The Myth of the Self-Made Man

By Lokee...

Whether it’s Batman standing atop a building, John Wayne casting a shadow in an empty desert, Ayn Rand’s character Howard Roark, or the array of reports we’re handed of people who “go-it-alone” and become millionaires, one story that is tightly-woven throughout western culture is that of the self-made man. A person who breaks free from the pack, to make it on his own, and apparently succeed without the need for, or help from, social connections.  The problem with this story is it’s a myth and one that on closer inspection has evolved from a reality in which people, whether they like it or not, have always needed other people, and as far as research can predict, will always need other people.

This myth has been embraced and held up as a symbol of western individualism since the time of the “Wild West”.  If this unrealistic myth is the template western society and thus its people use when planning how best to approach their life, in order to experience success and happiness, what are the consequences?

Every time I talk to my friends, switch on the television, read the newspaper or browse the Internet, I’m confronted with the following two underlying themes, depression and loneliness.  Depression is at the highest it’s ever been in western culture, affecting not only adults, as it typically used to, but youth as well. It accounts for more of the burden of disease than heart disease or cancer, with suicide ranking in the ten leading causes of death for the overall population, and the number one cause of death for people under 40.

There is also good evidence to suggest that the number of people experiencing social isolation or loneliness is increasing dramatically. Moreover in a number of studies people have reported a reduction in the number of people they could call close "confidantes", with the number being zero for as many as 25% of participants. What makes the increase in social isolation and depression even more troubling is that they are related, meaning where you find one, you often find the other.  Still more concerning is that those who experience depression require social support structures to be in place in order to aide their recovery.

I, along with many others, argue that the increases in both depression and social isolation are related to the effects of living in a western individualist society, in which myths of self-made men and going-it-alone are foolishly held up as a good idea, and even something to be idolised.

It seems fair to say we live in an individualist society. The extreme form of western individualism is defined by the motivation to become self-reliant, where the independent individual is valued and individual rights are trumpeted.  Going further, it could be argued that extreme individualism is about severing oneself from the obligations of and commitment to the group, in order to decide for yourself what is in your best interests, and to look out for those above everything else (think of Howard Roark).  There are two problems with this form of individualism, one of which is supported by countless studies, the other is a matter of muddled definitions, however both share similar consequences, which is that people are failing to get their needs met due to erroneous notions.

Firstly, those who argue for this extreme form of individualism have confused autonomy (self-government) with independence. They believe that in order to have a sense of control over their lives and to be free to be themself, they require a limited to non-existent social structure, the absence of which will support them to achieve, by not being present (the unconstrained self-made man).  This is however not the case, as the concept of autonomy shows. Autonomy is defined by the ability to make your own informed decisions, to act according to your own beliefs, to be responsible for your own life path, and therefore authentic.  None of these things require severing yourself from those around you, and as Self Determination Theory shows, autonomy and relatedness (social connections) actually go hand in hand. In fact, it’s through our social connections that we are better able to grow and develop who we are. For who else do we learn and gain support from, but others? 

It should really come as no surprise (research has consistently demonstrated that we are social animals after all) that there is over-whelming evidence to demonstrate that for people to have any chance of happiness they need to have a strong sense of relatedness. Not only, as cynics like to suggest, as a survival strategy (safety in numbers), although evolutionarily-speaking that appears to be how the need came to be hard-wired into us, but because people need a network of family and friends that they not only feel connected to, but that they can depend on, feel supported by, and confide in. As I stated above, social isolation is consistently positively related to depression, and even more than this social isolation is related to ill health, stress and the shortening of life.  In addition, those who have their relatedness needs met have better health, live longer and are more likely to experience well-being and happiness. Yet this form of relatedness, while a basic human need, is thwarted by the extreme form of western individualism, in particular when autonomy is confused with independence.

Before I go any further (in order to pre-empt some criticisms), I would like to clearly state that I recognise the many benefits that come from living in the West, and I am by no means advocating that we rid ourselves of individualism or capitalism altogether. I am suggesting that it would appear that we’ve gone too far in one particular direction (the myth of the self-made man), which has led to the problems I describe. This is also why I’m defining the kind of individualism and capitalism I’m critiquing, as extreme, the kind of individualism that denies that we are in fact dependent on, and influenced by, others.   

In addition, within Psychology there is a branch dedicated to studying human well-being and happiness, and while there is much disagreement and debate about what definitively contributes to a person feeling happiness, there appears to be consensus with respect to Self Determination Theory.  Self Determination Theory argues that people require the following needs to be met, in order to experience a level of happiness; those are autonomy (self-government or a sense of control over your life), competence (a feeling of skill or ability in a choice of activities) and relatedness (good connections with family and friends).  In the extreme form of individualism highlighted above, we can already see that two of those needs aren’t going to be easily met; autonomy because we’re made to reach for independence instead and relatedness because we’re made to think we need to and are better off going-it-alone.

The myth of the self-made man and thus the extreme individualist element of western society is also the setting for not only our materialism, but in turn our pursuit of extrinsic goals. Materialism, otherwise known as consumerism places material wealth, and the accumulation of assets, as the primary goal of our daily lives.  Within the context of Psychology, materialism is demonstrated when people value, and are motivated towards attaining goals aligned with, the accumulation of possessions, attractiveness and popularity, or put more simply, money, fame and image.  These are described as extrinsic goals or are seen as forms of extrinsic motivation, because people are engaging in activities for the environmental incentives, such as money, praise, attention, approval and public recognition. In other words, “Do this and you will get that” (Reeve, 2009, p. 113).  This is in contrast to intrinsic motivation or intrinsic goals where people engage in an activity for the sake of the activity or rather they engage in an activity to experience the inherent satisfaction it brings.  Studies have shown that people who are focused on extrinsic goals or who are extrinsically motivated experience less well-being and poorer health, with the addition that they very rarely ever feel satisfied.  In fact, further studies have shown a positive correlation between materialism, narcissism, egocentrism, a lack of empathy for others and depression, as well as anxiety. 

While intrinsic motivation and intrinsic goals are positively correlated to greater well-being, happiness and satisfaction. As Reeve (2009) states, “it (intrinsic motivation) is worth nurturing and promoting because it leads to so many important benefits to the person, including persistence, creativity, conceptual understanding, and subjective well-being” (p. 112). Adding more weight to the argument that autonomy, competence and relatedness are the driving force behind a person’s actions is that intrinsic motivation emerges from these psychological needs.

  

Extreme western individualism also teaches us that the onus of success or failure is on the individual (we’re all doing it alone after all, like the myth of the lone Cowboy), so if for whatever reason, you can't succeed to the level that is mythologized within the culture because of, for example, socioeconomic status, education, family, or environment, then the individual is to blame. There's little to no social support structure and the burden is placed on the individual’s shoulders alone. When we consider that statistically speaking this person is also more than likely suffering from depression and social isolation, we get a rather bleak picture of what it’s like to be an individual in the West.

Everything research has shown us about people and what will guide us towards a level of well-being and happiness is that we need others.  Yet much of what is promoted by the individualist West and the myth of the self-made man is that a person can and should do it alone.  This conflict has led to people struggling to find happiness, and often instead finding depression and social isolation.  If we want to get ourselves back on track we need to show this myth for what it is, a fictional story that is not reflective of reality.  We need to demonstrate that social support, family, friends and community are not only important, but integral to an individual’s life.  We need to stop suggesting that being autonomous requires that you be independent, or that to be an individual requires you to be free of a group.  For of all the myths I described above, Batman had Alfred, the traditional cowboy was actually not a lone wolf but generally an employee on a farm, the Wild West survived only as long as it did because communities were formed and the American military brought in, Rand’s Howard Roark is seen by many who study, teach, or are in business and politics, as an example of what not to do, while her philosophy within that particular text is widely and heavily criticised, and the self-made millionaire, well the reality varies, but they often have family, friends, co-workers, business connections and so on.

There are some truly enlightening ideas and thus quotes by some of the most respected thinkers throughout history on friendship, but I’m going to end on one that always brings a smile to my face…

Don’t walk behind me; I may not lead. Don’t walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. – Albert Camus. 

There's also an interesting show that describes the science and philosophy behind friendship here: 
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/catalyst - Series 15, Episode 13 "Falling in Friendship"

A Skeleton in the Closet

Posted by Lokee

If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. - Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google

  
Upon reading this quote, I took a sharp intake of breath, my jaw dropped open and I was forced to re-read it time and time again, not only because I was left in disbelief, but in order to reflect whether Schmidt’s statement is a valid contention.  Now obviously the CEO of Google has a conflict of interests when it comes to discussing the concept of privacy, considering he works for a company that relies on information being publicly accessible.  However, in an age where cyber-cultures like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are popular mediums for communication, documenting one’s life, social networking and information gathering, has privacy become a thing of the past?  Are we forced to agree with Schmidt’s contention? 

Remarkably, while privacy is an expectation of, and widely advocated by, many in Western cultures, it is not easily defined.  As Solove (2008) states, “Currently, privacy is a sweeping concept, encompassing (among other things) freedom of thought, control over one’s body, solitude in one’s home, control over personal information, freedom from surveillance, protection of one’s reputation, and protection from searches and interrogations.”  When one considers how each of these elements comes into play in any particular life on any particular day, it should come as no surprise that the ability to effectively conceptualise privacy has troubled philosophers and academics alike.  Legally speaking, a person’s privacy is invaded when their private affairs or solitude is intruded upon, embarrassing private facts are publicly disclosed without their consent, they are falsely represented, or their identity is stolen (Prosser, 1960).  For the purpose of this article, privacy is summarised as the ability of an individual to maintain a life outside of the public sphere and keep private selected personal information that does not negatively affect others. 

Often when questions of privacy and its possible invasion are brought into public debate, for example, a discussion on surveillance cameras or the gathering of personal information, many voice the response that if a person has nothing to hide, then they need not worry.  This common refrain simplifies and minimalises the concerns of privacy advocates, attempting to stymie further debate by suggesting that one who desires privacy must have a “skeleton in the closet” or something to hide.  However, people who suggest privacy is of minimal concern compared to public interest or safety will quickly capitulate once subjected to intrusive questioning about their private life or when hypothetical scenarios are put to them.  For example, those who say they have nothing to hide won’t mind naked photographs of them posted in the public arena, or details of past indiscretions advertised at their place of work.  Of course these are extreme examples, but it clearly illustrates the contention that it would be a rare person indeed who had little to no regard for their personal privacy, particularly when one considers the all-encompassing nature of privacy, which Solove (2008) described above. 

Privacy is often taken for granted and thus not missed until it has been violated.  The negative representation put forth by those who use the “nothing to hide” response fails to capture the many positive reasons people value their privacy.  While I could easily use extreme loss-of-privacy hypotheticals as popularly represented in literature, like George Orwell’s 1984, to demonstrate what could happen if government surveillance was left to develop unhindered, I shall instead describe basic ideas most should be able to relate to.   

In a majority of white Western culture, people expect to be given their personal space, that is to bathe and change without being observed by strangers, to not have strangers touching them or their belongings when walking in public, and to have spaces in which to place items where they will not be searched, including their clothing, books, photos, toiletries and medicine.  People expect to be able to communicate with family, friends and acquaintances via email, phone and text without wondering if third parties will read or listen and share their conversations with others.  In addition people expect to be able to share thoughts and opinions with those they trust and not have these ideas aired to the general public, without their consent.  Also people expect their bank statements, phone bills, and personal information to remain just that, personal. Importantly, people expect to be able to share information about themselves progressively with those they choose, in order to develop a reputation that they believe best represents who they are.  This is a natural part of social interaction.  Another significant psychological benefit of privacy is the solitary time it provides for a person to reflect, ruminate and ponder.  Self-assessment is a necessary building block to personal development.  All of these things are expectations, and expectations that most have because of an established acceptance of privacy.  These might for some be considered minimal, but satisfaction of these small expectations with respect to personal space give a person a sense of control and allow them to feel safe and comfortable within their environment.

When one considers the effect that technology and in particular the Internet has had on privacy, a person sees clearly how the boundaries between public and private life have become extremely blurred.  In 1964 Brenton declared that “we stand on the threshold of what might be called the Age of the Goldfish Bowl.”  It would seem that we are now officially swimming, alongside the fish, in the Goldfish Bowl.  Once a person loses their sense of privacy, their life can become comparable to a caged animal on display, with no rock to hide under to gain that sense of solitude or control.  There have been notable examples in the recent past of the detrimental affect an invasion of privacy can have on a person’s life, when the Internet is used.  I will list only a few of those that are prominent in my mind.  Many may remember the case of Dharun Ravi, a young Rutgers University undergraduate student, who set up a webcam to spy on his roommate, who was having a secret tryst with another male.  The person spied on, Tyler Clementi, killed himself after discovering that not only had Ravi and a friend secretly filmed and viewed his tryst, but that Ravi had organized for other friends, as well as Twitter followers, to watch another planned encounter.  Due to the technology of the Internet, the invasion of one man’s privacy had the potential to spiral into a mob’s bullying behaviour. 

I shall preface my next example with the following disclaimer; I in no way support under-age drinking.  Now that that is out of the way…  In 2009, Wisconsin police officers set up a Facebook account and began befriending under-age college students under the pretext they were an attractive young female named Jenny Anderson.  After students accepted the friendship the police officers searched and printed photos of the youths directly off their Facebook page, if they were engaged in underage drinking.  Once they had gathered this evidence they called the youths into the police station and charged them accordingly.  Now some may respond to this story, “well if they were stupid enough to put the photos online, then they deserve what they get”, but I would ask you to reflect.  The students had selected the privacy options on Facebook, so that only their friends could view the photos.  Would you accept the police action had the police entered the homes of the youth under false pretenses, gained the trust of the young people involved, then betrayed that trust by leafing through photo albums with the intent of charging them with any infraction observed in the images?  It is not too distant a leap to compare the police action to an event straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, where Big Brother is always watching.  Following are quotes from two of the youths charged; “I just can’t believe it. I feel like I’m in a science-fiction movie, like they are always watching. When does it end?” (Bauer, 2009).   Another youth responded with this, “I feel like it is a breach of privacy. You feel like you should be able to trust cops.” 

My last of many possible examples is that of the “Star Wars Kid”.  For any of you who have become familiar with Internet memes, then this is one of the most famous, next to that of lolcats of course.  In short, the “Star Wars Kid” is a high school student, who filmed himself imitating a Jedi by swinging a golf ball retriever around as a weapon.  His friends found the tape, made an electronic copy and shared it around the high school.  One of these students also posted it on the Internet and it became a viral success with different versions being created that include special effects, text and music.  As of 19 January 2013 the original YouTube version has had over 27 million hits.  Some estimates suggest that, overall; the clip has been seen over 900 million times.  It should come as no surprise to many that the boy did not want this video to become public and has endured significant bullying and derision, not only from his classmates, but from many who saw the copy online.  He suffered depression, dropped out of high school and was institutionalised in a psychiatric hospital.  Fortunately, despite all of this, he is now pursuing a degree in Law.  Before you immediately respond with quips like, “That kid needed to toughen up,” or, “He should’ve gotten over it, it was funny,” what embarrassing moments in your childhood would have been made worse by having it made public to that degree?  While many did laugh with the “Star Wars Kid”, rather than at him, there is a nasty mob mentality that can arise in the online world that doesn’t take into account the feelings of others.  Not everyone has the skin of a rhino. 

I am in no way arguing against Internet trends, nor popular cyber-cultures.  Also I am not attempting to advocate privacy through appealing to people’s fears or paranoia.  I do not think we are moments away from living through our own version of Orwell’s 1984.  What I am saying is that privacy is a value in the Western world, one that helps a person to develop, interact socially and have the solitude necessary for self-reflection.  We have transitioned reasonably well from a stage where information was limited in its accessibility, to the present, where most questions can be answered, to a degree, via Google.  The public has become a part of our private lives and in turn our private lives are now a part of the public arena, largely due to the Internet.  It is for this reason that we need to ensure that while some of our private life is open to the public, the amount of it that is made public, is still within the individual’s control.  We need to ensure the privacy we have come to expect is not suddenly a thing of the past.  I strongly disagree with Schmidt’s contention that if we don’t want people to know about it, we shouldn’t do it.  Those are the words of a man who has an agenda, one that is made explicit, when his occupation and Google’s history is considered.   How would we change the way we lived, if we imagined that anything we said, and everything we did, was recorded and could be put on the Internet for the world to see?  Our life would become a perpetual theatrical production, in which we would monitor and second-guess everything we said, and everything we did, as if we were on stage in front of a large audience.  What control would we be giving away to those in a position of power and influence?  What opportunities would we lose and the government gain? 

We all have shameful moments, like the Star Wars Kid, but we typically have the opportunity to learn from them and hopefully laugh about them, because we can move on from them.  Moving on becomes an impossibility when the moments are forever kept in Google’s search engine and replayed by strangers for their own amusement.  We all need a safe place, and that place definitely isn’t found on the Internet.  As Michel de Montaigne said, “A man must keep a little back shop where he can be himself without reserve. In solitude alone can he know true freedom.”

List of References

Brenton, Myron.  (1964).  The Privacy Invaders.  New York: Coward-McCann. 

Prosser, William, L.  (1960).  Privacy.  California Law Review, 48, 338-423.

Solove, Daniel, J.  (2007).  I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.  San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p.745.

Solove, Daniel, J.  (2008).  Understanding Privacy.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Solove, Daniel, J.  (2011).  Why Privacy Matters Even if you Have Nothing to Hide.  The Chronicle Review, May 15. 

Useful links I used for information about the examples of “Invasions of Privacy:

http://www.newser.com/tag/28505/1/invasion-of-privacy.html

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/police-officers-set-up-facebook-account-to-catch-underage-drinkers/9103

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/06/uhoh-star-wars-kid-is-now-a-la.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Kid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi

Being Bad (Another Prelude)

I have an abiding interest in ethics, or perhaps more accurately meta-ethics and maybe even more accurately, but somewhat awkwardly, meta-meta-ethics.

Ethics or Moral Philosophy is a branch of philosophy which looks at concepts of right and wrong.  Within Ethics, there are a number of fields, including:

·         Meta-ethics – understanding the theoretical basis of morality

·         Normative ethics – understanding how to achieve morality using whatever theoretical basis for morality rocks your boat

·         Descriptive ethics – understanding what people believe about morality

While studying meta-ethics, one might ask what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mean. With the term meta-meta-ethics, however, I am referring to a different sort of question – specifically a question about the purpose of morality.  Rather than asking about the basis on which you build your morality (although that is also of interest), I want to address the question of why you might want to build that morality in the first place.

To some people, this might sound like a strange sort of question.  But once you start asking, you quickly end up in a horribly circular discussion about wanting to do good because it is the right thing to do, and wanting to do the right thing because it is good to do so.  A simple exit from this endless loop is to admit that a benefit derives from doing good, from doing the right thing.  Quite a few people, however, are remarkably resistant to the notion that there is some benefit that derives from good, righteous action.

Soon I will begin a sequence of articles which build a case for an ethical structure which acknowledges that we might benefit by being moral.  First, however, I want to address a question that arises when considering moral theories.  An example might be apt.

I have a friend who argues for a form of universal morality although, following the example of Sam Harris, she likes to call it “objective morality”.  Her argument is that there is a “well-defined and accepted moral system” which is based on the principle of minimising suffering, or as it was posed in question form “Would you say that the need to lessen suffering is an accepted moral fact, and appears to have been a fact since societies were formed?”

You can get an idea of my response, which was graphic, if you google for images using the following search strings:

·         cockfighting injury

·         dog fighting injury

·         bear fighting injury (I used the cute one, with two cubs sparring, since the first two images I selected were rather confronting)

·         African child starving

One might also consider witch trials, gladiatorial games, public executions, Big Brother and FaceBook along with the many other methods by which humans have inflicted suffering on others – or idly stood by while observing the suffering of others.

In short, my answer was "No".

While there is some considerable attraction in the idea that humans are noble enough to want “the need to lessen suffering” to be “an accepted moral fact”, the evidence indicates that – as a species – we don’t really act as if there is such a need.

The graphic examples are, of course, extreme cases.  But even when we consider mundane “moral facts”, such as they are “facts” and “moral”, we see cracks in the underlying moral theory.

People rail against lying, saying that lying is bad, yet we all lie (research indicates that about 80% of people report lying at least once a day, other research seems to indicate that the remaining 20% are lying about how often they lie.  In a TED talk on how to spot a liar, PamelaMeyer reports that we are lied to between 10 and 200 times a day).

People rail against stealing, yet very few of us have never taken a single thing that didn’t belong to them (I, for example, know of no other person who is as blameless as myself – so long as we don’t count grapes, of course).

We do bad things, things that we know to be wrong – although when challenged we will usually go for double or nothing by then lying about it.

So, the question that really intrigues me is this: why do we have (or pretend to have) this morality when we so often, and often so easily, throw it away?

Are there specific situations in which acting contrary to our morality might, paradoxically, be the right thing to do?

I’ll return to these questions after a series of articles discussing ethical structures.  The first of those articles is The Moral Animal, but if you're looking for the other two preludes they are here: Saving the Dog and The Problem with Sam.

An Ethical Solution to a Terminal Problem

Lokee here again :)

It seems clear when reading the literature concerning ethics that a consensus, in both the philosophical and scientific spheres as to how our ethics have originated and the degree to which the resulting ethical codes can be captured, normalised and framed, has not yet been reached.

This is understandable given the extent to which the ideas of “right” and “wrong” are woven into our daily lives.  Our actions and beliefs are formed on, and defined according to, an ethical foundation that is laid out when we are children by many external influences including family, friends, teachers, communities, and a variety of texts.  Consequently it is not surprising that the questions, “How do we know what is right and wrong and what principles should guide our ethical decision-making?” plague critical thinkers.  

There is significant evidence to suggest that our ethics have evolved within social groups over time through a process of reciprocal altruism.  In simplistic terms reciprocal altruism can be likened to the process, “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”  Or what might be more historically accurate, “If you pick the lice out of my hair, I’ll pick the lice out of yours.”  Thus a system of give and take is initiated for those who live in close proximity to each other, where external actions performed for others are rewarded through reciprocation.  In this scenario, participants swiftly learn to separate those who do cooperate from those who fail to reciprocate, or those who reciprocate, but not to the same level of value, thus establishing structures of justice and fairness.  This form of reciprocal altruism begins within family groups, then progresses to the community and further still to a form of widespread altruism.  Due to unfamiliarity and distance, the latter is less frequent.  As de Waal (1996) states, “Evolution has produced the requisites for morality: a tendency to develop social norms and enforce them, the capacities of empathy and sympathy, mutual aid and a sense of fairness, the mechanisms of conflict resolution, and so on.”

If one accepts, as I do, that our ethics have evolved in a way comparable to what is suggested above, the question then becomes, on what basis should our ethical codes be formed?  If our ethics are an evolved form of reciprocity, that has developed to what we have in modern societies, that is humans valuing those who act and think in a way that benefits others, as well as themselves, what codes should guide our ethical decisions? 

There are a number of well-known ethical codes, which have staunch proponents.  These include utilitarianism, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, virtue ethics and deontology.  In order to understand each of these theories and their effectiveness in solving contemporary ethical problems, I will define each of them and apply them to a controversial ethical debate, that being euthanasia.  

Euthanasia, after one makes their way past the customary catch cries scrawled on placards, familiar media sound-bites and spurious generalisations, is a complex issue and reveals no short cuts to easy answers.  There are six forms of euthanasia, based upon the following two distinctions, passive and active, and voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary (Benn, 1993).  Of these the form that is deemed by the majority to be the most acceptable, or “easy to swallow” is passive and voluntary, where the patient has given consent for treatment to be stopped.  The next acceptable but seemingly less popular is active and voluntary, where the patient has given consent to be assisted to end their life through the administering of a lethal injection.  Put simply, passive and active voluntary euthanasia is the painless killing of a consenting terminally ill patient or a person in an irreversible coma, in the latter case by the activation of a living will.  A number of governments have legalized passive or active voluntary euthanasia, but for the most part, it remains to be considered murder.  For the purposes of this writing, I am going to apply ethical codes to the concept of passive or active voluntary euthanasia, as these forms of euthanasia tend to be considered by more people to be justified and necessary.  

Currently in Australia, the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 states that the freedom of the states to make laws “does not extend to the making of laws which permit or have the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing) or the assisting of a person to terminate his or her life.”

Utilitarianism, as promoted by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, purports that the right decision is identified by that which creates the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number of people.  Applying this ethical code to the quandary of euthanasia throws the decision-maker right into a murky grey area.  If one were to change the law to permit passive and active voluntary euthanasia, is the greatest good being created for the greatest number of people?  If identifying how many people would be made happy by the legalization of passive and active voluntary euthanasia were as easy as taking an opinion poll of the population to calculate if the majority of people agreed with the legalisation, then in Australia, according to the Utilitarian code of ethics, passive and active voluntary euthanasia should be permitted (80-85% of Australians overwhelmingly support legalizing these forms of euthanasia). 

As mentioned previously, unfortunately the euthanasia debate is not as simple as taking an opinion poll, for when one reflects, a number of clear arguments against euthanasia become apparent and the “greatest good for the greatest number” starts to lessen notably.   There are a number of objections made against the legalization of euthanasia, not objections against the practice itself, but against what may come to pass as a result.  For example, the elderly and chronically sick who may feel pressure, from such a change in the law, to unburden their family and the healthcare system of their duty of care.  Even worse than this, the greedy or uncaring relatives that place pressure on doctors and medical staff, or even emotionally manipulate the patients themselves, to identify their life as being hopeless.  In addition there is the valid argument that it is not fair to unflinchingly place the responsibility of being involved in the decision to take a human being’s life on others, and in this case, family members.  While some may be able to more easily reason that the termination of life is a necessary choice, others may struggle with the moral burden. 

                                                                      

Also by opening one door, are we then opening others, leading to involuntary euthanasia and increases in unnecessary or preventable deaths?  As once some forms of euthanasia become acceptable or accessible, one looks onwards to other forms.  In addition, with the rapid pace at which new treatments and cures are being made in the medical sphere, it is logical to assume that if voluntary euthanasia were permitted, many might end their life in instances where if they had have remained, a cure or treatment may have become available.  Which leads me to this conclusion, utilitarianism while idealistic, is far too vague in its espousing to be an effective ethical code, when making ethical decisions. 

Consequentialism advocates that the ways in which you act are justified if the results of your actions are positive.  Do the ends justify the means?  In respect to passive and active voluntary euthanasia, if performed to relieve a consenting terminally ill patient from suffering, then the consequences, a desired end to their pain, would indeed justify the cessation of their life.  Being that utilitarianism is a strand of consequentialism, it comes as no surprise that when the theory is applied directly to the simplistic view of the problem, a decision is easily reached. However, just as with utilitarianism, once a person digs beneath the top layer of this multi-layered quandary, the objections previously mentioned surface, and the consequentialist perspective becomes unworkable as a way of addressing the objections that arise from the introduction of the practice of euthanasia.  For the objections that are raised come not from the direct consequence, but from the ripples that follow after.   

Virtue ethics tells us that the decision a person should make is determined by how it will reflect on their moral character.  In fact, “A right act is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances” (BBC, 2013).  Consequently, virtue ethics is not concerned with individual actions, but with the sum value of a person’s actions throughout their life.  Also, virtue ethics is not framed by any set of rules or moral duties, but its sole aim is to guide a person towards achieving character traits and enacting the behaviours of a virtuous person.  Throughout history the minimum standard of virtues have changed, and many philosophers fail to agree on which virtues are of priority, although there seems to be some consensus along the lines of prudence, fidelity and justice (BBC, 2013). 

Virtue ethics is a personalized theory that does not lend itself to individual scenarios.  As a guide for how a person should strive to live, its benefits are apparent, but with no clear rules for a person to follow, when faced with a dilemma, and no encompassing agreement on what virtues a “good” person should possess, it leaves a person to their own devices when faced with complex ethical decisions.  Thus when it comes to addressing an ethical decision that affects an entire nation and has potential ripple effects globally, virtue ethics renders itself impractical.

 

The deontological perspective suggests that a person is obligated to meet their duties by following prescribed moral rules, when making an ethical decision, irrespective of the consequences that may follow.  That is to say, certain actions are deemed right or wrong, and therefore despite what consequences may come from adhering to such rules, one must abide by them. Deontological ethics is often linked to Christianity, or theism in general, as in its description deontology is extremely prescriptive, thus the moral rules are viewed as coming from, or being in themselves, a moral authority, and the person who follows the rules is merely the agent.  As many of the moral “laws” people claim to follow are found in the Christian doctrine, as read in the Ten Commandments, it is easy to see why, the deontological perspective is easily adapted into the Christian way of life. 

When addressing the question of euthanasia in public debates, the deontological perspective is often brought to the forefront.  This being due to the popularised moral law, “Thou shall not kill.”  Also aligned with the deontological argument is the religious-based contention that life is sacred, and therefore it is immoral to take ones own life.  In fact, life is not ones own, but belongs to God, and thus He is the only being who has the power or right to end a person’s life.  If a person strongly believes in such moral laws, then they cannot agree to the practice of euthanasia, irrespective of any valid points, proponents may have. Consequently the deontological perspective quickly impedes any further investigation of the issue.  As deontology states, one cannot look to the consequences, one must only be guided by their own moral duties. 

Another moral theory considered a deontological perspective as it is directly linked to moral duty and defined by a person’s actions, rather than the consequences of their actions, is Kant’s Categorical Imperative.  Kant’s theory states one should, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”  His ethical code can be aligned to the Golden Rule, “Do unto others, as you have them do unto you,” although it is far more prescriptive, as once a rule is applied universally, all decisions a person makes must come from this identified reasoning.  That is to say that the moral value of an action is judged according to reason-based identified moral principles.  In my opinion, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a method of reason that is rightly espoused by many as a reminder to think objectively about the individual decisions a person makes, and the effect it may have on those around them.  In this way, it is a useful tool in our daily social interactions, however its restrictions are not appropriate when addressing complex ethical decisions as it impedes looking in-depth at their multi-faceted nature.  Also in my opinion, to ignore the consequences of ones actions or in fact not perform an action that would have a positive consequence, simply because it does not fit within ones reasoned moral principles, is narrow-minded.  Complex decisions are not well solved by constrained methods of reasoning. 

What is clear to me, after summarising the above ethical theories, and applying them to the complex issue of passive and active voluntary euthanasia, is that no one theory can systematically guide a person to an ethical decision.  Simple or prescriptive theories are for simple problems, and the entire concept of ethics rests on the fact that many dilemmas are not black and white.  However, this is not to say that some ideas from the aforementioned theories should not be put into practice.  Ethical codes provide worthwhile suggestions, as to how to attack an ethical dilemma that if one were to carefully pick and choose, an array of useful tools will be at the ready, when faced with an ethical problem.  Therefore, it is my contention that all one can really hope for, when faced with a complex ethical dilemma, is to do just that.  Analyse a decision objectively (Kant), both the process and consequence, be guided by ones personal moral values and ideals (deontology and virtue ethics), and think not only of oneself but all those that may be affected by the outcome (utilitarianism and The Golden Rule).  Through such reasoning, the best possible decision will hopefully be made.  

List of References

BBC.  (2013).  BBC – Ethics: Introduction to Virtue Ethics.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/virtue.shtml

BBC.  (2013).  Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/

Benn, Piers.  (1993).  The Gentle and Easy Death.  http://philosophynow.org/issues/6/The_Gentle_and_Easy_Death

de Waal, Frans. (1996).  Good Nature: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.    

Frost’s Scottish Anatomy.  The Ethics of Euthanasia.  http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scottish_anatomy/euthanasia_ethics.html

Singer, Peter.  (1993).  Practical Ethics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press. 

Wikipedia.  Euthanasia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Emotional Ethics: The saving grace of the clinically sane

Introducing Lokee ... take it away, Lokee

----------------------

It has come to my attention that an idea, which I imagined would be widely accepted, has in fact been a point of contention in the philosophical community since Aristotle. That is, whether, along with reason, emotions do and even should play a part in ethical thinking.

First, I will make an excuse for why I was unaware of this philosophical hot topic, and my justification is that I am comparatively new to philosophy. With this now known, hopefully your initial shock and disgust at my lack of awareness should dissipate, and in turn your need to vent your frustration at my apparent ignorance, lessen.

Upon my realization I was motivated to research, and based upon this body of research, it is my contention that emotions do and should inform ethical structures.

There are a number of emotion dependent processes and dispositions, including, behavioural dispositions, character traits and attitudes, all of which occur independent of an affective component (Starkey, 2008). That is to say, someone may be defined as a sad woman, without having the associated physiological reactions, feelings or expressions. A person may be angry with a telemarketer who continues to call, again, without having the physiological responses and elements of feeling typically related to anger. These forms of emotion are not the kind that I argue are necessary to effective ethical thinking. The kind of emotion that is essential to ethics are the emotions, which involve a cognitive and affective (physiological) component.

There are hardened rationalists who contend that emotions only weaken a person’s ability to think clearly and logically, and thus they should be avoided or at least only minimally referred to when making moral decisions. I argue, along with others I have read, that emotions are an essential part of the full understanding required to make effective and accurate ethical decisions.

“Without emotions or affects to amplify physiological drives and infuse cognitive processing with subjective meaning, human beings would not care enough to stay alive, much less mate, nurture offspring, create kinship bonds, or pursue art, science, literature or moral philosophy” (Callahan, 1988, pg.10). Emotions provoke thought and thought provokes emotion. An emotion involves a cognitive awareness of the object of one’s emotion along with a physiological reaction and experience of feelings (Starkey, 2008). For example, if a person sees a brown snake slither under their bed (cognitive apprehension), they experience an increase in heart rate, a tingling sensation (physiological reaction), and with these interwoven experiences they understand that there is a venomous snake under their bed, which they should be fearful of. The entirety of this event informs what actions they will take next. If a person were to have no sensation of fear and only register the fact that a brown snake went under their bed, what decision are they likely to make? For emotions not only register feelings, they also elicit memories. A person’s previous knowledge and experiences of snakes is brought forth and used to make an informed decision. They recall why they should be fearful of brown snakes. Thinking interacts with a person’s emotions, perception and physiology to bring forth from memory the information they need (Callahan, 1988, pg.14).

Emotion is necessary for full understanding (Starkey, 2008), which is achieved through introspection. Emotions allow a person to focus on what is perceptually relevant and identify what is most important (Starkey, 2008). Returning to the previous example, along with the brown snake slithering under the bed, there is also music playing, the neighbours next door talking loudly and the person in a rush to get to work. The emotion of fear that the person experiences provides them with the necessary information to tune out the music, ignore the neighbours and worry about their boss later, as what is most important now, according to their emotional reaction, is the problem of the possibly venomous snake making a home under their bed. This form of thinking is what has come to be known as the “frame problem” in philosophy. In any given situation a person needs to interpret the multitude of information presented to them and make inferences as to what is of import. Emotions enable people to do this by grabbing our attention

It may have come to your attention that while the example of the brown snake under the bed is effective in illustrating the interweaving of emotion and cognition, it does not involve an ethical problem. Fear not (no pun intended), this will be addressed soon.

Before I do give an example that clearly supports my contention, I will address the rationalists, who argue that emotion is detrimental to rational thought. An intelligent psychopath is clearly somebody who does not “suffer” from an average person’s emotional responses. They have the capacity to understand a society’s moral rules and can even apply them, if need be, but what they lack is the apprehension that moral rules should be reasons in their decision-making. In addition they are not held back emotions such as fear and guilt, when deciding how to act. A homicidal psychopath knows that society frowns on murder, and can apply the “no killing” rule, when it is rational and necessary to do so, for example, it’s best not to stab somebody in the centre of the mall, when there are lots of people around. However, when it comes to the act of killing their next victim, emotions and moral rules do not come into play. The fact that moral rules have no significance to them is clearly tied to their ability to tally up numerous victims without an empathetic emotional response to the individual lives they have taken.

Hardened rational thought can be just as morally dangerous as a psychopath’s lack of emotional response. An intelligent rationalist can easily argue for torture, terrorism, and the mistreatment of others through articulation of a logical dialogue. One only need to look to America for examples of all of these. For example the terror laws, which allow torture of possible terrorists and their imprisonment for indefinite periods of time. It is without the weight of emotional obligation and sympathies that people can ignore moral rules and sentiments. It is only through emotionally informed responses that a person is supported to check their moral options in light of their sympathies and in-built moral intuitions, and ensure a principled decision is made.

So now for my example of an ethical quandary. I have recently been reading a text written by Julian Baggini, titled Ethics: The Big Questions (2012). In one particular chapter he explores a long-standing ethical question, “Do the ends ever justify the means?” To aid in this investigation he relates a decision made by Dick Cheney on September 11^th2001, which was only made public 10 years after the fact. Dick Cheney made the ethical decision, after being informed that two commercial passenger airliners had hit the Twin Towers in New York City, to shoot down two other hijacked commercial passenger airliners, which were on a similar path of destruction. Dick Cheney had decided that, while the loss of the hundreds of passengers on the airliners was terrible, the thousands of potential victims that would be saved justified their sacrifice. As history now tells us Dick Cheney’s decision did not need to be enacted, due to the courage of passengers on one, and the timing of the other. We can only imagine what Dick Cheney experienced that day, while making that ethical decision. There are two possible paths he took, that of a hardened rationalist, or that of a person who garnered a full understanding of the situation. Let us explore the latter.

Cheney cognitively apprehends the event that is about to take place, with the shock of the realization, his adrenaline increases represented by an increase in heart rate and sweat, he feels fear and trepidation at the decision he is faced with. As he weighs up the number of potential victims and the aftermath of such a loss of life, he feels both sorrow and guilt as either way innocent people are going to die as a result. Emotions enable him to recollect previous instances in his life bringing forth similar scenarios, as well as the knowledge he needs to make an informed decision. Logic informs him that the ends do justify the means, while emotion supported him to reach a point where sympathies resonated with the tough moral principles involved.

A rationalist is just as likely to decide that the ends justify the means in this case. As we’ve explored an intelligent hardened rationalist is more than capable of logically arriving at any number of decisions. However to gain a full understanding of such a layered and murky ethical decision, emotions are needed. They support the person to not only perceive the ethics involved, but also to feel, recall and gather the memory necessary to act appropriately. In considering the loss of life, the individuals involved, the magnitude of such an event, emotions are not only needed but also expected. Emotions help us support the intent of an action, rather than merely following a flow diagram leading to a potential action with no real understanding of why that action might be necessary, and in some way, right.

I’ll leave you with this question. If you were a potential victim that day, either on the plane, or on the ground, would you want a hardened rationalist who intentionally ignored the emotions involved, or a human who experienced the event fully, to make the decision?

List of References

Baggini, J. (2012). Ethics: The Big Questions. London: Quercus Editions Ltd.

Callahan, S. (1988). The Role of Emotion in Ethical Decisionmaking. The Hastings Center Report Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 9-14

Starkey, C. (2008). Emotion and Full Understanding. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Volume no.11 August