This is the eighteenth Chapter from the online book: Living Ethics: The Way of Wholeness. See: 1) How Should We Live? 2) Ethics and Civilization 3) Worldview and Ethics 4) Self View and Ethics 5) World as System 6) The Material Cosmos 7) Biological Systems 8) Human Systems 9) Psyche as System 10) The Collective Unconscious 11) The Collective Conscious 12) Emerging From Chaos 13) The Emerging Worldview 14) The Psychological Problem 15) Approaches to Natural Ethics 16) Good, Ethics, and Evil 17) Reverence for Life and Natural Ethic
Donivan Bessinger, MD
The concept of ethics expressed as attitude rather than as rules can be both perplexing and intimidating—perplexing since “right action” is not immediately obvious, and intimidating in the apparent complexity of decision-making. The ethical model, with Good at the fulcrum of the balance seems simple enough, until one sees that there is not just one set of opposing characteristics on only one balance beam. The Good seeks to resolve not just simple polarities, but to find the balance point of all of the many converging and overlapping vectors or directions of actions in the universe.
In geometry and physics, a vector is a line that defines both the direction of an action, and its magnitude. For example, in diagrams of forces acting on a sailboat, the current and wind and boat motion can be shown as arrows pointing in a certain direction, and the length of each line can indicate the speed. The behavior of the boat is a result of the balance of the forces.
A vector diagram of a typical ethical problem, however, would be far more complex than that. It might well seem even worse than an art museum’s problem of suspending a modernistic mobile sculpture, especially one which has many arms of different length pointing in all directions, and which is not symmetrical in any plane. Only the art director with a clear vision of the beauty of the balanced work would bother to try, and persist until the balance is achieved.
If all ethical problems were really of such complexity, we would have no reasonable hope of acting ethically without recourse to a computer—it would take a computer to calculate the vectors. Besides, the programming would require reducing problems to “rules”. Is there a way to view the problems more simply? Is there a model that permits organizing the complexity of ethical problems, so that ethics can be practiced on a human scale?
An elementary physics demonstration helps here. If a horseshoe magnet is held beneath a glass plate, and the plate is thinly covered with randomly scattered metal filings, the filings align themselves along curved lines between the poles of the magnet. The filings are subject to an invisible field of magnetic force.
Actions at the atomic and subatomic levels are also governed by a field of invisible forces—electromagnetic, gravitational, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Particles and the quantum pulses of energy interact according to the forces. The field is the medium in which the transference of forces takes place. It is as if there were an invisible network which influences every thing within it.
Ethical actions are also subject to a “field theory” of sorts. Actions take place in a network of forces, invisible in themselves but visible in their effects. A complex field of socioeconomic, legal, scientific, and technologic forces competes in shaping every human action. Each of these categories of forces must be considered in making decisions. The forces define what is a possible action, and what are the probable outcomes of an action.
Socio-economic forces include all of the social, cultural, and monetary influences on action. Actions typically affect a number of people. Certain actions may be urged by social pressures, such as ethnic traditions or religious ritual requirements. Others may be prevented by such concerns. For example there may be a strong social tabu in regard to some proposed action. Of course, a tabu often has some ethical consideration at its base. There are nearly always considerations of economics. For example, is an action affordable? Often, the economic effects of an action are the most far-reaching. In some of the most difficult medical decisions, the economic pressures are very strong.
Legal forces include all of the legislative, judicial and regulatory considerations impinging on a situation. That these have become complex is obvious on most hospital committees of medical ethics. An attorney is appointed, not necessarily because of expertise in ethical theory. The lawyer is there to pilot the committee through the hazardous reefs of concretized parasitic legal growth in the sea of human affairs.
Science is the force of knowledge. Actions are influenced by all of the knowledge bearing on a subject. What is possible? What are the alternatives? What is the expected proximate result of an action? What distant effects may be predicted? Though one may act in ignorance, one usually may not ethically do so. Though one may act with ethical sensitivity and ethical intent, lack of knowledge in planning or performing the action may lead to an undesired and counter-ethical result.
Technology is the force that determines what tools are used in performing a proposed action. Science and technology are often lumped together as one concept, for technology is inextricably tied to research and to knowledge. However, knowledge is an essential and separate element in decisions about which technologic alternative is the more appropriate. Too often the mere availability of a means of performing an action results in its use, especially if there is an economic incentive to do so. It is as though there were an almost autonomous “technologic imperative” to action. Technology must be isolated as only one of several considerations in resolving issues ethically.
The “forces” in these four categories shape all human actions. Of course, these are not forces that tend toward ethics. The ethical impulses originate elsewhere, in the natural ethic or attitude that is described as reverence for life. The field defines the limits of action. It is the reality field which moderates idealistic and sentimental impulses. It is the “local reality” or medium through which ethical energies are transmitted into specific actions. It is also the field in which the effects of actions resonate to effect other levels of action. It is the medium in which “friction” operates to limit the reach of an action.
All of these forces are derived from the collective functioning of human consciousness. In that sense, the ethical field is a function of the noosphere, the collective conscious. Just as a particle emerges from the quantum field under the influence of the internal balance in the field of physical forces, so does ethical action emerge within the balance of forces operating in the noosphere.
In this context, the field may be thought of as the “internal environment” for the particular level being considered. It is the level at which homeostasis of the system operates. For example, at the level of the original and most ordinary use of the term, homeostasis is the regulation of the internal balances of the individual organism. At the atomic and cosmic levels, the field is the quantum field. At the societal level, the field is the ethical field.
We are using ethical field to indicate the level which is defined by the reach of human action. As science and technology expand to permit action at other levels of the universe, the ethical field will be extended. For example, sterilizing the spacecraft used in exploration of the surface of Mars had ethical as well as scientific implications. From the scientific standpoint, it would not have been acceptable to have the experiments contaminated with Earth life, for that would have nullified any findings about the presence of Martian life. The ethical consideration, however, was to avoid contaminating any Martian life, at least until we knew more about what we were doing.
It is in the seeking of its balance that the system or any subsystem (organism) develops. It is in finding the balance that the system (organism) finds its fullfillment. The Good is found in the regulation of the system itself. ‘Peace’ for the system is a natural golden mean, and the Middle Way of Confucianist writings. The Middle Way was propounded in one of the great “Four Books” of Confucianist philosophy, the earliest dating from the sixth century BCE. It has also been called the “steadfast mean”, or Chung Yung. Chung denotes the correct course to be pursued by all under heaven. Yung denotes the fixed principle regulating all under heaven. (1)
The Good is found in actions which seek to optimize the ability of a self-regulating system to serve the development of life in all of its aspects. In Schweitzer’s terms, it is not sufficient merely to protect life from injury. The natural ethic (reverence for life) seeks to raise life to the highest level to which it can develop. (2)
One may well ask whether we have not created a model that makes ethics more complicated, rather than more simple. No decision, or combination of decisions by any one person is able to regulate precisely the balance of a system that includes so many influences. An ethical system surely cannot provide control of such complexities.
Though that may be true, it misses the point. The goal of an individual ethical act is not to regulate precisely the total balance in the field. According to the definitions of systems theory, a system is self-regulating. The Good is found in the balance of the self-regulating system. It is the resultant of many interrelated actions which in the aggregate bring the system to find its balance. In our systems-oriented approach to natural ethics, the ethical system is not a systematic outline of knowledge and theory about ethics; it is the organic system within which humans act, seeking actions which serve the balance.
However, even if we cannot directly and fully regulate the balance of a system that is essentially self-regulating, we do need some means of sensing the direction of balance, if actions are to be applied ethically. But how can that balance be expressed, or sensed?
The forces of the ethical field are described in terms of economic and demographic statistics, as scientific data, as laws or regulations, as technologic specifications. These data may define the power of the forces, but cannot in themselves express the organic balance of the system. Therefore, though we may need to calculate statistical averages and monitor selected indicators or indices, we may not rely on them to determine ethics. We must sense the direction of ethical action by other means.
Does the “conscience” somehow play a role? Is the conscience a conscious expression of an unconscious gyroscope, somehow sensing balance, or a compass, sensing direction? Perhaps so if (in Jungian terms) the transcendent function is operating. The first ethical responsibility is to “Know oneself” in the totality of the self, so as to maintain awareness of one’s own balance, in order to act in harmony with other life. However, as we have commented, consciousness can be deluded. The voice of “conscience” may in fact be the voice of a near-autonomous ego complex, overriding the transcendent function.
Is altruism a measure or sensor of ethical action? Stated another way, is the most altruistic action always the most ethical? The problem of whether a given act is purely an act of altruism or egoism can always be a subject for ripe debate. That itself suggests that the truth of the case is that neither can be “purely” or exclusively true. The systems worldview provides the proper perspective: altruism and egoism are always interrelated and interactive, and neither impulse can operate in isolation.
Altruism always has an operative egoistic component. In every altruistic impulse, the ego can find some positive value to itself. That positive value would be very short lived when (as is occasionally recorded) one seeks intentionally to give one’s life for another. Nevertheless, in the moments that the impulse is entertained, the ego finds its value.
Nor can the ego operate exclusively in its own interest. Even if it deludes itself into trying to do so, there will be a negative social feedback that operates against the development and fulfillment of the ego’s “owner”, and thus works to its own detriment. Though the argument is negative, the point is made: egoism and altruism are interactive.
It follows that neither altruism nor egoism is a satisfactory measure, by itself, of the direction of ethical action. An act taken in one’s own ego-interest may give rise to an altruistic benefit, for example when from ego-interest one starts a business and generates jobs for others, or useful products or services for others. A egoistic act may indeed be ethical, though of course the means as well as the ends of the act must be considered in reaching that conclusion.
May the direction of ethical action be expressed in terms of avoidance or amelioration of pain and suffering? We have discussed the problem of pain and ethics, finding that pain is not always evil. Sometimes it is supportive of protection from further injury and healing. Sometimes pain is necessary in treatments designed to promote healing. Much the same could be said for suffering. Eric J. Cassel makes the distinction in a medical article, saying that if pain means physical distress, there still may be suffering as psychological or social distress, even after the pain is cured. (3)
Yet the same principle operates with psychological and social distresses, as with physical distress: it may be the constructive alerting signal without which healing processes could not be activated. An anesthetic that dulls pain without providing treatment may be unethical. (4) Actions which dull the senses to social and psychological suffering and thus prevent a reactive healing response are unethical also.
We (agreeing with Schweitzer) have said that specific prior rules and value scales are not admissible in determining the direction of ethical action. As quoted in the last chapter, Schweitzer argues that humans have a conflict of interest in deciding what form of life is more valuable to the universe, or what value a form of life carries within itself. Thus, actions which must be taken for our own survival and which injure or destroy other life must be taken with awareness and with regret, and only after due consideration.
Above we have mentioned that both means and ends must be considered in evaluating whether an act is ethical. The concept of the ethical field of interactive influences helps demonstrate that both means and ends influence the balance of the life system. No end justifies a means that is detrimental to life’s balance; no means is ethical if directed toward an end which tends to destroy life’s balance.
We are faced with a complicated field of ethical action. As tests of the ethical, we have rejected (among other things) rules, value scales, statistics and specifications, altruism and anesthesia. What possible help is there to be? We still need some means of guidance for action. In such a situation, conventional wisdom cries out for rules and certainties.
Attempting to provide such assurances at the level of ordinary actions is the focus of normative ethics, that is, studies directed toward providing norms or standards of action. As the complexity of the ethical field demonstrates, each situation is subject to a different set of forces or considerations. Yet, nothing in the context of an action specifically defines right action.
Resolving these dilemmas of applied ethics does require some further guidance. The answer lies in defining an ethics of ethics. That is our next task.
Copyright 2000 by Donivan Bessinger. All rights reserved.
Next Chapter: MetaEthics
More by Donivan Bessinger, MD
References:
(1) CHUNG YUNG—”The Doctrine of the Steadfast Mean”, See The Portable World Bible, R. O. Ballou, editor. New York: Penguin Books, 1985. p 510.
(2) RAISE LIFE TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL—Schweitzer. OMLT, p 188.
(3) PAIN DISTINGUISHED FROM SUFFERING—Eric J. Cassel. “The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine.” New England Journal of Medicine, 1982 (March 18). 306: 639-645.
(4) DULLING PAIN—Of course, an action to dull pain without giving other treatment is ethical when no efficacious treatment is available.