by the trolley but you cannot stop the trolley in time.  however, you can switch the trolley onto an alternate track avoiding the three in danger.  unfortunately, one person is on the alternate track and switching the track will mean killing the one person instead of the three.  what do you do? do you switch the tracks killing the one and sparing the three already in danger? or do you allow the trolley to continue on its path killing the three?

next time, more on how this dilemma and how it connects to the distinction between killing and let die

Is there a difference between killing and letting die?

in ethics a distinction has been argued for between killing someone versus letting them die. for instance, say a person in a coma is hooked up to a ventilator to support his breathing. if you disconnect them, they will die. but is this killing them? or merely letting them die since they cannot breathe on their own?

more on this soon...

What primary value do you see in morality?

so received this question/comment and thought it was a good question to answer. what is particularly interesting about the question is that it asks what 'value'. even posing the question in terms of 'value' assumes an ethical/moral framework. since the field of ethics is in part concerned with what 'value' is, the origin and basis of 'value', how one deals with competing 'values', and other related issues. a particular moral system or moral perspective, for instance, takes a position on what is and is not of 'value'. basically, to answer the question one would already have to have a moral view and then use that view to judge its own 'value'.

one response to the question would simply be that the question itself shows one primary value in morality in that we are concerned with what we 'value' and we want to know why values are important to us. however, the question is also asking about morality in a general everyday sense. I think being moral helps to give our lives meaning and purpose because value is what drives us. why do you go to work? why do you spend time with family? behind our actions are our values, what we believe to be important to us. our decisions are based on what we choose to value. if you decide to get an education for instance there is something you value about it either directly or indirectly. maybe you see an inherent value in education itself such that you are willing to sacrifice something else you value such as your free time so that you can pursue what is of higher value to you.

you might say that this does not seem to be the same as an ethical decision. and I think this is because we tend to think of primarily the times we struggle with what action to pursue as the focus of ethics. but ethics is concerned with more than just moral dilemmas but also our moral way of being. what does it mean to be a good person? how does one ensure one's decisions are morally sound? are our actions consistent with what we value? but similar to the question posed in the comment, none of these are easy questions to answer.

being moral

ever wonder who out there makes a living thinking about morality and ethics? well, that would be a person like me, an ethicist. like anything else there are varying opinions on what the role of an ethicist is, what kind of background one should have, as well as how valuable their thoughts are on everyday moral issues.

I happen to have a background in philosophy with a primary specialization in ethics and I believe part of an ethicist's role should be to engage others in ethical issues and concerns. so for this blog I am aiming to discuss current moral issues and examine ethical questions from one philosopher's perspective, namely mine. as far as how valuable my thoughts are on everyday moral issues...that's up to you.