RE: the nature of ethics
※→ Athena, mitchellmckain, et al,
I don't know how many courses on leadership, morals and ethics I have attended over my two careers
(a number). Yet, I walked away with very little more, than the understanding I walked in with.
Athena wrote: I am strongly opposed to black or white, this or that thinking.
(COMMENT)Yes, black and white decisions are generally the result of not completely understanding the nature of the event that calls for a decision. So, I agree with "Athena" and recognize that in the practical reality of the real-world, most all of us - but not all of us,
(no matter what we might say otherwise) operate in a sliding gray scale. We will be utilitarian when necessary; and we will be a Deontologist when the situation call for it.
mitchellmckain on July 2nd, 2017, 8:01 pm wrote: I would dispute this or at least modify it to say that ethical dilemmas can often be very complex, difficult as well as far from black and white, but I think you trivialize the difficulties by saying their are no right answers. There may often be no easy answers but that does not mean there are never any right answers.
(COMMENT)I cannot say you are wrong. You're following the "Principle of Sufficient Reason." And that is really difficult to challenge. You may not be able to determine the causal effects that ultimately lead to a conclusion; but the utilitarianism in you does not want to be on the oversight investigation should the outcome of a decision be disastrous. Clearly, there are a half-dozen reasons for the sinking of the Titanic
(just as an example).Athena wrote: Also, a captain has a duty to save passengers and the boat.
(COMMENT)Only within the resources available. The Titanic lost over a thousand passengers. White Star simply did not have enough lifeboats to deal with such a catastrophic event. Was the White Star Line ever questioned on the ethical decisions leading to the launching of such a ship. The responsibility was
(ultimately) to maximize the wealth of the shareholders.
A great many of us have had some career that included responsibility for something. The TSA Officer that scans you for explosives and weapons is a compliance oriented type of guy. They have very little discretion in what they do and how they do it. However, a police officer has a lot of discretion in whether or not to issue a citation on a traffic stop. The Captain in the scenario has a responsibility in many different directions and must weigh the risks in the assessment as to what must be done.
Agreed! In real-life critical moments when the crisis calls for decisive action, it is no time to break into a philosophical debate, with yourself or anyone else. Yeah, sure, you will listen to your staff for advice; but in the end, you can only hope that your experience has groomed you for just that kind of decision at that moment.
Athena wrote: Personally, I think family is about more than individuals, and I am in favor of women putting others first. This of course is a benefit to the husband and children and perhaps older parents or other disabled members of the family, and beyond this, it is a benefit to society. In the long run, what might work better, benefiting ourselves or benefiting others?
(COMMENT)This is something that is hard to put into words. Back in the 1970' and 1980's, I had the opportunity to participate in the simulated (practice) Evacuation of US Citizens and Designated Aliens from Threatened Areas Abroad [AKA: Noncombatant Evacuation Operation (NEO)] while stationed overseas. While there were many unofficial discussions back in the day among the troops, none were more interesting than to listen to the troops with dependents
(of which there were many) as to their divided responsibilities between making sure their families got out safely and the responsibility to report, upload and move to seek-out and confront the threat. What I heard was, they didn't know what they would do until it happened. The Moral and Ethical question of divided loyalties was hard to even address in the theoretical form.
Most Respectfully,
R