Living the Good Life

13. Ethics and Knowledge

163 13 ethics and Knowledge True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. Cicero How Do We Know What Is Right and Wrong? In our discussion of ethics we have asserted that some things are right and others wrong. We have said, for instance, that we ought to have fair exchanges with others, that we ought to conform our desires with reason, and that we ought to work toward the common good. We have said that we should not kill the innocent, that we should not steal, and that we should not lie. How is it, you might wonder, that we can know all these things? Indeed, how can anyone know what is right and wrong? After all, disagreements over moral questions abound. Different societies have different beliefs, and even our own society has a plethora of views. Some say that we should not kill the innocent, while others say 164 eThiCs anD knowleDge that we can, in the form of euthanasia or abortion. Some say that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage, and others say that anything goes, just so long as there is consent. Some say that capital punishment is wrong; others that it has a part to play in society. Amidst this cacophony, one struggles even to hear oneself think. Perhaps it is best, amidst such confusion, to throw up our hands and acknowledge that we simply cannot know what is right and wrong. People have forever disagreed and will forever disagree. Let each one hold his own opinion. Such a view is not a wholesale relativism of values; it does not deny the possibility of some true right and wrong. But it is a relativism of our knowledge; whatever the truth, we will never know it. Some people make the same claim about God. There is some truth about God—either he exists or he does not—but we will never know what the truth is. The reason given here is much the same as with morals: people disagree about God, so we simply cannot say what is correct. Rationalizations, Again Is disagreement really a good measure of whether we can know something? People disagree over just about everything. Members of the Flat Earth Society, for instance, think that the earth is flat and that a worldwide conspiracy attempts to fool us all into thinking the earth is round. Because of this disagreement should we conclude that we can’t know the truth of the matter? Or rather, should we conclude that people are very good at disagreeing , even when the answer is available? People are especially good at disagreeing over morals, but not because we can’t know the truth of the matter. Rather, the root of much moral disagreement seems to lie in our propensity to rationalize (I-II, 94, 6). We have already seen that a rational- 165 eThiCs anD knowleDge ization involves three steps: (1) we know what is right or wrong; (2) we want what is wrong; and (3) we come up with a quasimoral reason for doing what is wrong. Step one begins with knowing morals, and if we stopped there we might well have moral agreement. But by the time we reach step three we have abandoned our knowledge in preference for confusion, a confusion that might well lead to disagreement. When a whole society begins to rationalize along the same lines, then we end up with disagreement between societies. Consider, for instance, some of the rationale for slavery in the antebellum South. Among other things, it was suggested that those of African blood were defective human beings, so that they could not take care of themselves, or that abolishing slavery would ruin the economy and so do more harm to African Americans than good. Perhaps these arguments were advanced in complete sincerity. But on the other hand, perhaps they were the quasi-moral reasons produced by rationalizations. The slave owners, realizing that slavery was wrong but wanting to own slaves nevertheless, came up with rationalizations for their deeds. The result was disagreement. Why? Because they could not know what was right or wrong? No. In fact, they began by knowing what was right, but disagreement arose from a failure in desires. The slave owners desired what was wrong, and so ended up...