Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Ethics is not in Eatht Anglia

I was looking at applying to the OU about Philosophy courses the other day. One course (an MA) looked interesting and involved many topics and challenges. But there, sitting at the end of the course, like a nightmare, was the exam. It would no doubt be a written exam lasting at least 3 hours and require a considerable length essay. This is a real put-off for me for two reasons. The first is that, for reasons unknown, my memory is in serious trouble. I have little idea what I did at the weekend when it comes to Monday, I instantly forget people’s names and can rarely remember what I had for lunch. I simply cannot retain certain types of information. Can you imagine my exam paper which would talk at length of that philosopher, you know, oh what’s his name, you know, the guy from, where was it, born in the mumble mumble century. You know the one. The second issue, which is the killer, is that I simply cannot imagine writing anything by hand any more. I just could not sit and write 5000 words in one go and still be readable. Basically, by about word 200, I strongly suspect my hand would simply cease up. I cannot remember (see point 1 so it could have been last week) when I last wrote ANYTHING by hand. My typing speed is good and the auto correction in word is now so good that by the time I have looked up at what I have just typed it has normally put right much of the random order of letters that I have inputted. My paper would be able to stand up on its own with the amount of tipex on it.

I cannot be sure that it is a hand written exam, I will need to ask, but it would seem an odd requirement for a topic that is really about thinking and not the memorising of facts. The alternative used in other exams is the multiple choice. Can you imagine a multiple choice exam in philosophy.


1) Do you
a) Exist
b) Not exist
c) None of the above

2) Which came first
a) Chicken
b) Egg

3) Are you a figment of
a) Your imagination
b) My imagination
c) No such thing as imagination

4) Are all swans
a) Black
b) White
c) Elephants

5) If the answer to this question is True you will fail the exam. Have you passed this exam?
a) Yes
b) No

I am sure I had question five in most of my exams.

Looking at the philosophy of ethics at the moment. Some very interesting issues to get to grips with. The taking of life is a fascinating subject which appears to be under fierce debate. It seems to be one of the few areas of philosophy which has real every day use. Take the issue of the Siamese twins Jodi and Mary. Mary was not going to survive and her death would have meant the death of Jodi. There was eventually a court battle over this as the doctors wanted to separate the two, essentially killing Mary to save Jodi. The parents, Roman Catholics did not agree as they believe that the taking of any life is a sin and that nature should take its course. This was a great test of the law and our ways of rationalising such issues. The issue philosophically is quite difficult to resolve. Common sense says that you would obviously operate killing Mary to save Jodi as Mary was going to die anyway in under a year. Obvious right?

Not really, one book I am currently reading provides an alternative thought experiment. There are two adult patients. One has heart disease and requires a transplant in the next month or he will die. Another patient has terminal cancer (bowel cancer) with less than a year to live but a healthy heart. So under the same logic and reasoning used for Mary above you would have to argue that it would be right to kill the cancer patient and give the heart to the diseased patient so he could live.

To be able to rationalise the Mary/Jodi solution, which was obvious right?, you have to be able to explain why we also know that it is ethically unacceptable to kill the cancer patient. It’s a hard one. There are other experiments, in case you think the right thing is to let both Mary and Jodi die. Two astronauts are stuck in a space capsule in different disconnected modules. You only have room to save one of them but by opening the hatch to save one you will kill the other. Would you save one and kill the other or would it be right to let both die. Setting aside the problem of how to select which one, the right thing to do is to save one? You would never say leave them both to die.

These are very real issues to deal with and expose how inconsistent and poorly we tend to think (or not think) about the things that go on in our lives. There are a number of attempts to resolve this issue. One is the utilitarian answer which looks at a solution which results in the greatest amount of happiness. This clearly selects life over death. However it runs into problems elsewhere. A theory which says an action is ethically sound if the net happiness measured is higher than the suffering that is caused by the event has other side effects. But if you go down that road then you justify sending children into a paedophile convention. The happiness of 500 paedophiles is clearly more important than the unhappiness of the few children sent in for their amusement. An unpleasant example I know but it suitably outlines the problems of such an approach to ethics.

So where does that leave us. I think the Mary/Jodi problem is one to do with connectedness. It’s to do with the twins and the space problem being a subtly different decision than the cancer patient one. The red herring I believe is that the cancer/heart problem is actually wrongly framed. The experiment makes you think that the decision is about the terminal cancer and it’s not. The fact is that every human on the planet with a healthy heart now is going to die. Some in a few years, some in 50 years etc etc. The fact of a cancer related illness is not important. I believe we are looking at why anybody should not be killed to save the heart patient. Everyone is going to die anyway. Ethically we would not consider exchanging a life for another (again, not clear cut, body guards, soldiers, police, firemen but they tend to volunteer their lives for others) if there is no direct connection to the two events. And I think, but not 100% sure, this is the difference. Mary and Jodi are connected (literally) but their life and death decisions are linked as with the spacemen. But the cancer and heart patient are not linked in any way. There are other solutions and options which could come up which allow the decision to be postponed. Jodi and Mary are fated as are the spacemen. This is the difference I believe. We ethically tend to reject the taking of life for any reason until all the options are removed and that the choice is 2 deaths or 1. I believe this is why it is obvious to save Jodi and 1 spaceman.

I also think this goes some way to helping us understand about executions. Most of the world does not believe that executions are an ethical thing to be doing. I used to think I was in favour until I worked through the problem. To rationalise the taking of life in prison would also leave me supporting the cancer patient scenario, the criminal and the victim are no longer connected. That does not mean that police should not shoot to kill if an innocent life is in real danger (although non-lethal force should be used where possible), to me that’s the Mary and Jodi problem. By threatening someone else’s life you make that connection. But to take a life once caught and out of harm’s way, of no threat to anyone any longer makes no sense while there is hope that the criminal will change their ways.

I am still not entirely convinced that this is a rational decision. In Jodi and Mary and the spacemen, we have lost hope, for the heart patient there is still hope of another donor and while that hope is there we cannot justify the death of an innocent. Not entirely sure hope is a rational position but that must be the subject of another blog.