I enjoy Oliver Burkeman's writing, but in the latest column "Why are ethicists so unethical?" I find some interesting points, but much to debate. Knowing Burkeman's writing is often well researched and that concepts are often difficult to distil in a 1000 word-limited column, I found myself scratching my head a bit with this one, with the line from moral assumption to being "smug and unethical" being a chasm which was difficult to leap over with the single bound of argument he presents.
Ethics books being stolen from libraries, for example, may be due to the fact they often discuss taboo topics such as sexualities, termination of pregnancy and euthanasia- which for some people may be a bit like intellectual porn- you want to view it, but may feel judged by some groups in doing so. Stealing the book conceals your name in the borrowing history, and gives a plausible deniability. I would argue that an ethicist would be a less likely person to steal an ethics book, as they would openly admit to reading the material, so that argument is somewhat weak.
Having worked in human research ethics for several years, my thoughts are peppered with anecdotes in favour of each side of this argument: from the doctor who extolled the virtues of the ethics system and its importance in the welfare of research participants, the development of students, and as an open system to enable quality research who never actually read the applications (perhaps the publicly perceived magnanimity of being involved in ethics on his resume was the goal of the day?), to those who lived and breathed ethics- going in to defend research subjects when their rights to health care were threatened in the most unforeseen and shocking circumstances.
Burkeman's analogy could and should be applied to religious practice though: the bastions of astounding hypocrisy that afflict our societies. Priests who rape children, churches who take from the poor and adorn themselves with gold and jewels, faiths which preach love and acceptance... unless you're from another religion in which case we should slaughter the lot of you. Do as I say, not as I do.
Such is the public/ private dichotomy of so many lives, one of the most gobsmacking examples of which came from my father, who told me "we do not tolerate physical violence in this family"; as any who have read this blog before will know- he is the first and most likely to be engaged in any such activities. In this case the motivation for hypocrisy is narcissistic, as I would posit so many of them are. Behaviour is so often driven by how we want to be perceived by others, and for many altruism or being ethical is part of the concept of self they want to portray. Perhaps where the motivation comes from is key- do you to be ethical because you believe it is the "right" thing to do, or want people to think you're ethical to impress them or have them revere you? The former would be the genuinely ethical, and the latter would be the "smug", but the public portrayal of each would only differ in subtle ways.
As with religion: you make a set of rules, and say "follow them to go to heaven/ avoid being smitten by *insert deity(ies) here*". People will follow them to a certain extent for a number of reasons, for example 1-they genuinely believe the reward/ threat and thus follow; 2- they want you to believe they believe the reward/threat and thus will give you the impression that they are compliant, whether or not they actually are.
So I think that Burkeman's argument may very well hold true on the surface- ethicists or people who portray themselves as being highly knowledgeable of ethics, may in some instances act less ethically than other people; what's missing is a few more reasons why. It may not merely be smugness, and the ticking of the morality box (NB- morality is not the same as ethics- this in itself is a flaw in the argument), and warrants deeper investigation as to the motivation for such behaviours.
No comments:
Post a Comment