The Greater Good

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?

Interview with Peter Singer

Just Say No!

‘Just say no’ was the mantra used by my school as part of our drugs education. In my experience there is no ‘just’ about it. Saying no is difficult and requires courage.

Aristotle lists courage as an important virtue that people should try and develop. Fear is often seen as the opposite of courage, but Aristotle believed that there are things we should fear. One example he gives is fearing the loss of a good reputation. So fear in and of itself is not the antithesis of courage. Aristotle created the idea of the Golden Mean; this is the midway point between two vices. In the case of courage he believes that we need to find the point between cowardice (the deficiency of courage) and rashness (the excess of courage). In Ancient Greece the ultimate way of showing courage was in battle; to die in battle or to overcome the enemy was the highest honour.

Desmond Doss’ real life story is portrayed in the film Hacksaw Ridge. Here is a man who is willing to die for his country but is unwilling to take up a weapon to do so. He is labelled a coward and thought to be insane but he continues to stay true to his beliefs. There is a point in the film where he is given an ultimatum; to obey his commanding officer and show how a gun works or go to prison. He agonises over the choice as it is his heart’s desire to serve his country but he wants to remain true to his convictions. While watching his anguish, I am willing him to say ‘yes’ to the command, to just show them he knows how to use a gun. Then he’ll get his opportunity to serve as a medic on the front line. He refuses. I won’t tell you what happens next but his story is powerful one of courage and being true to yourself.

Often I think of being courageous as saying ‘yes’ to things; facing a fear, trying something new, making the most of an opportunity but lately I am finding that sometimes it takes courage to say ‘no’. I saw a wise friend of mine this week who had had to give up a number of activities where she was being successful for personal reasons. The time came when she was able to return to the things she had previously been involved in. Rather than picking up where she had left off, she felt a strong sense that she should just do one of those things. It was a hard decision because she loves to say ‘yes’ and she was really good at all the projects still available to her. Since then, she told me that her ability in the one activity she said yes to has increased and she can see this was the best and wisest choice for her.

I like to say ‘yes’ and with a more flexible timetable it is so tempting to do so, but I have felt challenged this week about whether I am saying ‘yes’ to the right things. I often see the need and think ‘Ooh, I could do that and if I don’t perhaps no one else will.’ I wonder how often I’ve trampled on someone else’s opportunity in order to add another ‘string to my bow’. My willingness to volunteer, to say ‘yes’ stems from compassion but underneath that lies the desire to be noticed, to have purpose. There’s a fear within me that if I don’t put my hand up, I will not be seen. Ultimately I fear not being loved.

So I am attempting to be courageous, to pick through the things I am currently doing and ask the question ‘Is this the right thing for now?’ This is just the first step, the harder part will be saying ‘no’ and letting go of the things that are not meant for me.

 

Have you experienced choices when it has been hard to say ‘No’? What happened?

What do you think is the greatest expression of courage?