Morality and Ethics of Duty Discussion Questions

Discussion 1

Monsanto demonstrates his morals in the most fundamental aspects as he behaves in a number of “moral ways”. On the one hand, he has to feed his family, ensure there will be enough seeds for the following season and sell enough corn to “pay the bills” so to speak. On the other hand, cheap imports from across the border make selling the harvested corn difficult. Many in the community do not feel the same as he does and are not trying to protect local natural and nutrient-rich corn from being phased out to these imports. Monsanto’s quest to end demand for the imports is a perfect demonstration of utilitarian principles, “Make the world a better place” (Hinman, 2013c, slide 9). He is willing to sacrifice his and his family’s immediate well being for the greater good of the community by considering the consequences represented by foreign transgenic corn.

Monsanto displays his ethical foundations in other fashions as well. You certainly get the impression that he feels a sense of duty to both community and country. His goal is to preserve local corn for a number of reasons such as tradition, nutritional value, and the eradication of generations of tradition. Immanuel Kant suggested that morality is “centered on duty” (Hinman, 2013d, slide 3). One begins to see the foundations of Monsanto’s morality through his goals.

Kant describes duty as a “freely imposing obligation on one’s own self” (Hinman, 2013d, slide 4). Monsanto has no obligation to pursue his goals; there is neither deadline nor agenda to follow. Duty is a natural behavior many people exhibit to feel connected to another person or ideal. Monsanto’s self-imposed duty must help him to feel both patriotic and inclined to preserve that which he cherishes: his country, community and family. By questing to preserve his local corn Monsanto demonstrates the fundamental characteristics of his ethical principles.

Discussion 2

The divine command theory states that something is right because God says so, or simply because it is written in what one considers sacred text. There is too much room for subjective interpretation. To extend this argument, who is to say that reason and religion are anything separate from each other? Could the bible be a text written from reason? The great philosopher Immanuel Kant, who himself believed in God, felt that “even God was subject to the dictates of reason” (Hinman, 2013a, slide 15). In this argument, it seems that if God created us in his own image, and we have the ability to reason, then God must also be subject to the same laws of moral reasoning.

Utilitarianism suggests that “Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions” (Hinman, 2013b, slide 4). This states that having a thought to do something good is wonderful but not as important as actually doing something good. Simply put, morality is the guild of our actions. Unitarianism, though solid on the surface does have some loopholes allowing for some false argument. Some like John Stuart Mill noted that happiness, not pleasure, should be the standard of utility (Hinman, 2013b, 13). Much of our society bases action on what makes them happy. What if not doing the ‘moral’ or right thing makes me happy? Then the premise of this theory has no leg to stand on. Utilitarianism seems to put too much weight on the outcome of our actions and not enough on the intent. What if my intent was to make someone happy but the consequences of those actions backfired? It is here in my opinion that utilitarianism simply fails.

The idea of ethical pluralism is a standard approach to the normative theory stating there is no one idea that can narrow down to the simplest meaning nor any higher authority to say one ethic is any more right or wrong than another. Ethical pluralism is in essence exactly that…plural, more than one. There can be no singularity to what is normal. What one considers normal another considers abnormal. Ethical egoism is based on the self-preservation of one’s own happiness, i.e. look out only for yourself (Hinman, 2013c, slide 5). While the outward extension of utilitarianism concerns itself only with the way things turn out. It should be apparent that there can be no single causal answer to moral origins. Looking at the ideas presented here they all lack one aspect or another. The divine theory lacks the right of free will as well as autonomous thinking. Utilitarianism drops the ball in thinking that sometimes the consequences are not at all what we intended. Ethical egoism is much like the self-centered hermit who is only concerned with what kind of payoff he can get for his actions. Looking at all these in tandem there is partial truth in all of them, but certainly no single answer or definition to our moral claims.

References

Hinman, L. M. (2013a). Divine command theory of ethics [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.csupomona.edu.

Hinman, L. M. (2013b). Utilitarianism [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.csupomona.edu.

Hinman, L. M. (2013c). Basic moral orientations overview [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.csupomona.edu.

Hinman, L. M. (2013d). Immanuel Kant and the Ethics of Duty [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.csupomona.edu.