jcs
02-18-2006, 04:33 PM
[An in-class essay for my ethics class.
"Which type of ethical theory, utility, rights, or duty, would be your best guide for dealing with the situations Frankl (a holocaust survivor) describes? How so, and why?"]
Were I in Frankl's position in the concentration camp(s), I would find it difficult to choose an ethical theory to guide my actions. Utility sets pleasure and/or happiness as its aim, but obviously that would be difficult to find in a concentration camp. Thus a utilitarian would have to abandon one sovereign and pledge full loyalty to the other alone: least common suffering would become his goal. But this would be unsuitable for me, because the lives of all the other prisoners were in the hands of others--others who sought to bring suffering. Only a feeling of utter helplessness would be achieved by adopting utlitarian ethics. Rights ethics entitle people to certain liberties and goods; but in a concentration camp, in which all rights are ignored, one could only complain about the denial of rights. --More helplessness! Duty ethics, with the respect given to others and the cultuivation of a sense of... duty, would give me the strength to act ethically.
Kant's categorical imperatives, his moral absolutism, would be extremely problematic in a situation such as Frankl's. For example: to fulfill his duty to his fellow prisoners, to be a good person, it was necessary for Frankl to lie to a guard about prisoners he helped hide. In another instance, Frankl had to feign enjoyment of a capo's poetry so as to keep himself out of harm. In both cases, honesty was sacrificed, the virtue of truth comprimised, to fulfill another sort of 'duty.'
Purely deontological ethical systems run into a big problem when considereing intent only in terms of the virtues involved in an action. Truth was not a virtue of any prisoner vis-a-vis the guards--and were they wrong for this? How could they be truthful, allowing others to suffer or die, and try to absolve any guilt from their consciences by turning to some theoretical ethical system? "It's his fault, not mine!"--bullshit. An action may find theoretical justification in a virtue or an imperative, but every action has a telos, that being the intended consequence; and a rational being who has an awareness of likely consequences must gauge the right course of action by weighing these probable results against his virtues. Tell the truth and you kill your friend; keep your friend alive and you neglect the virtue of truth. Choose a path and accept responsibility for the consequences.
Another problem with deontology is that one's intended consequences and the actual often conflict. Frankl discussed the great uncertainty involved in going from place to place. For instance, when he wasn't taken by Nazis to be 'freed' near the end of the war, he was actually saved, as those who were taken were killed. What if, in that situation, trying to be kind, I gave my place to a friend, wanting him to be freed before myself--only to later learn that I sent him to his death? I used the information I had, and acting selflessly, came to a rational decision. Ought I feel guilt? Not according to a duty ethicist. Ought my friend's surviving relatives blame me? Not according to a duty ethicist, nor most other ethicists, for that matter. But I question the morality, the humanity, of any man who would not, in such a situation, feel guilt.
To take responsibility for all wrongs, intended or accidental, that result from one's actions...: herein lies one's duty as a rational being capable of autonomous volition. And herein lies the beauty of duty ethics and the meaning they give to one in desperate situations--dignity, the absence of helplessness.
[Of course, humans do not have autonomous volition if we look at man from the vantage point of the cosmos. We, too, are subject to causality. But from a relative perspective, looking at the world from the vista of one living therein, I am at the very least a being defined by my will, unaware, save on an intellectual level, of my lack of a will of my own. Ethics is the study of action from this perspective.]
"Which type of ethical theory, utility, rights, or duty, would be your best guide for dealing with the situations Frankl (a holocaust survivor) describes? How so, and why?"]
Were I in Frankl's position in the concentration camp(s), I would find it difficult to choose an ethical theory to guide my actions. Utility sets pleasure and/or happiness as its aim, but obviously that would be difficult to find in a concentration camp. Thus a utilitarian would have to abandon one sovereign and pledge full loyalty to the other alone: least common suffering would become his goal. But this would be unsuitable for me, because the lives of all the other prisoners were in the hands of others--others who sought to bring suffering. Only a feeling of utter helplessness would be achieved by adopting utlitarian ethics. Rights ethics entitle people to certain liberties and goods; but in a concentration camp, in which all rights are ignored, one could only complain about the denial of rights. --More helplessness! Duty ethics, with the respect given to others and the cultuivation of a sense of... duty, would give me the strength to act ethically.
Kant's categorical imperatives, his moral absolutism, would be extremely problematic in a situation such as Frankl's. For example: to fulfill his duty to his fellow prisoners, to be a good person, it was necessary for Frankl to lie to a guard about prisoners he helped hide. In another instance, Frankl had to feign enjoyment of a capo's poetry so as to keep himself out of harm. In both cases, honesty was sacrificed, the virtue of truth comprimised, to fulfill another sort of 'duty.'
Purely deontological ethical systems run into a big problem when considereing intent only in terms of the virtues involved in an action. Truth was not a virtue of any prisoner vis-a-vis the guards--and were they wrong for this? How could they be truthful, allowing others to suffer or die, and try to absolve any guilt from their consciences by turning to some theoretical ethical system? "It's his fault, not mine!"--bullshit. An action may find theoretical justification in a virtue or an imperative, but every action has a telos, that being the intended consequence; and a rational being who has an awareness of likely consequences must gauge the right course of action by weighing these probable results against his virtues. Tell the truth and you kill your friend; keep your friend alive and you neglect the virtue of truth. Choose a path and accept responsibility for the consequences.
Another problem with deontology is that one's intended consequences and the actual often conflict. Frankl discussed the great uncertainty involved in going from place to place. For instance, when he wasn't taken by Nazis to be 'freed' near the end of the war, he was actually saved, as those who were taken were killed. What if, in that situation, trying to be kind, I gave my place to a friend, wanting him to be freed before myself--only to later learn that I sent him to his death? I used the information I had, and acting selflessly, came to a rational decision. Ought I feel guilt? Not according to a duty ethicist. Ought my friend's surviving relatives blame me? Not according to a duty ethicist, nor most other ethicists, for that matter. But I question the morality, the humanity, of any man who would not, in such a situation, feel guilt.
To take responsibility for all wrongs, intended or accidental, that result from one's actions...: herein lies one's duty as a rational being capable of autonomous volition. And herein lies the beauty of duty ethics and the meaning they give to one in desperate situations--dignity, the absence of helplessness.
[Of course, humans do not have autonomous volition if we look at man from the vantage point of the cosmos. We, too, are subject to causality. But from a relative perspective, looking at the world from the vista of one living therein, I am at the very least a being defined by my will, unaware, save on an intellectual level, of my lack of a will of my own. Ethics is the study of action from this perspective.]