By
Hazel Speed
Ethical considerations should be the same, whatever the environment or situation, whatever types of people are involved in those situations.
The academic world of philosophy frequently refers to “other worlds” when situations are being considered which are basically the same but which have differing conditions impinged on them.
There are some social issues which benefit from this type of consideration such as the one which the writer is about to address.
First the scene must be set. The reader is asked to consider that two separate worlds exist. In order to distinguish these worlds from one another in our deliberations though, the first social group will be called Group “A” and the second social group, Group “B”.
Both ‘worlds’ share similar values in some respects, but not in every respect. Both have their own type of ‘ethics’ and, as with all societies although it is nice to think that a moral standard exists, moral authority, even if it were ours to give, is like a good wine, in that it doesn’t travel very well! Therefore, it is invariably the case that these two worlds, (Group “A” and “B”) will have their own dissidents and variations on a theme rather than an underlying principle existing throughout.
It is time now to look more closely at each of these two worlds and assess how Group “A” and Group “B” exist.
GROUP “A”
The Society known as Group “A” is made up of all types (very much like our own) in that there are all ages, all conditions of health, wealth, successes and failures.
There are levels of social class, racial mix, intelligence, etc, and as with all societies there are those who adhere themselves to others and again, there are those who repel.
There are some in Group “A” who would be more than happy to help their fellow along life’s way, but there are inevitably those who would happily step on others in order to achieve their own ambitions or goals in life.
Some members within the Society of Group “A” are caring, thoughtful, good companions to each other – then there are some members of Group “A” who are violent, aggressive, and do criminal damage. Some Society members are dependant on others and some are self-sufficient.
This Society is influenced by a standard of ethic, the source of which has never been universally accepted, though the Christian members of this Society (and other religious groups) attribute this facility to God or some Great Being. This Society refers to such an ethic as “Morals”.
Morals (or awareness of a sense of ethic) influence them in their decisions and/or actions and the members of the Society in Group “A” endeavour or strive to live according to such principles – apart from those who do not have such convictions, and they do as they please.
* * * * * *
Perhaps it is now time to consider the ‘other world’ Society.
GROUP “B”
The Society known as Group “B” is made up of all types (very much like our own) in that there are all ages, all conditions of health, wealth, successes and failures.
There are levels of social class, racial mix, intelligence, etc, and as with all societies there are those who adhere themselves to others and again, there are those who repel.
There are some in Group “B” who would be more than happy to help their fellow along life’s way, but there are inevitably those who would happily step on others in order to achieve their own ambitions or goals in life.
Some members within the Society of Group “B” are caring, thoughtful, good companions to each other – then there are some members of Group “B” who are violent, aggressive, and do criminal damage. Some Society members are dependant on others and some are self-sufficient.
The Society which comprises Group “B” does not profess any ethics or moral standards, and indeed the Society known as Group “A” refers to the fact that Group “B” Society is A-moral, and strange though it may seem, does not expect Group “B” to live according to any moral or ethical standards or principles either!
Although the Society known as Group “B” is considered to be, and for all purposes herein, is A-moral, it nevertheless displays some ethical or moral principles, in that it acts as follows:-
-
There are some members of Group “B” who will show virtuous attributes such as loyalty, and obedience to superiors in its Society.
-
Some of its members depend on others in the Society of Group “B” for assistance but again other members are self-sufficient. There are those who are more than willing to help others less fortunate than themselves in whatever way they can.
-
Despite the apparent immorality of the Society known as Group “B” the world or Society known as Group “A” develop considerable emotional ties with them and enjoy a special kind of relationship with them, and a bond of trust, loyalty and devotion is established between the two worlds, or Groups “A” and “B”.
* * * * * *
Do you recognise that both Groups “A” and “B” appear to share the same elements, bar one – that of ethics.
Group “A” boasts of possessing and utilising an ethic within its Society whereas although Group “B” is self-apparent in its lack of ethics or moral code to any outsider (though this in itself does not negate the possibility such a code could exist tacitly!), in actual practice, and for pragmatic considerations, Group “B” acts just as ethically within its own Society as Group “A” does, the only difference being the declaration of a moral philosophy in Group “A”.
Let us now consider a social debate which has significant moral complications integral thereto, and now I make reference to euthanasia.
Given all of the above information about Groups “A” and “B” and their individual Societies which correlate in so many ways, regardless of the issues of euthanasia themselves (which is not being considered herein, but rather the implications following acceptance of such a desperate policy adoption, for whatever reason), would it be fair to say that if a Society, or World, such as Group “A” thought it abhorrent to practice euthanasia, it would be equally wrong to inflict it on the Society known as Group “B”? After all, the same deliberations that Group “A” Society would make to reach such a conclusion would be equally applicable to Group “B” which shared the same structure of Society, Group “A” supposedly, and presumably, setting the higher standard via its sense of morals and ethics.
Leaving aside those that may say they disagree with such a conclusion, based on the fact that Group “B” had no scruples or ethics or morals in the first place (ironically at the same time making the whole argument of such people redundant to take further), we must now realise that in this World, this Society, we do make such distinctions as within our own Society we observe another group which resembles those depicted in Group “B”.
The debate of euthanasia goes on in our Society and in the main, thankfully, it is rejected. You may be amazed to learn that at the same time however, our own Society inflicts euthanasia for varying reasons on another social group within our Society, for any reason considered pertinent or appropriate, and without any moral come-back generally speaking, but more often than not with distress and perhaps for some, a little “moral conscience”, though the level of conscience is tempered by our view of this group, very much like Group “A” in our story might consider Group “B” in the light of its lack of morals. Can any ‘Society’ have a moral right to ‘put down’ another?
In order to clarify matters a little more fully, and at the same time to enable an interesting finish to this outline, I omitted to say earlier that in our deliberations of ‘other worlds’ Group “A” was a metaphor for our own Society and Group “B” a metaphor for the animal world.
Philosophically speaking, an advocate of euthanasia for Group “B” must take care, as there is a thin(k) line between Group “B” and Group “A”, so be careful you “Don’t put yourself down”!
Hazel Speed
Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine
No Comments Yet!
You can be first to comment this post!