The Dilemma of Ethics

It is a curious phenomenon that a problem is almost guaranteed to arise in any reasoned debate concerning issues of ethics. Rarely is a consensus about the components of ethics reached in a group of individuals interested in the subject. Whether the topic of discussion is wealth redistribution, human rights, or bioethics, a debate is guaranteed to arise even amongst the members of a small group – our WRI 167 class, for example. The reason for this occurrence lies in the fact that everyone’s starting premises differ, the result being that our entire belief systems, which are founded upon these beginning premises, branch out away from each other and conclude with a difference in opinions. Take, for example, the existentialist and the objectivist. The existentialist would believe that truth is subjective, a seemingly ludicrous statement to the objectivist, who believes that truth is objective, a position equally absurd to the existentialist. Looking at some of the earliest premises made by each can reveal the rationale supporting their beliefs. The existentialist starts on the assumption that Cogito ergo sum, and thus truth is only a projection of the mind and so each individual’s “truth” are equal. The objectivist on the other hand begins by assuming that the individual lives in a world of a single standard of truth, and the differences of opinion are a result of imperfect perceptions of the same world. What tends to happen when two people like these meet, however, is that the logical conclusion of their premises are the theme of discussion instead of the premises upon which they are built. As a result, little progress is made.
As I am sure everyone is already expecting, clashes of ideas will no doubt occur in our class, particularly in one concerned with such a controversial field. But since our opinions on these ethical matters are conclusions rather than premises, we will likely end up mired in the same bog of endless debate as the existentialist and objectivist. This is not to say that debate is pointless, however. On the contrary, it has proven to be quite a prominent feature in the social structure of many societies, harking as far back as the Ancient Greeks, and almost definitely even farther. Why then do ethical issues tend to muddle the efficacy of reasoned discussion? The answer I propose is this: all too often, the theoretical ethics are placed in the middle of whirl of arguments which require the participants to hark back to their initial premises, an endeavor which requires an extensive amount of time and energy, sometimes to the point of impracticality. As interesting as discussions like those tend to be, I would suggest that instead, a focused approach to the practical application of policy in order to protect ethics might be better and more useful in a class like WRI 167. This would hopefully allow for a better flow of discussion, and therefore a purpose in continued debate.