Public Ethics in Question
One of the deepest issues of our culture today is determining which ethical principles apply to our lives and our conduct with one another. We call these public ethics. This is especially true when we attempt to find an ethical pathway in a landscape which seems to be filled with hidden pitfalls and changing rules. For example, Nancy Gibbs writing in a recent Time magazine article states,
We all learned back on the playground that whoever makes the rules of the game stands a better chance of winning it. It’s an uncomfortable lesson, one that requires us to accept that norms are fluid, that expectations shift, that people’s actions are not only judged as right or wrong, but are also measured against the depravity or valor of their peers.
The Fluidity of the Rules
Notice that she does not say that the rules are a given. No, these days the rules are “fluid.” People’s actions are not only judged or evaluated to determine if those actions are right or wrong. We judge a person’s actions by the depravity or valor of peers. Unfortunately, she gives no definition of either term. An online dictionary gives us a succinct definition of depravity. “Depravity goes beyond mere bad behavior — it is a total lack of morals, values, and even regard for other living things.” The same dictionary defines valor as “honor plus dignity. It is gallant bravery and strength. Especially on the battlefield or in the face of danger.” Just to round out this group of definitions we should note that the word “norms” is given a singular form when defined. “A statistical average is called the norm.”
So, we discover that it is the statistical average that dictates the norms for behavior. In a culture of habitual liars, a person who tells the truth is outside the norm. But does that make the truth teller a morally suspect person? If the norms are fluid and are determined by someone else’s depravity and still another’s valor, then there is very little that can be called good.
Public Ethics is Fraught With Pitfalls
I define our topic as follows. “Ethics is the motivation to do what is good.” I read a story today of another newsworthy example of this ethical quandary. Google recently set up a public ethics advisory board of people from outside their company. This board’s task was to give advice on ethics in Artificial Intelligence. Google ran into a stunning event. Thousands of their employees (actually about 2-3 %) decried the membership on the board of a person known to be a “conservative.” The woman engaged in “hate” speech toward some members of society (allegedly). See the article at the link https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18295933/google-cancels-ai-ethics-board So Google hastily disbanded the ethics advisory board. Google hopes that this puts the mistake behind.
This blog entry demonstrates how important the subject of ethics, justice, mercy and moral reasoning has become. We, as a culture, are unable to even agree on the rules that we attempt to live by. And as Nancy Gibbs says, the rules are changing and those who make the rules often do well because they made the rules. (Emphasis added) How shall we as a culture interact with each other? Which statistician will come up with the averages accepted as the norm? Whose rules will we agree to live by? More discussion will come!