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


Children from same sex relationships: Research from more than 70 studies has found that these children are at no disadvantage.

Escalating gap between the rich and poor. The question here is whether this gap causes harm to those less well off. When we examine the gap between the third world and developed nations, the answer is clearly yes, and the gap is immoral. According to the United Nations, roughly 1.2 billion people are in "extreme poverty" -earning less than $1.25 a day. The answer in the industrial democracies, however, is not so clear. A 1993 study does show that income inequality and relative poverty have a negative impact on infant mortality. Since then, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. Some writers claim that this gap causes a high crime rate, social unrest, and political instability.

Gun control in the United States and to a lesser extent, in Australia, is currently a controversy. Application of the minimum harm rule will show that gun control is the desired moral response.

Advertisement

Racial discrimination is obviously a harm, and therefore a wrong.

Abortion. The argument at issue here is the right to life of the unborn foetus. I see the argument from a different angle, however, in that our reasons for holding that the killing of a human being is wrong is, according to Peter Singer, that we deprive him or her of the expectation that they have on their future lives. To take away this expectation is to do them harm. But an embryo has no mind, no expectations, so they cannot be harmed. We must also balance the pregnant woman's wishes against what for most right-to-lifers, is a religious belief. Expectant women themselves should individually make the choice of which is the lesser harm.

Cloning and designer babies. These are huge issues, including stem cell research. All are the result of currently available genetic engineering technologies. They allow the human race to manage its own evolution. The "Do no harm, help others" rule, however, provides a workable guideline. If the technology is beneficial, such as to remove the causes of genetically inherited diseases, then it is morally acceptable. If the technology is used to enhance our intelligence or physical prowess, then it must be equally available and affordable to all social classes and all levels of income. That day is a long way off. I do see a possible moral benefit in a technology that increases the general level of intelligence of the human race, or even in its physical fitness or its lifespans.

Universal Health Care Obamacare-or the Affordable Care Act-is a much-disputed policy in the United States. Those of us in Australia, beneficiaries of a highly regarded national health scheme, cannot understand the objections. These appear to be a right-wing US objection to big government: that Obamacare reduces the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices when obtaining medical services. This argument for dismantling Obamacare is not at all obvious to outsiders.

Asylum for refugees & global warming are two issues that can be treated together, as the moral guidelines are clear. The rule, minimize harm, should dictate our decisions on both: that we help refugees where ever we can, and that we take every step feasible to limit carbon emissions. Climate sceptics appear to oppose practices that reduce human emissions, on the belief that the world is only passing through a warmer cycle. Most scientific evidence is against this viewpoint.

The social obligations of business. Applying the "do no harm, help others" rule, we find that Milton Friedman is right when he says the primary objective of a corporation is profit-for without ongoing profit, the firm cannot survive. And a business that collapses throws people out of work. The dilemma arises when profits start to fall. One traditional answer has been to cut costs, but such cutting may cause harm. The cutting could include the firm's contributions to the welfare of the communities where it is located, to the numbers in its workforce, or to the expenditures on safety equipment and training. Again, the minimum harm option provides a strong guideline, in that the decision requires a balance between two competing harms, decided by the analyses and judgement of the firm's decision makers. In short, there is no easy answer to the social obligations of business. The decision hinges on which option does the least harm.

Advertisement

Education Albert Einstein once said, "Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of minds to think." These social issues make up an obligatory component of any educational program. Education should include issues such as prison reform, the imprisonment rate of mentally defective persons, the imprisonment of people born into dysfunctional families, the health of indigenous people, even the causes and prevention of war. Such learning is a step towards the broader social objective of producing graduates with a wide-ranging perspective on the concerns facing the world. We will all benefit.

Lecturers within philosophy departments might well include the Eastern philosophical topics as part of a standard ethics course. I hope that in their lecturing on the multitude of ethical theories on offer they will stop arguing about which theory they support, and offer "Do no harm - Do good" as the one universal theory.

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

13 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 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy