Practical issues are
often discussed or resolved using Western values, perspectives, and principles. This is not
necessarily wrong, but it narrowly sees things and is somewhat dismissive of communal
values. A plurality of values, in this
way, is preferred, given the multicultural nature of society. Generally, ethics
is not the catalog of right and wrong, or a set of moral prescriptions. Rather,
it is a discipline that concerns with the rules and principles that determine some standard of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning, however, must go beyond theories.
Larry May and Jill Delston suggest that people can begin with what is concrete –
rules, codes, and social rules.
Basically, moral
philosophy is divided into broad areas – normative and meta-ethics. Normative
ethics responds to questions pertaining to the morality of our actions. It
seeks to understand why or why not an action is done, or why a particular
consequence must be avoided. However, it matters that we also look into the way
of life of a people or the historical context of a community and how the same will shape a moral viewpoint. In Confucian ethics, for example, one must realize or
fulfill a set of obligations “defined by a nexus of relationships.” (May and Delston
2016) This includes obligations to family and society. The “rectification of
names,” for example, is about moral reform in the political realm.
Normative ethics is
concerned with two aspects of morality – theory and application. Moral theory deals
with those general moral questions like what human beings ought to do, or how
should people be, whereas applied ethics takes up the questions regarding bioethics,
poverty, or climate change. Moral theory seeks to explain human action by making
manifest its basis through virtue, duty, or the natural law, while applied
ethics provides the answers to many practical questions. Theoretically, Kantian
ethics helps guide the human person in terms of making a moral choice. The categorical
imperative, which is a disposition as to what we ought to do, is some sort of a
personal policy or a principle that one must or ought to obey.
A maxim is rooted
in an a priori type of morality. By
this we mean that Kantian ethics is all about obedience to rules. It is thoroughly
formal. While consequentialist ethics deals with ends or the results of one’s
action, Kantian ethics is simply an examination of the motive in making a
decision. We do not see things in terms of their instrumental value. Rather,
what is important is the motive in which the person wills nothing but the fulfillment
of the good. In particular, Kant tells us to consider persons as ends and never
as means. Onora O’Neill (2016) explains: “To use someone as mere means is to
involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent.”
The above position
manifests the importance of respecting persons as persons. Things are of value because
of their use or functionality. Human beings, however, have intrinsic value
independent of whatever purpose people conceive about the social roles of
people. Institutionally, this means that the establishment of the basic
structure of government must be grounded in the basic respect of people as
persons. This is something that is immediately linked to the idea of reason.
Kant’s project is based on The Enlightenment. Reason is the guiding
principle in the scheme of human actions that can be considered as morally
good.
Reason, however,
is often abstract. The experience of culture and the historical contexts of
what people or individuals go through certainly determine the moral sentiments
of societies. The history of colonialism, for instance, make people think of
the ills of cultural hegemony.
In this regard, it is important to look into the way nations arise and how
people, on the basis of their solidarity, conceive of the meaning of the common
good. The idea of the common good, defined on the basis of history, tradition, and culture,
determine the values individuals embrace, live for, and defend. In terms of the
formulation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, for instance, Abdullah
Ahmed An-Na’im (2016), note:
The majority of the peoples of [Asia and
Africa] had little opportunity for direct contribution to the formulation…The
majority of the peoples in the two continents were still suffering from the
denial of their collective human rights to self-determination because of colonial
rule and foreign domination at the time, they were unable to participate in the adoption processes.
Meanwhile, linguistic analysis
became identical with philosophy during the early part of the 20th
century. This maybe manifest in GE Moore’s attempt to define the meaning of the
good. Mark Timmons (2002) explains that meta-ethics deals with the non-moral
questions on morality. Such includes questions about the meaning of moral
statements or semantics, questions which pertain to the nature of moral facts or
what is known as moral metaphysics. The concern of meta-ethics, therefore, is the investigation
of the epistemological foundations of moral linguistics. Christopher
Agulanna (2008) explains how the shift to applied ethics occured:
This new shift in emphasis by moral
philosophers from concrete matters to linguistic matters led to a decline in
ethics and almost made the discipline to kaput. However, the events of the two
world wars, coupled with the social upheavals occasioned by the wars as well as
the devaluing of the human environment due to the activities of human beings,
convinced ethicists of the uselessness of retreating into the realm of eternal
verities or the trite issue of clarifying ethical language to the neglect of
the important issues of human life. Medicine acting as savior of ethics came
when physicians and medical professionals were confronted with the dilemma of
how to respond to issues of life and death which they faced in their
interactions with patients.
Normative ethics
prescribes how human beings should act or what human beings must do in order to
be morally right. Human action is deemed acceptable if it will adhere to a
certain moral standard. This standard should be based on justice or equality or
the basic respect for human dignity. In this sense, normative ethics
articulates how certain moral standards are to regulate our actions, though
there cannot be a perfect standard of morality. During the seventies, modern
societies have not put much attention to ethics in public affairs. But the moral
debate after the promulgation of Roe v
Wade by the United States Supreme Court which legalized abortion stirred
ethical debates. It has become clear to people that morality is beyond
semantics.
How are we supposed
to live? Applied ethics is about the normative approach to moral questions. It
involves the investigation of specific issues and the appropriate choices that
people must make. For example, abortion, euthanasia, climate change, global poverty, just war, and terrorism are often prominent. The reason is that central to these problems
is the value of human life. The objective in deepening the dialogues is for individuals
to realize the appropriate moral norms in society. As a matter of illustration,
Peter Singer (1972) presents how the affluent people in developed countries might
be able to address the problem of poverty from a consequentialist point of
view. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality,
Singer (1972) opines that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,
we ought, morally, to do it.”
Singer believes that it “makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a
neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know,
ten thousand miles away.” (Singer 2002) He believes that the individual, by
being impartial, can do something good to address the issue of global poverty.
In the issue of global inequality, Singer (2002) says that “neither race nor
nation determines the value of a human being’s life.” For this reason, individuals
in rich nations need not be morally indifferent to strangers. Singer’s approach
calls for a global ethics, grounded in the
idea that the individual can always do more to help the poor.
May
and Delston (2016) argue that discussing the issues is not enough. Singer
himself actualizes his moral position by donating to charity. In Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach, May and Delston ask, “what
is the point of relating philosophy to public and personal affairs if we do not
take our conclusions seriously?” Our social and political nature point to the
fact that we have to consider the ethical ramifications of our actions because such
would affect the welfare of other individuals. Hence, the pursuit of a personal
good must not be to the detriment of society. When companies use people for
profit, or when laborers are exploited, what is made manifest is the lack of
concern for the lives of persons.
Some
laws and policies can be indifferent to the poor. The economic power of strong
sovereign states renders the freedom of poor nations useless. Unfair
international trade practices undermine the economy of poor and struggling
nations. Thus, it can be said that poor nations can only pursue the good life
if they get fair treatment. In fact, the problem of poverty is not only
economic. It is due to unjust social and political systems dictating the
distribution of goods. Thomas Pogge (2007) thinks that affluent nations must
address global poverty by realizing that global structures are unjust. Colonialism
and international trade rules are unfair to the poor.
The
multicultural approach to practical ethics requires that we consider the experience of
minority groups and demand respect for the rights of people who are in the margins
of society. The reality is that when people don’t live decent lives, then there
is injustice in society. However, it is important to recognize difference in
society. We must learn how to live with “otherness”. Without the due respect for this
difference, people are oppressed. As a result, there emerges a violent
rebellion. In view of this, many will demand recognition for their rights. Due
to persistent neglect, minorities will insist on self-rule or autonomy. People
consider their cultural and social identity as fundamental to the meaning of
their existence.
Multiculturalism showcases a shift from a
‘politics of redistribution’ which emphasizes on economic inequality to a ‘politics
of recognition’ which gives attention to cultural injustices, seeking respect for
difference and improved status hierarchy. This does not mean that
economic inequalities are to be dismissed. According to Will Kymlicka, it only
shows that the “demands of justice go beyond the familiar set of common civil,
economic and political rights” (Kymlicka 2007). The shift shows the problems of
ethno-cultural groups that the institutions of society must address. More
importantly, it must be noted that economic hierarchy is not reducible to
status hierarchy (Kymlicka 2007). For example, many members of the LGBT
community who, while economically well-off, can suffer from degrading treatment
due to their difference. Thus, the demand for recognition is simply a demand
for respect for one’s difference.
Let us
take the issue of religious pluralism. If for instance, one chooses a certain
way of life, say a communitarian way of life, it can be said that one can do so
responsibly. In this sense, society must respect the right of others to be
different, including the right to choose one’s religion or reject a religion
one belongs to. The responsible use of freedom implies that if I demand respect
from others for my beliefs, I must allow others to make the same demand on me.
The
problem of religious freedom and tolerance is a controversial debate. To address the issue, John Rawls introduces
the important idea of ‘freedom of conscience’. For Rawls, freedom of conscience
ensures the revisability of religious belief. He thinks that our conceptions of
faith can be subjected to rational deliberation (Rawls 1993). Rawls believes that the person must be free to choose
his religion after rational deliberation. This implies that he must not
be constrained in leaving his present religion if one wishes to do so.
In
conclusion, there is a strong case for the argument that people can live a life that is worth living by valuing the unique identities of peoples. The multicultural approach to ethics seeks to address lingering
issues that concern justice and the rights of people. Broadening the horizon
and empowering persons means that we respect their difference and respect their way
of life. Doing what is ethical involves respecting the
diversity of our moral worldview. What
is important is that one recognizes the moral rights of others as a fellow
human being. 