martes, 16 de junio de 2015

Dónde radica el valor moral de nuestras acciones?


Desde la Antigua Grecia, el hombre busca y razona sobre su accionar. Busca encontrar la razón de ser y la justificación moral de sus actos. Esto, como bien coinciden la mayoría de los filósofos, en búsqueda de la felicidad y la realización del hombre como ente espiritual y como ente social. Sócrates apunta de forma imperativa que el hombre que no reflexiona sobre su vida y sus actos vive una vida sin propósitos, sin valor.  Sócrates prefirió la muerte antes de dejar de hacer lo que él entendía era lo correcto.  Por su parte Aristóteles nos dice que para ser bueno, se necesita desarrollar un buen carácter, el cual se desarrolla por medio del accionar virtuoso, ya que el hombre tiene en sí mismo una predisposición habitual hacia la virtud.
                Kant por su parte nos habla de la razón, el principio moral de la acción humana. El nos dice que el valor moral de una acción no radica en la realización del objeto mismo de la acción, sino en el principio o la motivación por la que esta es realizada. Por ejemplo, si un mendigo le pide, y usted piensa que debe ayudarlo porque es justo y además el mendigo pudiera morir si no lo ayuda. El valor moral de esta acción, según Kant, radica en el motivo que usted tiene para ayudarlo, y no en la ayuda misma. En otras palabras, la buena intención que motiva la acción.

Es el valor moral positivo de una acción invalidada porque contradice una decisión previa?
El hombre está en continua evolución de su pensamiento y su intelecto. Ya Ortega y Gasset lo decía “el hombre y su circunstancia”, porque el ser humano está en constante movimiento y evolución. Una acción o decisión puede ser hecha con un gran valor o principio moral positivo, sin embargo, otra acción a posteriori, realizada también con toda buena intención puede contradecir la anterior, y esto no invalida el valor moral de ninguna de las dos. Por ejemplo, como padres decidimos no involucrarnos en la vida de nuestros hijos cuando se casen, sin embargo muchas veces lo hacemos porque su integridad física (de nuestro hijo o hija) está en peligro, y creemos nuestra responsabilidad protegerlos. Aunque ambas acciones se contradicen ambas tienen un principio moral positivo.
Dios mismo en Malaquías 3:6 declara, “Porque Yo Jehová no cambio...” sin embargo cuántas veces no ha cambiado Dios de parecer. En el libro de Jonás 3:10 dice, “Y vio Dios lo que hicieron, que se convirtieron de su mal camino; y se arrepintió del mal que había dicho que les haría, y no lo hizo.” Similarmente, en Éxodo 32:14 declara, “Entonces Jehová se arrepintió del mal que dijo que había de hacer a Su pueblo.” Invalidan  estas acciones el valor de la palabra de Dios, o hacen a Dios un hombre sin palabra?

Decisiones con el mismo objeto o acción no tienen necesariamente el mismo peso moral
                Recuérdese que el valor moral, nos dice Kant, no radica en la acción misma, sino en el principio moral que motiva esta, su buena intención. Cuántos hombres y mujeres no se han casado con el objetivo de hacerse ricos, o quedarse con el patrimonio del cónyuge. Significa esto que el matrimonio es malo?. Bajo ninguna circunstancia, el matrimonio creado por Dios como célula de la sociedad, es para ser realizado bajo el principio del amor, y para hacer feliz a su cónyuge. Dios dice “no matarás”, sin embargo El mismo entregó a su hijo para que fuera crucificado en una cruz. Puede esta decisión de Dios ser igualada a la decisión que tomaron los Romanos para crucificar a otros dos junto a Jesús?

                De manera mis amigos lectores, que toda acción tiene su valor basado en el principio moral o la buena intención con que esta se haya tomado. Es necesario reflexionar y mirar más allá de donde alcanzan nuestros ojos, y para esto hay que usar los ojos de la razón.

miércoles, 3 de junio de 2015

Truth Telling

Truth-telling is one of the most important values for the society to function well. We trust that public and private sectors produce their services and products with good intentions and that the information they provide is to best of their knowledge and for the betterness of the consumers. Imagine for a second, driving in a highway without the self-assuring sense that the signs and directions of the road are not misleading. Think what it would be like eating food or drinking water with the doubt that it could be poisoned. This is unimaginable. A society like this could not survive. At the individual level, we owe each other a kind of fiduciary obligation. We have the responsibility to protect each other’s rights to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, which, without truth-telling, we would not be able to achieve. There would be no socializing if we did not trust one another. Truth-telling is “the total worth of people trying not to deceive each other, or at least not trying to deceive each other’s… [it is derived from] respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice.” (Newton: Study Guide, 2004. Pag. 159).
Hypothetically, I am an assistant at a legal office in charge of the initial interview of new walk-in clients. If a client shows up wanting to sue her landlord for negligence in connection to severe injuries she sustained on the staircase in her apartment house. If I find out that the injuries are fictional, I would not confront the client, but I will definitely tell the attorney that I think the injuries are fictional. I understand that it is my responsibility, as the first interview taker, to present the results of that proceeding to the next person in charge. This does not necessarily imply a moral obligation, but a job duty. Nevertheless, I should not consider my findings conclusive. Screening could be the first step in the case, and the lawyer would have to verify the results of the first interview.
Considering benefits or profit to tell the truth or not is morally wrong. In a case like this, if the lawyer proceeds knowing that the bases for the lawsuit are not factual, he is committing a crime by helping someone falsely accuse their landlord of negligence. He is also contributing to create in the client, a perception that she could get whatever she wants by deceiving others. He is becoming an agent of immorality. Lawyers, as well as other professionals, are called to exercise their professions according, to the code of ethics of the profession itself. They, also, have the responsibility to protect others` rights. Lawyers should honor the fundamental values of the humanity. They as Kant claims, should “Act so that you can simultaneously will that the maxim of your action should become universal law.” Kant also stated that “it is not sufficient to that which should be morally good that is conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.”
Finally, “You shall not lie.” It is an imperative commandment of the Lord. The Christian guidance given by God throughout his prophets and Jesus Christ has been the moral base of our society. This commandment is identified several times in the bible, including its implication and rewards. A lie is weighed by God as bad as the worst sins: “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” (Revelation 22:15). Following His word, established in the Bible, has given us the power to live and to enjoy the universe.
In conclusion, our duties and responsibilities as employees of an organization might go beyond our fiduciary obligation to the company. Some decision may involve moral issues that affect clients, third parties and/or the society. Although, the final outcome may reflect utilitarian approach, fairness or justice perspective, virtue perspective, or common good approach. Nonetheless, the moral decision is to be taken according to the good will, not based on bias, internal emotions or external influences. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.


REFERENCES

  1. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Study Guide. 2nd. Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2004.
  2. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Source Reader. 2nd. Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2004.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a mankind virtue to follow the cause that he/she has chosen in a full autonomous and voluntary capacity. It is the willing devotion of a self to exercise his rights to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, loyalty entails to be faithful to other’s rights. So, “loyalty is good for all men.” (Royce). There is loyalty to your family. There is loyalty to your business. There is loyalty to the nation. There is loyalty to your neighbor. Among all, the most important loyalty, is to yourself. Thou, “loyalty, as we have all along seen, depends upon a very characteristic and subtle union of natural interest, and of free choice.” (Royce).
Loyalty should not be in any case a virtue to be exercise in blind obedience. This blind loyalty to organizations, to higher authorities or even to particular missions has caused massive killings such as the act of genocide in World War II by Hitler's soldiers (see Nuremberg trial). Also, at Jonestown on November 18, 1978 at the "People's Temple" where a mass suicide-murder under the direction of their leader Jim Jones occurred. This phenomenon has been studied by Psychologist Stanley Milgram at Yale University, in a well-recognized experiment called “The Milgram's Experiment”. With this experiment, Milgrant concluded that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and / or legally based.
In addition, justice and benevolence should accompany any act of loyalty or obedience. They are in so far “aspects of loyalty which directly concerns itself with your influence upon the inner life of human beings who enjoy, who suffer, and whose private good is to be affected by your deeds.” (Royce). So we are to protect the welfare of other selves. In addition, we must treat others as we want them to treat us.
In regard to loyalty to the Highest self “God”. This is a totally different relation. God ask us to be loyal to Him. His call for loyalty is also a call for justice and benevolence to your neighbor. When He ask for an action to show your loyalty, we shall believe that He is first loyal to Himself above all. Loyal to His word, to His promise. The episode presented in Genesis 22, where He asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son to Him. Abraham acted in full knowledged and faithful that God would be loyal to His promise previously expressed: “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” (Gen. 17: 1-2).
In conclusion, loyalty is a virtue that we must follow in a rational and balanced way, without abandoning other virtues. Recognizing, that above all, we should be loyalty to ourselves.
References:
  1. Billikopf Encina, Gregorio. "Milgram's Experiment on Obedience to Authority." University of California, 15 Nov. 2004. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. <http://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm>.
  2. "Anatomy of a Hostile Takeover," Ethics in America [videocassette]. Columbia University Seminars on Media & Society [in association with] WNET/New York, 1989; producers, Betsy Miller, Martha Elliott; directed by David Deutsch.
  3. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Study Guide. NJ: Upper Saddle River, 2004. Print
  4. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Source Reader. NJ: Upper Saddle River, 2004. Print
  5. "Jonestown." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/jonestown>.  

Revealing a Secret

The decision of keeping a secret or not is a real dilemma. Hiding information about certain acts that you have witnessed or even acts that you were commanded to do can be quite difficult. Things like doing espionage for the sake of your nation, killing innocent people in war or recruiting agents from another nation to betray their nation on behalf of mine. Killing enemies of the state. Torturing prisoners to get information that could be crucial for the survival of our people. Risking the life of people in medical experiments. These are some acts that involve our national security that are normally kept ‘secret’. In addition to the day to day of our lives, we are also confronted in our inner self with episodes that confront us with a moral dilemma. For example, witnessing my brother or brother’s wife cheating, seeing the assassination of my neighbor by a friend of mine or surprising a catholic priest having intimacy with a woman or a man, and so on.
To reveal a secret is something that is in your power, Epictetus claims. Is this dilemma a matter of duty or a matter of will? Kant stated that in order to have moral worth an action must be done from duty but, he continued, the moral worth of this action is not in the purpose that this action would achieve, but in the maxim by which it is determined. ‘Its moral value, therefore, does not depend on the realization of the object of the action but merely on the principle or volition by which the action is done without any regard to the objects of the faculty of desire.” (Kant)
So the act of revealing a secret or not should be done according to our principles, not to the object of the action itself. Nevertheless, this principle must have, according to Kant, the qualification of a good will. “That is, the will is a faculty of choosing only that which reason, independently of inclination, recognizes as practically necessary.” (Kant). To illustrate Kant’s definition of good will, let’s say that a homeless person on the street asks you for money. If you say to yourself, I should help the needy, so let me give him or her a couple of dollars. This is good will, if you say to yourself, this man or woman needs help, he or she must be hungry, let me give him or her a couple of dollars to buy some food. This is not classified as a good will.
In reference to events that take place at a government level, most of the time, they only focus on the end objectives without taking into consideration the means they will use or sacrifices it would entail reaching those goals. “Tragic choices are inevitable to some degree in intelligence work. The challenge, then, is to specify intelligence goals and manage operations in ways that recognize the myriad ethical issues at stake, in order to minimize the occurrence of avoidable tragedy.” (Perry, 1995).
We have to keep in mind that we have the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, we also have the responsibility to respect other’s rights. So, let us follow Kant’s conclusion about our actions “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mean only.” 
The Bible offers a synthesis in the following verses, about what good will is and how we are supposed to act: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:6-8)
In conclusion, when the time came for me to consider whether revealing a secret was ethical or not, I’d have to take into account whether the action I was going to take was motivated by good will. That it is to say, that it has not been my emotions, feelings or appreciations that have pushed me to reveal or hide certain information or events that I have performed or witnessed. Sometimes, a utilitarian approach -for the benefit of the greatest number- should be considered. You may also consider a deontological perspective, which focuses on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves. Also, you may take into consideration a consequentialist perspective, which bases its decision on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.
Let us not mistake “Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.” (Luke 12:2-3).


REFERENCES

  1. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Study Guide. 2nd. Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2004.
  2. 1. Newton, Lisa H. Ethics in America: Source Reader. 2nd. Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2004.
  3. Perry, David L. ""Repugnant Philosophy": Ethics, Espionage, and Covert Action. In: Journal of Conflict Studies." Vol 15, No 1 (1995). Web. 2 May 2015.
    <http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/view/4597/5438>.

  4. Mahon, James E. 'Kant on Keeping a Secret', Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 44 (2009), 21-36. Web 2 May 2015.