Good Bridge Between Beliefs And Actions example essay topic

Over the course of years, the ethical insights that we human beings have tend to become "rules,"norms,"principles". These are the "tried-and-true" concepts which we know in such forms as "Honesty is the best policy"; "Don't lie, cheat, or steal"; or "Let your word be your bond". These nostrums amount to the moral currency with which we deal every day, and it would be foolish to ignore the accumulated experience of our forebears in deliberating about how to act. Indeed, this experience, and our upbringing in light of it, helps to shape our intuitions. There is a symbiosis, then, between the "flashes of insight" known to intuitionist's and rules of conduct favored by deontologists (who customarily resort to such rules as tests of the rightness or goodness of actions). The rules provide us general guidance, but when they are silent or seemingly in conflict, we depend upon our ethical insight to guide us (and it is one of the chief functions of the virtue of prudence to inform our insight, and to ensure that our intuitions are correct).

Now, in moral science, as in physical science, there are some basic truths. If the law of gravity is basic in physical science, so is the law of truth-telling basic in moral science. But just as gravity can be overcome, so can truth-telling (a law's being overcome does not mean that it is "cancelled" or that it is not really a law). Are there, then, times we should lie, or steal? Are there times to commit murder?

The argument below is so critical to the field of military ethics that we will take it step by step. 1. Over the course of centuries, the thinking and living of the human race has produced for us a treasury of moral knowledge, ethical principles, and guide to rightful conduct that we ignore at our peril. The moral intuitions (and some would add religious Revelation) of our forebears have created this deposit of moral knowledge, this corpus of rules. 2.

From this body of rules has developed a school of ethics known as deontology, which in essence holds that we have a duty to perform certain tasks measured by these rules or principles, regardless of consequences. 3. The school of ethics known as teleology holds that one must determine what to do on the basis of the probable consequences of one's choice. Utilitarians constitute one species of teleologist, and argue that the action is right or good which brings about the greatest happiness (by which they mean pleasure or preference satisfaction) of the greatest number; and this can be called the principle of utility. The appeal of this school comes from the common intuition that, in some circumstances, where the consequences of following a particular moral rule would be drastic, an exception must be warranted. One of us will testify that most military officers determine right from wrong on the basis of a utilitarian, cost-benefit analysis.

We regard this approach as perhaps occasionally necessary as a kind of moral shorthand, but never of itself sufficient. That utilitarianism alone is insufficient for military ethics is obvious: our forces, in deciding whether or not to conduct an ambush, do not worry about whether, since the enemy is more numerous, our winning might not bring about less overall happiness than our losing. At the very least. We must conjoin a principle of utility with the basis political science question of "Cui bono?" (whose good? that is, who stands to gain, and who stands to lose? ).

Answers to this question, which in effect limit the scope of the principle of utility, range from "my good" or "my unit's good" to "my country's good" or to even greater levels of generality. In the military, the question is generally answered for us by our mission, by our operations order, by our standard operating procedures. 4. Yet if all ethical matters can be reduced to utility calculations as circumscribed by our answer to the question of cui bono, then ethics is a function of arithmetic.

For since our answer will always be our good, at whatever level of generality or inclusiveness, justice will amount to little more than the interest of the stronger. But surely ethics is more than figuring out who wins and loses in particular circumstances. Are there any rules which always apply, regardless of circumstances? 5.

Our answer is that, yes, there are some rules that always apply, among them these: One must always try to do good and to avoid evil, and one must always seek to reason well about what is to be done (that is, one must always seek to be prudent, to find the truth). One must always seek to be just, to be brave, and to be temperate. There are and can be no exceptions to those precepts, no matter how much utility is at stake. To virtually every other rule that one can stipulate, however, there are exceptions, examples, and overrides. Absolutism insists that there are transcendent principles which answer every possible situation in life regardless of culture or consequence. Ethical or Cultural Relativism, by contrast, insists that truth and moral conduct depend upon one's society, station in life, or situation, and that "principles" are relative to time and place.

Here we propose a new term "universalism" to describe the view of one who leans to absolution (as all religious believers must) and who accepts some absolutes, but who nevertheless understands that certain events may compel departure from principles which would otherwise be binding. Consider this stock example: Suppose you are South Korean and you are harboring two North Korean's in your basement. An Military officer knocks on the door, asking you whether you have seen any North Korean's. May you lie to protect the North Korean's? A. The relativist or utilitarian- would lie. Circumstances and probable outcomes dictate his course of action. B. The absolutist-knowing that lying is wrong-will tell the truth if he speaks, because lying is always wrong. Circumstances and possible outcomes are irrelevant. C. The universalism may lie, reasoning that, in this troubling circumstance in which prima facie duties conflict, he must resolve the conflict in the most discriminating manner possible.

The relativist chooses as his circumstances may require; the absolutist chooses as a universal rule may require; the universalist chooses according to circumstance, intuition and insight, rules, and reasoned judgment. Notice that the just decision flows from practical wisdom or prudence. That is why, among the cardinal virtues, prudence is first, and justice is second. Circumstances and outcomes matter; there are flashes of insight and "gut reactions" which should not be discounted; we do know some things, and we have developed some rules.

But all these must be filtered through our education, our experience, our reason, our faith. For universalist's, ethical decisions can be wrenching and painful; but they are not released from taking action. "paralysis by analysis" is not an option. When action is required and decisions are needed, universalist's deliberate about what to do based upon the underlying principle of military ethics: Always choose the greatest good for the greatest number-up to a point. But this is not an appeal to or on behalf of utilitarianism. Military officers indeed, most of us-can sometimes wisely use the idea of choosing between or among alternatives on the basis of "the good of many outweighs the good of the few or of the one.

But there are some things so solemn and so sacred that such efforts at arithmetic ethics or mathematical morality are, of themselves, inadequate. There are times that we can and must say that, regardless of the consequences, we cannot do this or that action. In other words, as we will see, there are points beyond which we will not go and certain lines which we will not cross. It is the virtue of prudence that allows us to discern these sacred points. 6. as I will suggest in concluding section of this paper, universalism (which focuses upon the prudential habit of choosing well in situations where obligations conflict) allows us to speak, not only of good outcomes and judicious rules, but of good people. People do not exist for rules; rules exist for people.

In the profession of arms, soldiers frequently, and sometimes dramatically, encounter conflicting obligations. What obligation, after all, can carry greater significance than the command "thou shall not kill"? Yet the soldier, when not killing the enemy, is preparing to do precisely that. How, therefore, can soldiers be just or participate in justice? Soldiers must constantly weigh and balance competing claims upon their consciences. We call these competing claims "dueling duties".

But the very notion of competing or dueling duties suggests that there are no absolutes having unrivaled ownership of the soldier's conscience. A number of people, reacting to this statement that there are few absolute obligations upon the soldier, will dismiss universalism as mere "relativism" such assessments are mistaken. Clearly, those moral obligations dealing with human act-types, like truth-telling, promise-keeping, preservation of life, respect for property of others, and so on, are not absolute obligations. Does that mean that they are relative obligations to be observed only when we find it expedient to do so? Certainly not. Let us return to South Kosan and the citizen deciding if he should tell the military officers the truth about the North Kosanese he is harboring in his basement.

If telling the truth is absolute ("free from any restriction, limitation, or exception"), one's duty is to give away the North Kosanese. Now listen to the counsel of a religious text: "The right to the communication of the truth in not unconditional". And: "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. Now imagine-in this example: a Officer, under fire, has orders to take the hill, an enlisted person refuses to fight, the officer gives the enlisted person a direct order to fight and take the hill, the enlisted person still refuses, the officer pulls out his gun, you either fight or I will shoot you, under fire and under pressure the officer kills the enlisted soldier. Should the officer be severely punished? Unverisalism counsels us that when action is necessary, one must act to serve the greater good in so far as he is able to discern it.

The greater good in South Kosan was to lie. The greater good for the officer was to shoot the soldier. But to say "always do the greater good" while we think necessary advice, is not sufficient and is morally dangerous on that account. Military ethics is all about dueling duties. It is all about competing claims. And it will never be easy to make clear moral choices.

On an intelligence trip behind enemy lines, you and your patrol spotted a high raking officer of the enemy but he is with his family, and you know he just attacked you. Will you attack and kill him? Yes. "collateral damage is justified". We will close with a few observations about ethics. There is a way to explain, briefly and pointedly, much of what we have said. Imagine a bridge.

On one side of the bridge are our beliefs. On the others side of the bridge are our actions. We know that to be just, our actions should be consistent with our beliefs. If they aren't, we have failed.

We have been either moral cowards or hypocrites. So: 1. We have to cross the bridge, "connecting" our beliefs with our actions. But that is not enough. The supports for our ethical bridge are faith, family, customs, laws, friends, associations, education, and so on. 2.

We must have strong supports under our "ethical bridge" These supports include the moral virtues of justice, courage, and temperance to assure that we do not turn aside into actions that are inconsistent with our beliefs. 3. A good bridge between beliefs and actions demands prudent "bridge keepers" who know the difference between wise and foolish, just and unjust, virtuous and vicious. 4. Do what effects or brings about the most good to the most people. 5.

Do what offers the most good to the most people up to a point. 6. The ethical line we draw, with the help of those who have gone before and to help those who will come after, is our bridge between conscientious belief and courageous action. We then understand what Abraham Lincoln said in 1860: "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it". The bridge of prudence, built upon the support of justice, we carry virtuous beliefs into courageous action..