Possibilities, Principles and People.

Hi,

I've just returned from my Bi-weekly appointment at the job centre to sign on. Whilst there a very kind lady with whom I had met a number of times had picked out a few leaflets she thought might be useful and helpful to me, since I've now been out of work for 225 days, and she knows of my qualification levels and background etc.

It was a leaflet for the Army Reserves. In which one is allowed to complete 200+ days in each year with no adverse effects to ones job search benefits. It's good money, and in my younger days I enjoyed it.

It made me think. (no surprises there eh?)

A bit of History..

Some time ago after I'd left regular service and nursing, I chatted with a friend who is in the army reserve and who more or less offered that i could rejoin my old unit (back when i was a part time soldier it was called the TA) However, given the history I have with the army, trans, etc I was at that time somewhat reticent.

But what of now?

The lovely lady in the the job centre was looking at the financial angle, and to be honest its fair point. I'm very strapped for cash, and AR could solve that issue.

However. Back in 1995 when I first walked through the gates of my old TA unit, I wasn't there for money. I was an idealist. I believed in the goodness of the British Army, the UK and its mission to bring british values and common sense to situations around the globe.

Yeah yeah I can all hear you laughing already.

Nowadays I'm not so sure if I actually believed that or just never really questioned the stuff I'd been lead to believe from an early age. As a young 'un i was hungry for success, and affluence, I wanted to make a difference, do something worthwhile and interesting, and have a ton of fun whilst doing so. I was once asked by an officer during basic training why I had joined the medics:

"To patch up the holes made by other regiments, Sir"

It made him chuckle and we all got an early finish for that. 

Life in uniform has taken me to Germany, Iraq, France, Cyprus, Gibraltar, and Wales. I've moved around, been moved around and done some pretty cool stuff.

But was it Fun? Difficult question to answer that one. I'll fall back on a description of my one and only operational tour, that I coined some years back.

Hours of boredom, punctuated by seconds of shear terror, 

but made possible by many moments of laughter.

The people were and are the best part of my experience in uniform. But theres the rub. people were also the worst part, and remain the most unpredictable. 

My experiences in life have lead me to become more of a realist than an idealist these days. I am now aware that some rules are applied, and others not, whilst still others are applied when and if the situation demands, in something of an interpretive manner. All of which have varying moral significance.  So what of this idea of joining the AR? 

Well, I still believe wearing a military uniform is something one doesn't do purely for money. "why" is a more pertinent question than if it were say, part time at tescos's.  So if I was to look at rejoining there would have to be some other reason. 

I am a very different person to that 20 year old kid who first walked into the barracks. Not just in the obvious sense of trans stuff, but also due to 22 years of accumulated experience and "knowledge" (whatever that might be). My notions of ethics, politics, humanity, nationality plus all manner of other things lead me to question whether a military uniform might not button up just little too tight over so many opinions and questions. I have little time for autocracy, or "badge fights" so the likelihood is high I would run into many conflicts. 

I no longer "believe" in the innate common sense of the British way, or its lauded values. That Britain is long gone, if it ever actually existed. What we have now is ...something else. 

"Why" are the AR looking for people? Well one can suggest that its due to the redundancy and cuts the military have endured over the recent years. The organisation's own people have been very much short changed, after having committed much more to the "job" than the average employee might otherwise.  Thus, it feels somewhat mercenary to jump back in when others have been pushed out, and quite frankly, theres no trust between those in the uniform and the politicians that decide their fate at present. The oft quoted military covenant as it were. All the management stuff i've considered academically over the past year points to it being a can of worms in a shit storm of incompetence. 

But there's more to it than that. If I do not believe in what the British Army currently stands to protect, in the corporate sense, then were I to once more step into uniform, that would be merely for personal gain. As Kant might suggest, the maxim upon which that action is based could be judged as somewhat immoral. 

Or in other words, sacrificing my principles and what little idealism I have left purely for financial rewards. Thats the very definition of selling out. 

Don't misunderstand me. The British Army, as an instrument of UK diplomacy, still has its place. it's just that on balance, I believe there's no longer a place for me within it's ranks. Those who consider philosophy and questions of that nature are in general looking at the meanings in and of life. The conclusions I've reached lead me to believe the meaning of mine now lies in another direction. 

What that direction may be we shall have to discover via other means. 

It's ironic that some of the very things my time in uniform taught me are now the same things keeping me out of that same uniform. 

Sarah 

The basics of - Morality & Ethics part 3

Recently I've been pondering a thought.

Is "vested interest" and what is deemed "appropriate" replacing the human progression towards "universal good"?

Universal good in this context being, opportunity, parity, education, prospects, happiness, and the access to sufficient means to provide for ones self and ones family.

It kinda ties into the 3rd part of my philosophical mini series:

Applied Ethics.

Consider the theatre of politics. Very often lobby groups will push their agenda and may, via quiet meetings with various people, agree to support certain other agenda's or goals - IF their own needs are met. This in essence is the very spirit of collaborative working and compromise, but the driver, or "maxim" to use Kant's expression, is merely a vested interest in a certain type of outcome.

Arguably an immoral use of a system.

BUT if that lobby group happens to be trans rights, or funding for pre natal hospital care, or women's access to health care, or ACLU, the Gun lobby, Oil industry, even evangelical groups etc, then people will make various decisions regarding the morality of the lobbying process based on the cause that is being lobbied for.

Me for instance, I'd suggest trans rights would be a "good cause" but judging by the comments section in the lower third of the internet, I'm sure many would disagree. The reasoning behind a decision as to the morality of a given goal or methodology could be the application of the consequential, or maybe duty bound theories.

For example I believe it (trans rights) an ethical cause because the outcome of success would see an improvement in peoples lives, and improvement in their access to the universal goods listed above. An opponent might disagree on religious or scientific grounds, since they subscribe to a view that the concept of "trans" isn't a legitimate way of being and thus to promote it is ethically wrong, since its harmful in wider sense, regardless of the consequences of such a view point to a given indivudal.

Of course I am trans. ( Or, if your an opponent of that concept, you would have to accept that I at least believe myself thus, even were you to disagree) So does that place me in the the vested interest category? You betcha it does. Does that undermine my arguments? No, only my perceived (and actual) impartiality.

That issue of impartiality is the central reason for my preference to look at the trans issue through the lens of anthropological and philosophical thought, rather than the reverse, which is to perceive everything in life through the lens of my vested interest in the trans question. If (some of) the arguments made by the trans community on its own behalf cannot stand up to structured critical scrutiny, they are thus proven as bad arguments. That fact doesn't change, regardless of how I feel about the underlying wider context.

It's small though signiifcant effort on my part to "balance the books" as it were.

Back in my nursing days I often considered the use of the word "appropriate" in the medical context. Seldom would you hear  "right", "wrong" or "good" "bad" used in the context of an action pertaining to a patients care.

The "most appropriate treatment" was the universal phrase.

Yet this, like many things is open to interpretation. Appropriate for whom? The establishment? The patient? The family? The wider society?

This "appropriate argument" is raging in America at the present with regard to not just trans issues, but a whole swathe of the population for whom it is deemed "inappropriate" by some to provide the basics of what we in the UK have come to expect of a healthcare system.

The ACA was America's first foray for many years into addressing its healthcare access disparity. Yet still some people wanted to pull it down, presumably for their own vested interests rather than the common of access to a universal good. (health)

After all, History will record that it was postulated and set up by a black guy. Certain sections of  todays America simply won't stand for that. Nor the idea that "an underserving poor" can access health care that "they pay for". Both premises are of course open to fairly stringent rebuttal, yet  a significant number of people still cling to these types of "moral" viewpoints.

I read recently of the case of a poorly baby girl. Again this is in America. She was denied treatment for a minor, yet potentially serious condition. One easily sorted within todays modern medical world.

The reason for the denial of health care to this infant? Her parents were Lesbian and the Dr objected to treatment on the basis of religious moral objection to the parental lifestyle.

Consider the hypocratic oath: written by Hippocrates, in ancient greek times, circa 300BC (damn those clever greeks again!) A modern version of which is shown below:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Consider those lines of the text in bold. The doctor in question cited "religious objections". Not to the treatment, but to the actions of a family member of the patient. 

Religious/ethical exceptions do apply in the UK and US. To cases of abortion for example. However the essential difference here is that in the case of abortion, medical personnel object to the action and/or proceedure they are being asked to perform, and not an extraneous factor that is irrelevant to the treatment of the patient. 

Duty based theories of right and wrong, such as those derived via a literal interpretation of some of the Christian teachings, would suggest this Dr "may" have a case. However, those same arguments would preclude her from treating people who are Bisexual, polyamorous, or eat shell fish and wear mixed fibre cloth. (Leviticus) Thus it would seem theres an inherent objection present and the  religious argument is brought out when convenient. Where have heard that before? 

Furthermore in taking the hippocratic oath, or subscribing to the broader tenant of it meaning, by virtue of being a Doctor, there is an expectation to put aside personal and moral view points and act "in the interest of the patient" at all times. Clearly the Doctor is in breach of that specific and central premise of being a healer of others. 

Is she therefore demonstrating a fitness of judgment sufficient to the work of a Doctor? You decide. 

It raises an interesting point however. The separation between church and state. Or moreover Church and legislature. Something the USA is again currently wrestling with. Religion is a duty based theory or morality and ethical out come. It presupposes right and wrong actions as prescribed via it's teachings and disregards the outcome of those actions. Law is utilitarian, derived from a branch of consequential theory. Creating either the greatest "happiness" or the least "sadness" for people via prior examination of the potential outcomes of any decision.

It doesn't take much to deduce that the two are in many ways mutually exclusive.

So Applied Ethics is a minefield. Since the answer one gets or seeks, in response to ethical questions depends almost entirely on which ethical model one uses to frame those questions. The unscrupulous will use one or other ethical model to justify their actions in rebuttal of condemnation from those who see things differently.

Philosophers are generally agreed that the existence of human nature is a contentious concept, since it would contravene the free will argument and thus responsibility for our own actions.  But, given all the above, and the contradictory outcomes inherent to differing views of what it means to be/do good or bad, it it puts me in mind of Moral Relativism.

The first law of Einstein's theory of relatively suggested that "everything will be measured in relation to Something else"

And so it is with Ethics. judgments cannot exist in a vacuum. They must be compared to something, be it history, or examples of another viewpoint.  To say Morality is relative, in as much as it shifts with time and perception, is true enough. After all what was once viewed as immoral is now not, and what was once viewed as moral is not now so. The two major examples in recent times being homosexuality and Slavery. Of course there are some who still condemn homosexuality on the basis of they preferred moral framework, yet that stance carries all the legitimacy of an opinion, if not backed up by reason.

So, to conclude my mini series on ethics and the morality of actions, thoughts and intent. I will once again revisit a paraphrasing of the words of Dr John Corivino, for I cannot put it any better. (I hope he will forgive me the small change)

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

I'm not suggesting to you "don't make moral judgements",

I'm asking to make sure you have reasons for the moral judgements that you make. 

To put yourself in someone else shoes, before you judge them. 
Not to Judge someone on how they live and love, but on whether they Live and love.

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

Sarah.

So, "The basics of" - Morality & Ethics part 1

Hello all you lovely people of the world.

It has been a while since the first part of my discussion of "The basics of philosophy" by Nigel Warburton, In writing this the second instalment, looking at right and wrong, I've decided to split the subject into 3 parts.

1) Theoretical models of morality
2) Meta Ethics
3) Application

Otherwise you would need about 6 hours to read a massive amount of text in one single blog entry that probably wouldn't do the subject justice and would very likely leave you with square eyes and a scrambled brain!

Regular readers will have noted a pervasive thread of ethical discourse in my recent blogs, and obviously that's because all my thoughts about the application of these concepts inevitably seep into other writings when trying to make any given point. Also just in case you were wondering, the terms "Ethical" and "Moral" are often used interchangeably. Ethics is the study of that which makes things right or wrong, and is also occasionally called "Moral philosophy".

So, to recap and clarify some the ethical models that I have referenced in recent Articles

Duty based theories:

i Christian -judaeo tradition ethics

Religious views of morality are by design dependent on the teachings of the religion in question. Most - though not all - religions suggest an all powerful creator being. That being's will is said to be supremely good, therefore by extension anything deemed as "good" by that being must be morally and ethically sound.

This argument has two defining elements:

Firstly, It presupposes the existence of the supreme being which as you'll have seen in my first article in this series is itself open to philosophical question and scrutiny.

Secondly this approach is suggestive that actions are either "good" or "bad" irrespective of the consequences of those actions.

Religious deity based morality also invites the question, "Is what a deity defines as good actually good because they say it to be so, or do they say it is so, merely because a given action is already good?"

Dependent on ones point of view on this last question, It can lead to a some very odd actions being deemed to be "moral" or conversely it reduces the "all powerful deity" to a being subject to a higher power, that of predetermined and separate laws of ethical and unethical action.

ii Kantian ethics

Emmanuel Kant took a view that it was ones duty to act in a moral way. He posed the question "what is a moral action?" As a result he devised things called Maxims, which he defined as the "thought behind the action" what we today might call a motivation. Crucially Kant devolved this process from any emotional input. It is a purely rational thought mechanism.

This is useful since it can distinguish between identical actions that have very different maxim's and thus may be on opposite sides of the moral argument.

Consider a scenario where you discover an injured person by the side of the road. You may decide to help them, and the outcome would therefore be beneficial to the person.

However this result can be achieved via two Maxim's:

"Help those in need", or "Help those in need and you shall be rewarded"

Arguably the second one is a less moral version of the first, since it predisposes personal gain from what is, at least outwardly, an apparently self-less act. Thus the action is not entirely driven by a sense of duty.

Kant sets out his version of categorical imperatives, or rules if you will, that suggest a framework on which to hang judgment of our actions in the moral sense, chief amongst them being:

"Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end" 

Which roughly fits with a more commonly heard christian tradition ethic in todays language of:

"Do unto others as you have them do to you"

The main criticism of Kant's theory is that it can of course be demonstrated to be used with very immoral maxims, and in some ways doesn't really tell us what we should do, just how to judge what we might. There are also moral dilemma's where some immoral acts based on breaking a maxim might lead to a moral outcome. For example, not telling a gunman where his target is, if you actually do know that information. This goes against "You should always tell the truth" but may in effect save someones life. "The lesser of two evils..." so to speak. 

Consequentialist theory

This problem with Kant's view of morality brings us nicely onto the next ethical model. That of consequence. Consequentialism, as the name implies, looks at the outcomes of actions to determine the nature of whether that action is moral or not. The best known of these is utilitarianism. The underpinning principle of good moral action in this case is defined as "that which brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people"

It is a system that very broadly encompasses much of the legal systems of the western world. Since rule based utilitarianism could be said to be a version of "law" by which people live their lives.

However. As has been discussed in much of my recent writings, pure application of this method does lead to under representation of the minority groups of society, Since by virtue of their being in the minority they will always be disadvantaged in terms of that defining principle. Plus, there is the ever present question of where does one draw the line's when considering actions that are good for one group but evidently bad or questionable for another.

One way to address this is to apply Negative utilitarianism. Basing ones actions on the outcome that produces the least amount of suffering rather than the greatest amount of a universal good, (happiness)

Both of these have limitations, and still bring up situational moral dilemmas. Also there are problems of weighing one action against another and the possible justification of immoral actions based on the idea of the greater good. (For example, how many times has that argument been used as a reason for going to war?)

Virtue based theory.

Rising from a study of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, Virtue theorists considered the question,

"How should one live their life?

The answer was to cultivate the virtues, and thus "flourish", leading a successful and prosperous life. This you might think is very similar to the Kantian ethics version of a Maxim, which it is, but with one critical difference. Virtue theorists included the emotional aspect of human intention. 

Bringing emotion into a central role allowed discussion of things like compassion, generosity, and charity. It raised the issue of why we might act to benefit our fellow humans from one of mere duty to one of empathy, and being able to appreciate the consequences of their situation through a form of kin ship with them. 

It encourages one to look for the similarities between different peoples, actions, viewpoints etc, and base ones actions from those observations.

The criticism of virtue based theory is simply, "what is to be classed as a virtue?" There is still much discussion around what to include in a list of virtues, since "That which allows one to flourish" is open to interpretation. 

Additionally people change, their inherent tendencies altering over time with experience. Thus one might start off with the virtue of generosity, but having been conned in the  past by an immoral individual, reassess that view in later life. There is also the consideration of "Human Nature" and arguments as to what that is, or if it exists. 

These are three of the major ethical theories that exist. There are others, and this page here gives a very brief breakdown of each, including those discussed here. 

One slightly confusing thing however, that some of you might have noticed, is that in all of the above  there still isn't a clear definitional of what is "right" or "wrong" in the moral context. 

To answer that it is necessary to study and theorise on the ethical theories. A field known a "Meta Ethics" 

And that we will leave till part 2. 

Sarah