Ethics Essays on Utilitarian and Pluralistic Principles

1) Peter Singer argues that he has to see his own self-interests as no more important than those of anyone else. His argument states that ethics must be seen from a totally objective point of view that looks towards the interest of all parties involved, regardless of his own feelings or beliefs. Singer's ethic seems to be based on the idea that you should look at the beliefs and ethics of others and make decisions based on this knowledge instead of focusing solely on your own self-interests.

Singer makes this way of looking at ethics very clear in Writings on an Ethical Life. He gives two very distinct examples in the form of the stories Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler during World War II.

"Wallenberg issued Swedish "protective passes" to thousands of Jews, declaring them to have connections with Sweden and to be under the protective custody of the Swedish government. At times he stood between the Nazis and their intended victims, saying that the Jews were protected by the Swedish government and the Nazis would have to shoot him first if they wanted to take them away" (Singer, p. 250).

This example is itself a perfect example of Singer's view in action. Wallenberg did not have to protect the Jews in Hungary. Sweden was a neutral nation in the conflict, and he could have easily stayed at home and been perfectly safe. That would be a person's most natural reaction to the situation. However, Wallenberg decided to be in Hungary and made the decision to protect the Jews there from execution. In doing so, he was placing his own safety and natural desire for self preservation behind the needs of the Hungarian Jews. He was not a Jew himself, but that did not seem to matter. He recognized their right as a people and as a religion to exist, whether he believed in their faith or not.

The approach that Singer takes is closely related to the definition of pluralism that Hinman gives. Hinman states that pluralism "is simply the conviction that the truth, at least in the moral life, is not singular or unitary" (Hinman, p. 54). This approach would seem to imply that no single group has the right to eliminate any other group based on the idea that they are more superior or inferior in any way. Essentially, it advocates a variety and the necessity of more than one viewpoint existing. Singer shows that Wallenberg, and well as Schindler, used their positions to allow for the existence of a group that did not necessarily include them.

2) The burning house dilemma presents and excellent example of the use of utilitarian principles in philosophy. At its core is the basic question, who would you choose to save? On the surface, the choice between saving your father or a scientist on the brink of discovering a cure for AIDS seems to be a simple one. However, applying utilitarian principles significantly complicates the matter and causes one to evaluate their own ethical standards.

Utilitarian principles follow a fairly strict code of evaluating which choice would bring about the most good for the most number of people. The basic idea is not to rely on one's own emotional attachments to make a choice, but to separate one's self from the choice and look at it from an outsider's point of view. Using this philosophical standpoint to make the choice about which person to save brings one to the conclusion that saving the scientist would be the proper choice. The idea that the scientist is on the brink of discovering a cure for AIDS makes him the logical choice. Saving your father would result in only his life being saved. In this sense, you are trading one life for another. Saving the scientist does the exact opposite. Considering the possibility that the scientist actually will discover the cure for AIDS, sacrificing your father will result in potentially millions of lives being saved in the long term. This argument is not without its weaknesses however.

How do we know that the scientist will actually discover the cure? He may have discovered some breakthroughs in research for an AIDS cure, but nothing may ever come of them. Science is wrought with examples of those who thought they were on the verge of something, only to find that they have discovered nothing at all. Utilitarianism puts forth the idea "that consequences count; indeed, it goes one step further than this and claims that only consequences count" (Hinman, p. 136). Using this justification, if the scientist indeed never discovers anything worthwhile, then you have just saved someone who contributed nothing more to society than any other human being. Therefore, there is no real way to know for certain whether this scientist will ever actually contribute anything as significant as a cure for AIDS.

Family ties are probably the most significant factor in determining who lives and who dies in this scenario. Assuming that you had a significant relationship with your father up until this point, then you will naturally have strong emotional ties to him. He is, after all, one of your biological parents. His genes make up part of who you are, and his influence can be felt in your very character. You are inexplicably tied to him on a deep emotional and psychological level. The attachment that you naturally have towards your father affects your thoughts, actions and emotions. This effect is in turn passed on to those around you (i.e. family, friends) and thus affects the world around you.

In considering both saving the scientist who could possibly discover a cure for AIDS and saving your father, the logical choice is to save your father. There is no way to really know whether the scientist will ever discover the cure, so that argument is mute. Granted, the scientist may have a family and most definitely has an impact on those around him, but since you have no direct knowledge of this, it makes no difference in this scenario. Saving your father is the only real option. He has a definite, provable impact on your life and in turn the lives of those around you. By saving your father, you are serving the greatest good, since you will be happy to still have your father and this happiness will translate to those around you and radiate outwards from there. Losing your father would do a great deal of damage in the long run to you and those around you. There is no definitive proof that the death of the scientist will have the same effect.

3) The arrest, trial, and subsequent conviction of Betty Krawczyk in Canada for her role in protesting highway expansion in Eagleridge Bluffs is a prime example for the study of the ethical life as it involves the environment and the justice system. Her example mirrors much of what is said about the ethical life by both Singer and Hinman.

Krawczyk's case stems from the expansion of the "Sea to Sky" highway expansion in West Vancouver. She lives in the area, and when she heard about the expansion project that was going to go right thru the area, she joined a group of protestors. The group's stance was that the project would be environmentally damaging and that it would be better served by a tunnel going under the area. A British Columbia court had issued an order telling the protestors to stay out of the construction area, but the group disobeyed that. Many of the protestors were arrested and later plead guilty. Krawczyk refused to apologize for the incident, and was sentenced to 10 months in prison for violating a court order.

Singer would almost certainly agree that Krawczyk is living an ethical life thru her commitment to her cause, no matter what the price. He admits that there may be those who don't agree with such people, but he argues that "they should be able to recognize the unselfish commitment of those who took part in these actions" (Singer 257). The preservation of the wilderness in the area in question would have direct impact only on the animals and plants that live in that area. Preserving the land would mean protecting those things, thus making this a very unselfish action. Krawczyk and her group's actions signify a very modern and powerful example of Singer's philosophy in attempting to live an ethical life. Krawczyk's punishment, despite her ethical actions from the aforementioned standpoint, is just. While the law may not have been created in the favor of the cause she was advocating, it is the law and should be either respected or protested thru the courts. A ten month sentence is a long time, but it is not a long time in the ultimate scheme of things. She and her group went into an area that was potentially very dangerous due to the construction and put their own lives at unnecessary risk. The actions of the court during the trial and sentencing in censuring people seem to be grossly overdone, but then again, we don't know the whole story of what was said and done in t