Ethical Frameworks

My next blog will be about my ethical considerations with regards to my research project but I thought I would give context to this by firstly summarising my feelings on the differing ethical frameworks in place.

It seems to me that ethics is about responsibility to a social good. It is rarely about yes or no, black or white. Instead it is to do with the way we approach those hard to answer questions. Those grey areas. I think Hobbes' (1651) idea that ethics is a 'practical solution to social harmony and good' (BAPP course reader 5; professional ethics, 2010) is very accurate. Simply put, we are all competing for the same things, we all have equal need for them, and we are generally not always altruistic. Ethics are in place to ensure that we act fairly and with thought to others, but also that they do the same. Hobbes' idea suggests that morality for mutual benefit is what keeps society steady. Is this on closer inspection however under selling why people act ethically?

I have looked into Consequentialism and into Deontology but I don't think either of them completely satisfy and support my ethical standpoint. Initially the Consequentialist idea of maximising good is a very appealing one. Surely if we do that then the world would become as good as it can be. However, I have a problem that the ethical stance on something should be decided entirely on the outcome. Here is an example. 

A person is trapped under the rubble after an earthquake and four people decide to help get them out. It is very dangerous moving the rubble but they manage to free the trapped person and they all go on to live the rest of their lives. 

The outcome here is a good one. There were five survivors from the incident which is definitely maximising the good. Based on the outcome of this event it was ethically right for the people to help the trapped man but what if the outcome had been different?

A person is trapped under the rubble after an earthquake and four people decide to help get them out. It is very dangerous moving the rubble and in the process three of the rescuers are killed. The fourth rescuer and the trapped person go on to live the rest of their lives.

The outcome here is less good. Only two out of the five people survived which is no longer maximising the good. Based on the outcome of this second event the rescuers were ethically wrong for attempting to help the man. In light of examples like this I begin to question whether Consequentialism is actually that satisfying.

Perhaps Deontology has the answer? Immanuel Kant (1779) argued that the 'only absolutely good thing is good will'. I think this is a much more appropriate and useful concept when dealing with ethical considerations. It is by looking at people's intentions that we decide whether an act is ethically right or not. Looking again at the examples above through the eyes of Deontology in both instances the actions of the rescuers can be thought of as ethically right because their intentions were to save a trapped man who would have otherwise died. The outcome is now irrelevant. This way of looking at things seems much more clear cut and absolute which is where the problem with Deontology lies. It is about absolutes. It is about black and white and yes and no which I believe goes against the very nature of ethics. If things were black and white we would have no need for ethics. We would just know that something was right or wrong. For example, in Deontology lying is always considered wrong. What if you are lying with the good intention of saving someone's feelings? Killing a man is always wrong, but what if you are doing it with the intention of protecting your children? Deontology on the surface seems to be about intentions but is too rigid in it's framework. It is too full of moral absolutes.

So does Virtue Ethics hold the answer? This is about the moral character of the individual which at first seems to me to be rather ambiguous. This is surely a hard thing to judge and to quantify. Its origins come from Aristotle who believed virtue to be a habitual action that was the 'mid-point between two extremes' (ethics reader, 2010). The example given in the reader is that the virtue of courage is half way between cowardice and foolhardiness. What about the virtue of honesty then? If it is a mid-point then what are the extremes? Presumably one end of the scale is lying but what about the other end? Could it be saying exactly what you think all the time with no consideration for feeling? In that case it would seem that to have the virtue of honesty you don't always have to tell the truth. Perhaps a comforting thought to those people who were trying to find a way to justify their white lies.

So Virtue Ethics appears to be about balance. A word that I've seen used on a few different blogs (apologies for not remembering who you all are now) and which I really think clarifies things. Ethics to me is about using a reasoned, considered approach to achieve balance between conflicting ideas. Whilst doing this a persons intentions are of more importance that the actual outcome of events.

I think viewing ethics in this way is very useful when approaching a research project. The ethical role of the researcher is to ensure that equal consideration is given to all participants and that any conflicting needs and wishes are balanced. The researcher's intentions should be good and they must make their intentions clear. It is not enough to act ethically, you must also be seen to act ethically. This will instill trust from you participants and give your research credibility.