Everyday Pro-Health Engineered Ethics
Since we do not allow individual discretion in
judgment calls involving life trades, there appears no ethical basis for
granting individual rights to lethal weapons, unless on a controlled basis, for
hunting or other unusual self-defensive reasons.
What if we apply Pro-Health, Engineered
Ethics (see 9 Nov 2004 entry) to some practical situations (in the "hot button"
class) and ask what are the consequences?
Abortion:
According to these pro-life ethics, abortion can be ethical when more health and welfare is gained than lost in suffering and death. However, there is no "right of choice" as is often asserted by Pro-choice advocates. According to pro-life ethics we are considering here, each abortion decision must be made with concurrence by a judicial body of peers, who must be persuaded of the net benefit of the abortion by the party advocating it. Thus the consequence is that all abortion should be permitted only after consideration by an appropriate "jury" of peers.
Gay Marriage or Unions:
Here it is difficult to see what harm is done by the practice of gay marriages or unions. From the pro-life point of view, one might argue that participation in such a union deprives the world of living offspring that might be produced if the parties had normal heterosexual marriages. This is quite likely the root basis for a religious rejection of homosexuality. On the other hand, our pro-life ethics, while advocating life and opposing its extinction, do not go so far as to make it a crime for heterosexual couples to refrain from reproducing. Hence it is difficult to claim a prohibition against homosexuality on such grounds. The typical homophobia appears ill-founded on any ethical basis, and therefore should be opposed as unethical inasmuch as it produces considerable suffering and loss of welfare among shunned individuals.
Gun Control:
In modern America, gun and weapon issues revolve around the 2nd amendment, which was evidently designed to preserve the freedom to overthrow the government if it should become tyrannical, especially in the context of states rights relative to the federal government. More recently it has been interpreted in terms of individual rights to employ self-defense with lethal force, or in connection with hunting of game. Nevertheless, it is difficult to defend a right to lethal force, exercised on an individual basis, when pro-life ethics are the basis. Much more humane forms of self-defense exist, apparently obviating the need for lethal force in personal interactions. State governments are of course empowered to employ militias, which covers that level. And hunting weapons are easily distinguished from self-defensive or attack weapons. Since we do not allow individual discretion in judgment calls involving life trades, there appears no ethical basis for granting individual rights to lethal weapons, unless on a controlled basis, for hunting or other unusual self-defensive reasons.
War:
War is the ultimate human tragedy, but is usually conducted for idealistic reasons involving the liberation of a people from tyrannical rule, by which is usually meant "liberation from rule by another party than the one making war". On the world stage, war is the only known way to resolve differences in the rights asserted by governments. A close analogy exists with relations among individuals, even though governments consist of millions of individuals. Considering the success of democracy, it seems that the democratic local governments would work toward a confederation of governments in a democratic world government. This has not worked well, probably because many of the current world governments still aspire to be the one world government, or otherwise refuse to submit to such a government. From a pro-life ethics perspective, it is pretty clear that war should only be undertaken for reasons of self-defense. Anything else is imperialism or colonialism. The problem is that there is no judicial authority that can credibly or authoritatively decide when war is justified by the threat of greater casualties and suffering in the event that war is not made. Nevertheless, nations recognize this problem, and a practice has arisen of forming coalitions of nations whenever military action appears necessary. The greater the number and status of such a coalition, the greater is the authority with which it can make war. Ideally, the United Nations or another body would provide the organization for a world judicial body, but to date, the UN has been rendered ineffective by the unwillingness of its security council nations to submit to group will in difficult cases. This is evidenced by the veto power that each of them retains as a condition of its participation.
Summary:
Pro-life engineered ethics appears to have straightforward, defensible, common sense answers to many of the difficult ethical issues of our times, except at the level of warfare. There it is hampered by the lack of an international judicial body that can decide in cases where apparently unethical behavior is necessary to prevent a greater amount of unethical behavior from occurring. This can be addressed and perhaps remedied if the nations of the world will set up a judicial body and abide by its decisions in all cases involving relations among nations.
Abortion:
According to these pro-life ethics, abortion can be ethical when more health and welfare is gained than lost in suffering and death. However, there is no "right of choice" as is often asserted by Pro-choice advocates. According to pro-life ethics we are considering here, each abortion decision must be made with concurrence by a judicial body of peers, who must be persuaded of the net benefit of the abortion by the party advocating it. Thus the consequence is that all abortion should be permitted only after consideration by an appropriate "jury" of peers.
Gay Marriage or Unions:
Here it is difficult to see what harm is done by the practice of gay marriages or unions. From the pro-life point of view, one might argue that participation in such a union deprives the world of living offspring that might be produced if the parties had normal heterosexual marriages. This is quite likely the root basis for a religious rejection of homosexuality. On the other hand, our pro-life ethics, while advocating life and opposing its extinction, do not go so far as to make it a crime for heterosexual couples to refrain from reproducing. Hence it is difficult to claim a prohibition against homosexuality on such grounds. The typical homophobia appears ill-founded on any ethical basis, and therefore should be opposed as unethical inasmuch as it produces considerable suffering and loss of welfare among shunned individuals.
Gun Control:
In modern America, gun and weapon issues revolve around the 2nd amendment, which was evidently designed to preserve the freedom to overthrow the government if it should become tyrannical, especially in the context of states rights relative to the federal government. More recently it has been interpreted in terms of individual rights to employ self-defense with lethal force, or in connection with hunting of game. Nevertheless, it is difficult to defend a right to lethal force, exercised on an individual basis, when pro-life ethics are the basis. Much more humane forms of self-defense exist, apparently obviating the need for lethal force in personal interactions. State governments are of course empowered to employ militias, which covers that level. And hunting weapons are easily distinguished from self-defensive or attack weapons. Since we do not allow individual discretion in judgment calls involving life trades, there appears no ethical basis for granting individual rights to lethal weapons, unless on a controlled basis, for hunting or other unusual self-defensive reasons.
War:
War is the ultimate human tragedy, but is usually conducted for idealistic reasons involving the liberation of a people from tyrannical rule, by which is usually meant "liberation from rule by another party than the one making war". On the world stage, war is the only known way to resolve differences in the rights asserted by governments. A close analogy exists with relations among individuals, even though governments consist of millions of individuals. Considering the success of democracy, it seems that the democratic local governments would work toward a confederation of governments in a democratic world government. This has not worked well, probably because many of the current world governments still aspire to be the one world government, or otherwise refuse to submit to such a government. From a pro-life ethics perspective, it is pretty clear that war should only be undertaken for reasons of self-defense. Anything else is imperialism or colonialism. The problem is that there is no judicial authority that can credibly or authoritatively decide when war is justified by the threat of greater casualties and suffering in the event that war is not made. Nevertheless, nations recognize this problem, and a practice has arisen of forming coalitions of nations whenever military action appears necessary. The greater the number and status of such a coalition, the greater is the authority with which it can make war. Ideally, the United Nations or another body would provide the organization for a world judicial body, but to date, the UN has been rendered ineffective by the unwillingness of its security council nations to submit to group will in difficult cases. This is evidenced by the veto power that each of them retains as a condition of its participation.
Summary:
Pro-life engineered ethics appears to have straightforward, defensible, common sense answers to many of the difficult ethical issues of our times, except at the level of warfare. There it is hampered by the lack of an international judicial body that can decide in cases where apparently unethical behavior is necessary to prevent a greater amount of unethical behavior from occurring. This can be addressed and perhaps remedied if the nations of the world will set up a judicial body and abide by its decisions in all cases involving relations among nations.
Posted: Sat - November 13, 2004 at 02:05 p.m. | |
Quick Links
About This Site
This is the R&R site of Tom Moore of Crofton, MD USA.
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Blogs Rolled
Links
Categories
Blogroll Me!
Archives
Comments
XML/RSS Feed
Recent Toons
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 01, 2005 06:35 p.m.
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 01, 2005 06:35 p.m.