An Introduction to Ethics

A Steep Curve

Twenty years ago I became a member of the Regional Ethics Committee for Taranaki. Our job was to approve proposals for health research, both local and international, and to advise local health professionals on ethical problems.

I began a fast learning process, helped by the infant Internet facility of email discussion groups, so that I could correspond easily with other ethics committee members around the world. And the authorities here provided opportunities for committee members to attend training workshops from time to time.

With these aids, and access to some good books, I managed to get my head around the issues and principles well enough to see out my six years of that work, and found it one of the most interesting and challenging tasks I have had to undertake.

 

Ethics v. Human Rights

 

Eventually I realised that ethics as a system is closely related to Human Rights, which was an area I had worked in for the Health Board, when I spent some of my time as co-ordinator of the Board's Equal Employment Opportunities Programme.

Among the ideas I met in the course of learning and thinking about ethics is one that seems to me to be the groundwork for a clear introduction to the subject. It is a passage from a book by the modern American philosopher Richard Rorty.

In my version, which is slightly paraphrased, it reads: "Ethics is the process of finding mutually acceptable ways of protecting the weak from the depradations of the powerful."

So one starts from the assumption that if powerful people do what they can and wish to do, there will be "collateral damage" to the interests of the less powerful.

We all need to change

When those powerful people are also ethical, they will want to make sure that they discuss what they want to do with all those who will be affected, and make sure that the damage is minimised to the satisfaction of both parties.

The power exercised by the party with the upper hand may be physical strength, social or family status, numbers, gender, age, wealth, culture, personality, education or whatever. But whatever it is it gives an advantage to one party over the other.

 

Almost every case of unethical (or rather "less than ethical") behaviour involves a form of bullying, in lots of cases unconscious on the part of the bullies.

 

I say "less than ethical" because really this issue is not a case of black and white. It concerns various shades of grey. There is a spectrum from ethical at one end to unethical at the other. The best one can hope to do is to move the proposed action from "fairly unethical" to "much less unethical".

 

So it really depends on jointly assessing the risks and benefits and trying to even them out, probably with a neutral person acting as mediator or chair of the discussions, a bit like a Restorative Justice Conference.

 

Systems are in place

In many areas our society has set up systems to do this sort of thing, and some of them work well. But so often they seem to be going through the motions, and the powerful party does what it wants anyway, without really engaging in the necessary hard work of "finding mutually acceptable ways".

 

Everyone can probably think of situations which call for this type of resolution: neighbourhood disputes over noise, or boundaries; family clashes over care of property or children or elderly family members; neighbourhood parking or traffic problems; school dress codes or other rules -- we see and hear them in the media every week.

 

More important are the major social issues which need formal structures for their resolution, and often parliament or a local authority is the appropriate forum: voluntary assisted suicide; alcohol and drug control; building and housing regulations; social welfare;  and so on.

Improvements depend on the willingness of people in our cultures to engage with the hard thinking and attitude-modifying processes that a genuine ethical growth requires. Each one of us has to be prepared to learn and to change!