I have been watching season 4 of the apocalyptic sci-fi
series The 100. One of the reasons I like this series regardless of the
plot flaws, is that it tackles some big ethical questions.
For those who are unfamiliar with the story-line, the earth
has suffered a nuclear war and a number of people survived due to being put on
(or born on) the Ark – a space station designed to keep people alive until the
earth became habitable again.
Since then, people from the Ark have returned to the earth
to discover not only is it habitable but there are other survivors. Their survival
is continually threatened and leaders find themselves facing difficult ethical
dilemmas.
Currently, armed with the knowledge that deadly radiation is
coming their way, one leader must decide which 100 people will gain access to Archadia
(a section of the Ark that came to earth). There are at least 500 people but
only 100 can be sustained on the ark for the guesstimated time to avoid the
radiation. One leader faces the unenviable task of choosing who survives. She
bases her choices on the utility of people and the greater good.
The phrase ‘the greater good’ originates from a
philosophical theory known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism says that actions
themselves are neither morally right nor wrong; therefore moral decisions
should be made based on the outcome of an action. Potential outcomes should be
evaluated to see which will bring about the greatest good for the greatest
number. So a scenario where a bomber is tortured to locate the bomb is regarded
as a moral action because the pain of one person is worth saving the lives of
hundreds of others.
One of the problems with this ethical theory is that it
relies on future knowledge. When I am torturing the bomber, I have no real idea
whether my actions are in fact saving hundreds of lives. It may be that the
location of the bomb will be discovered, but it goes off anyway, hundreds die and
one person was tortured.
Peter Singer, a modern utilitarian, believes that this theory
can help us reflect on our actions so they benefit the wider community not just
ourselves or our nearest and dearest. His views were discussed as part of the A
level curriculum I used to teach and a lot of the material made him seem rather
fanatical and impractical (I guess that makes for more interesting discussions
and essays). I was surprised to discover a more empathic response from him in
an interview that focuses on the ethics of our food choices. In this he
recognises the pressure to conform to society's norms but he encourages everyone to reflect
on their actions and to try to minimize the harm that they are causing. For example, choosing to eat meat everyday has ramifcations for both the environment and those who are in developing countries, for whom meat is a luxury rather than an expectation.
I do not fully agree with Singer’s worldview, as he has some
rather controversial views about animals, foetus’ and disability but I find his
questions about our impact on the environment and on others thought-provoking
and challenging.
As far as I know, I have never made a life or death decision
that has directly affected the lives of others. However there are lots of
decisions I make where I am unaware of the full extent of the consequences, but
this does not stop me making those decisions. I’m thinking about my choices as
a consumer. It has got me thinking about the decisions I make that do have an
impact on others, on the environment and its future. I don’t have many answers,
but I am enjoying grappling with these issues and trying to find a realistic,
thoughtful way forwards.
Is the greater good a useful way of approaching ethical decisions?
How important is it to consider ourselves as global citizens with a responsibility to one another?
Are consequences more important than the action itself?
