Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Building a more moral world

By Peter Bowden - posted Wednesday, 10 April 2019


We have dozens of moral conflicts in the world today – same sex marriage, accepting refugees, gun control, capital punishment and health care in the United States, sexual abuse of children, abortion, euthanasia. We also have dozens of moral theories-well over 20-to decide how we resolve these issues. The reason why we have not resolved these issues is the sheer multitude of theories-all drawn from Western philosophy. The most notorious is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperativeAct only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This rule enables you to claim that your view on conflicts is correct, and the opposing viewpoint is wrong. Other moral theories will also support whichever side you wish. We see these conflicts in the media every day. It is incredible that after over 2000 years of moral theorising, we are still not able to decide on the difference between right and wrong.

Some philosophers say that we cannot reach a decision on issues of morality. Alain de Botton, in his Religion for Atheists, states that there is no overriding moral rule; we can never decide on what is the right thing to do.

I disagree with Alain de Botton. There is indeed one overriding moral theory, one common to Western and Eastern moral philosophies.

Advertisement

The Eastern belief, based on the eastern religions-Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. -demonstrating the greatest commonality is Ahimsa: refraining from harming others. This moral concept is common to three of the Asian and four of the Western moral philosophies. Combined with the injunction to help others when they need help, it is applicable world-wide. It also answers a near-complete range of current moral questions.

The concept of Ahimsa: "Respect for All Living Things and Avoidance of Violence Towards Others", was quoted by the 14th Dalai Lama when he spoke on the terrorist attack in Nice: "Our prime purpose in life is to help others. And if you cannot help them, at least don't hurt them". Non-violence is also "at the core of Mahatma Gandhi's political thought".

Debrata Sen Sharma, writing on Hindu ethics, advocates that we should "abstain from violence in any form and refrain from causing injury to any one through deed, word or thought"

The Samyoga Institute tells us: "Although Ahimsa was originally translated as non-killing, it evolved over time to mean non-injurying-physically, mentally and/or verbally." This translation suggests that we not strike anyone, utter unkind words, or even think negative thoughts of anyone.

The concept of Ahimsa overlaps with four of the Western philosophies.

These are Tom Beauchamp's and James Childress', Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2009), William Frankena's Ethics (1973), Bernard Gert's Common Morality (2004), and possibly the most widely endorsed is John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (1863), which repeatedly condemns harming others. Each of these ethical theories sets out the moral rule that we should not harm others.

Advertisement

Each theory is examined below to determine (i) how well it defines harm; also (ii) if people are suffering from harm or some disability, then then the extent to which we should assist them and (iii) whether it incorporates the relieving of harm already incurred. i.e., a "Do good" as well as a "Do not do harm" injunction, and (iv) the extent to which we weigh one harm against another. e.g. inflict a small harm in order to prevent a larger one.

Beauchamp and Childress: Principles of Biomedical EthicsThis work is a bio-ethics text. It specifies four separate principles that structure this theory: respect for autonomy; non-maleficence; beneficence; and justice. Non-maleficence is the do-no-harm component

William Frankena: Ethics This 1973 book possibly covers much of the universal guideline that we are looking for. It has a four-part set of rules:

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

Article edited by Margaret-Ann Williams.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist. He was formerly Coordinator of the MBA Program at Monash University and Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University. He is currently a member of the Australian Business Ethics Network , working on business, institutional, and personal ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Bowden

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Bowden
Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy