Imagine you are a city-council member in a city which has been offered a tract of land for a reasonable price. It is an ideal location for a mall that the city has wanted to build. It has come to your attention though that this area under consideration includes a native-American burial site.
Should you look for another plot of land to build that mall? How would you vote on the purchase of this plot?
What would you decide to do?
I have a solution in mind that is ethical, but first I would like to hear your thoughts. What do you believe would be the best decision?
…Also I would call your attention to this brief paper: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf
It’s title is “The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts.” I’d love to get your impressions of it.
And further, I would call your attention to this series of videos explaining ethical ideas from the viewpoint of Behavioral Ethics: ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/seri … -unwrapped
With regard to the many wonderful blogs, concept-definitions, and highly-practical topical case studies offered to us in the “Ethics Unwrapped” series, I would comment:
While it is imperative to emphasize the individual over the collective, it is advisable to also make the distinction between “individualism” {a value that is merely an Extrinsic-value} and “individuality” {which is of Intrinsic-value.} And what has only Systemic Value for individuals is “conformity.”
[Conformity is addressed when the “Ethics Unwrapped” program teaches about “moral pressures that tend to bias the human mind.]
It is very helpful, as well, to take the Care Perspective into account. Certainly Feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on the notion of caring: men can be caring too – and many are!
It is furthermore true that Kong Fu Tse, and later Mencius, writing in ancient China, have something to teach us such as: civility; respect for our elders; family spirit; the values that tradition may have to offer, when it does; and making a priority of looking out for those closest to us, putting our own family’s welfare before that of strangers. Thus we can absorb the best of many perspectives into our own frame-of-reference, our own paradigm.
To learn more about that new paradigm, study the first three selections listed in the signature below. Then give some feedback here as to your reflections on the frame-of-reference presented in those writings. Your comments are most welcome!!
In the case study offered in the original post, you, in the role of a city-councilor, had to make an important decision.
What does it mean to make a decision?
George and Kay, who care about Ethics, are two educators discussing this topic. The following quotation is from p. 11 of the booklet, “Aspects of Ethics.” The entire discussion - providing the context - is available by clicking on that title in the list of references in the signature below this post. Here are the relevant quotes:
DECISIONS AND MOTIVATION
To decide that we be morally-good persons is the decision we make when we want to raise the probability that we will have a trouble-free life. To be selfish and/or self-centered is to, in a sense, ‘ask for trouble.’ It is the opposite of being ethical.
What do you have to say about all this? …Tell us your views?
.Now with respect to the case study, the moral problem proposed in the original post, wherein one is to imagine that one is a member of a city-council with an important decision to make. ---- {What follows is my take on the matter.}
As a local city-council member it would be ideal if you have creativity enough to visualize a shopping mall with open green spaces interspersed. Those spaces would contain Native-American burial sites that have been preserved. Each would have an engraved commemorative plaque, near the grave marker, as a deliberate feature of the mall! It is likely more expensive to construct such a mall than if the city just plowed over the whole area but it would raise the city’s tourist income to have such show-piece sites as focal points in the mall. The city could advertise that it cares, that it preserves its Amerindian heritage!
Thus, by promoting this policy, you will provide jobs for many who are out of work, you will collect more for the city’s treasury by the new taxes that come in from the new property owners at this mall, you will be able to reduce property taxes for the majority of city residents, and you will attract income-producing tourists to your city!
Of the choices you could make, this particular choice is less likely to cause harm to anyone or to anything!
That last-mentioned criterion ought to be a part of any systematic analysis you make when faced with any moral decision …according to the Business School of The University of Texas at Austin.
Also, what did you think about that paper entitled “The Beautiful Simplicity…”? Did you gain some insights from it? Tell us whether you liked it. Tell us if you believe it fits in with what you know about ethics.
Here, if you overlooked it, is a link to it: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf
How would you have resolved the Moral Dilemma presented in the o.p.? Any suggestions?
What if you think it is immoral to build malls. Like you view them as destroying smaller family owned businesses. That they are almost universally aesthetically unpleasant. That they tend to have products that are meant to be used for relatively short periods of time then thrown out - malls have a tendency to have products that have a high component of fashion and trend involved in their value. That is, malls are bad for the environment. Malls are generally coupled to cars. One drives to the mall and malls are surrouned by parking lots. Rather than stores in a thriving center of town, often easily reachable via walking or public transport. IOW malls contribute to the loss of neighborhoods, the social life of towns, dependence on oil - leading to occasional wars.
That’s all just as examples. I am sure there could be other arguments on ethical grounds from other perspectives.
Then there could be arguments for the mall which are considerate or ‘considerate’.
Don’t get me wrong, being respectful of native americans sounds fine to me. But what if they don’t want their cemetary in the middle of the grounds of a mall. I wouldn’t. Even with the nice plaques.
What if capitalism itself is immoral?
How does your system give us a common ground from which to work out which set of morals and how do we prioritize them?
Yes. Asking the local Native-Americans what they wanted to be done with the burial site is a critical part of producing an ethical solution. It’s completely missing from Thinkdr’s solution.
I had to keep in the Business School because it seemed like such an odd authority choice.
In any case…
What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good?
Also, how does one feel confidence in one’s ability to predict. Even a relatively simple example like the Mall - compared say than a Senator deciding whether to vote for or against a war, for example - leads to an unbelievable amount of effects which in turn become causes. In my previous post I raised some possible concerns, mainly from the Left, perhaps some also from the Right, but there are many other, I am sure, areas of effects when one decides on going ahead with a mall in a specific location -and generally with tax easements and other local financial and other support. These causes and effect head off down lines of complicated causation for, well, ever. Where do we get the confidence to make a consequentialist decision? How many years forward are we trying to predict? How do we decide on the values that evaluate?
How do we weigh centralized access to consumer goods when also evaluating how a mall affects traffic and use of downtowns? So many values intersect in such a decision. And, then we have the ‘respecting other cultures’ thing to be weighed against jobs, to be weighed against…All these different kinds of categories of value. It is hard enough to make decisions when the value conflicts are just in one area.
Very well said! You bring up lots of quite-relevant points.
And Phyllo too …also is ethically aware. Yes, the local Native Americans are to be heard on a project like this. I was naive to assume that they would be pleased to have attention brought to their heritage and their legacy; they might indeed vote to “leave our burial ground site alone.” They might demand the city find another site to build on.
I agree with you, Karpel, on the value of keeping a small town square atmosphere for shopping and interacting. Decentralization rates high in the Unified Theory of Ethics. It finds that 'small is beautiful., as the the book by E.F. Schumacher was titled. The subtitle he gave it is: “Economics as if people mattered.” It is a classic, and is concise, clear and profound, all at once. It’s worth reading
Business schools these days, because they teach some students how to avoid the pressures and temptations of corruption, are the main centers of applied ethics in the country. [I offered a link earlier to the website ‘Ethics Unwrapped.’ If you go visit there you will be surprised how much work has been done by Dr. Robert Prentice and his colleagues to boost Ethics.] I could only say, “Awesome!” [size=83] I was relieved to learn that I don’t have to do it all myself!!! Ethics has already found its way into the school system![/size] Eugene Solte, a professor at Harvard, has also made a contribution to this field and is using ‘The ethical fallacies’ material that I called to his attention - written by the Political Scientist, Wm. Kelleher, who like myself studied the philosophical output of Robert S. Hartman, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman - a true genius if there ever was one.
If we discover a skeleton that could reveal scientific truth, should the natives be allowed to prevent the study of the find due to their religious beliefs?
As a perfect example of the vast range of causes and effects consquentialists seem to think they can manage.
My vote, as it happens, would be yes, they get to prevent it. But I make no claims that this is a correct prioritization. I am sure the scientists can find some other way to help people or have an interesting investigation.
Interest, consideration and respect, for the people involved in the situation, are key to finding an ethical solution that works.
But often, we have an individual or group arrogantly imposing his/its values/ethics/morality on others. Maybe involving outright unethical actions which are justified by a greater good. Which leads to anger, alienation, resentment, mistrust.
Sure, the intentions may be wonderful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Which theory of ethics do you prefer as an alternative?
My theory cannot be accurately described as Consequentialist, although I do see some merit in that approach; namely, its concern to aim for public policy that makes for the well-being for the vast majority. For that reason I am willing to learn from it and to absorb its best features into my theory. A Unified Theory of Ethics is a synthesis of the highlights of Shinto, Buddhism, Confusious’ teaching, the Golden Rule, and the three or four traditional schools of academic ethics. Check it out. - myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT … %20all.pdf
I think it worked out ok in the end. I saw a video about it where the scientists appealed to the natives who were sympathetic to the gathering of useful info before returning the remains, and then the researchers returned to present of the information about their genetic heritage which the natives found interesting, so the story had a happy ending because people were willing to relate to each other in communication and be considerate, but we’re lucky that dogmatic insistence didn’t prevail.
You want to go out and I want to stay in, so who wins? The natives are in pain everyday the bones aren’t in the ground and the scientists are in pain everyday the bones are in the ground, so who wins? Someone is going to be hurt no matter what.
Although there will be pain on both sides, Phyllo showed us that when the archeologists consulted with and collaborated with the native-Americans there was less pain.
One could construe that the cooperation that occurred as “a win-win” outcome …which is just what the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics proposes we aim for in each situation where human interaction takes place. Be a value creator!
Phyllo added: "… we’re lucky that dogmatic insistence didn’t prevail."
The dogmatic view is often a case of “either-or” or “black-or-white” thinking. Such thinking fails to see the many beautiful shades of colors, the alternative perspectives, that a more reality-based view has to offer.
I also agree with Karpel Tunnel that in our calculations - when confronted with a moral dilemma - we are to proceed ‘as if people mattered.’ (That’s Dr. Schumacher’s phrasing.) Hartman taught us that in our setting of priorities we are to place people above things and stuff; and things above unsubstantiated opinion - above ideas not backed by solid evidence.
It seems disrespectful to me to build a shopping mall around a burial site, even though the solution does avoid sacrilege.
I would build a structure around the site, an architectural marker of some kind, to allow people to visit and honor or at the least be aware of the site, have it in their conscious. This would be a celebration of life.