So you might be wondering why I am doing a separate
episode on applied ethics when I already have
one on, you know, ethical theories. What exactly
is applied ethics? It's putting ethics into practice,
analyzing real life cases and finding answers
about what is right or permissible or wrong to
do in a given situation. It's, as the name suggests,
it's application of ethics, which raises the
question. If we have the correct ethical theory,
then isn't applied ethics nothing more than consistently
applying the correct theory to these cases? And
the reason I have this separate episode is that
I actually want to argue against that approach
to applied ethics, right? There are several reasons,
I think, to reject the process of just putting
theory to practice in this direct way. And that
theory in some ways... I think, should take a
back seat when doing applied ethics, right? This
might not be the opinion of all ethicists, but
this is at least my opinion. And I want to kind
of at least unpack why that is, right? First,
there is no agreement on what the right ethical
theory is, at least not in the public space,
right? I don't think there's a consensus among
ethicists, right? So the dependence on the acceptance
of a theory means that the application hangs
on accepting the theory itself, right? And if
you don't have consensus on the theory, then
appealing to theories is not going to be convincing
for the majority of the people, right? The truth
is that none of these ethical theories hold the
crown to the, you know... to the truth, right?
Philosophers, the public, there's disagreements
about which theory is the correct one. If we
can't come to an agreement on it, it's not going
to be helpful to try to appeal to a particular
ethical theory because then, you know, your entire
argument, honestly, is, you know, its foundation
is built on the theory being true, which again,
if you reject, then everything else you have
to say just comes crumbling down, okay? So I
think this is just... As a pragmatic reason,
not a good way to go in terms of doing applied
ethics, especially if your goal is to try to
provide meaningful input for people generally
to do, regardless of whatever theoretical commitments
they have. Two, if the goal is to engage in public
discourse. which applied ethics usually is trying
to do, since the problems are real -life problems,
right, like real -life cases that people are
seeking guidance on, right, then I don't think
the theory discussion helps public discourse,
right? Partly because you need then people to
now explore and understand a bunch of theory
stuff in order to make sense of whatever it is
that you're trying to do in that particular case,
right? It's like a construction worker trying
to build a house, wondering whether to use one
material or another. And the manager who's guiding
the construction worker is trying to explain
to the construction worker some principle in
chemical engineering to try to figure out which
material to use. It's not going to be helpful
because, in essence, it's a wrong tool for what
it is you're trying to accomplish. In the public
space, a lot of times applied ethics is being
done so that a company or an individual or a
policymaker is trying to make the most ethical
decision. in front of them and if you have to
now do some background learning in order to make
a decision about it it's not going to be like
it's like you're using the wrong tools the tool
that makes a lot more sense to use would just
be to go directly to some core principles that
may or may not align with a theory but some core
principles that everybody in the public seems
to be able to understand right things like it's
generally not good to you know cause unnecessary
harm That seems to be a pretty common sense sort
of approach to doing ethics. Okay. Number three.
The best reason, though, I think there is to
veer away from a theory -dependent approach is
that the truth is that we can actually do applied
ethics without a complete and consistent theory.
And we can do it in a way that is far more effective
and far more enlightening. The reality is that
people tend to already share some core principles,
the exception being absolute sociopaths, but
we generally care about the same things. Treat
others as fellow humans, not as objects. Care
for others insofar as you can. Be kind as much
as possible. And don't be mean unless there's
a good reason to, maybe. I don't know, maybe
you make some exceptions. Don't cause unnecessary,
unwarranted harm. Take responsibility for your
decisions. I mean, these are just like general
guiding principles that I think most people would
agree. Oh, yeah, these are good moral principles
to kind of live by. This matters because we are
then starting more or less from a similar place.
Theory is something that you need to study and
learn. That's not what people do on a day -to
-day basis. What people do on a day -to -day
basis is start off with these. you know, more
or less fairly shared principles about how to
live your life, okay? Now, there'll be some disagreement
about how to value each one of these against
each other, which one should take precedence
over others, which one matters more, yada, yada,
right? Well, in life, we can't always get everything
we want, but we can at least hope to start from
a place of more or less, preferably more, agreement.
And this will be critical for any kind of progress
you want to make in an argument, right? You need
to start from common grounds and build from there
if you want to create an argument that's going
to be convincing for somebody else. When you
let go of theory and start with these more basic
moral principles that everyone can agree to,
you are much more likely to engage in you know,
meaningful discourse that will come to some sort
of resolution. You'll be more likely to come
to some sort of consensus, right? You can argue
that there might be some inconsistencies that,
you know, theory -dependent approaches don't
face, right? So theory tends to be maybe a little
bit more consistent, which might be true, but
I think that misses a key difference between
the nature of applied and theoretical ethics,
right? Theoretical ethicists are like abstract
physicists arguing about the true nature of the
universe, and applied ethicists are more like
the construction. workers building the bridge
that millions of people are going to cross. At
some point, you just need to get that thing done.
You need to build something. You need to build
it that needs to be good enough. It might not
be perfect. It might not be the ideal bridge,
let's say, you're building, but it'll be good
enough to serve the purpose it's going to serve.
And applied ethics, in some sense, is just like
that. Application doesn't need perfect accuracy,
doesn't need perfect consistency. Application
is often muddy, tricky, confusing. We might not
have all the information to make the right decision.
A lot of times we don't, right? But we still
have to make a decision, right? You still have
to decide on a policy, right? No policy is a
kind of policy, right? So we need to make a decision
at some point. You know, we could argue all we
want, but at some point, certain things just
need to get done, right? So given the difference
in aims, right, for applied ethics, we need...
different tool. And I think the tool that best
fits for resolving real -life conflict is not
theory, but rather it's going to be a hodgepodge
of some core sets of moral beliefs that I think
more or less everybody can at least agree to,
maybe to varying degrees, but still agree to.
Does that mean we should abandon theory altogether?
No. Theory pushes us to ask deeper questions
about what makes something right or wrong, and
more importantly, pushes us to maintain consistency,
as I've mentioned. In the ways that we form moral
judgments and the judgments and how it's applied
in our day -to -day lives, I think it's important
to always be considering theory and to push for
that level of consistency and structure. And
as I've said, humans are creatures that love
to justify their own beliefs in the moment that
they hold it. So this is one of those ways in
which we could combat that. However, I do think
that it might not necessarily be the best tool
when doing applied ethics. And especially when
we get to unpacking real -life cases and the
nuances and the range of consideration, I think
we're going to be better served. in what it is
that we're trying to do with, you know, the application
that we kind of step away from the theory and
kind of start from a much more commonsensical
starting point of core moral principles that
everybody seems to more or less value. Okay,
I'll leave you with this thought. I'll leave
you with this. I have coached the Ethics Bowl
for many years. If you're not familiar with the
Ethics Bowl, this is an intercollegiate competition
in which groups of students from different colleges
kind of come together and they argue some ethical
stance on a real -life case. So it's applied
ethics being done in a competitive format, although
it's not really meant to be competitive. more
meant to be like collective and building each
other up, right? In any case, judges score the
students based on the quality of the arguments
and the responses to the critiques. There's also
a high school level version of the ethics bowl,
which I got to participate in as a judge or a
moderator in my time at Villanova. And there's
something that you notice quickly when you've
been a part of these competitions at both the
high school and the collegiate level. High school
students tended to provide theory -based arguments,
a very top -down approach from theory to application.
Some of these continue in the collegiate level,
but you see less of it. And I don't think it's
an accident. When I coached my own teams, this
was at UC Santa Barbara, at Villanova, and at
Pasadena City College, I always stressed the
importance of not being overly dependent on an
ethical theory when arguing these cases. And
the reasons were exactly the ones I laid out
in this episode, right? But I share this story
to make a broader claim about moral development
in people. I'm specifically thinking about you
as you think about your own kind of growth in
terms of the way that you make moral judgments.
When we're young, we're given rules to follow,
like don't steal, don't harm, hurt people unnecessarily,
right? Maybe only for self -defense. Do not...
We do not know why these rules are there, nor
do we even think to question them. We follow
them because they're the rules that society or
the school or whatever else authority laid out
as a system of punishment and reward. You're
going to be benefiting or be harmed by following
these rules or not. As we grow. We find out that
the rules serve a purpose and that we shouldn't
steal not because it's against the rules, but
rather because of some other reason, right? Like
it causes instability. You can't trust other
people if they lie regularly. It hurts others
to lie, right? I don't know. You learn all kinds
of stuff. Like when you steal, like it takes
something away from somebody. Like there's some
justification that's been given, right? Maybe
we take a philosophy course and learn some ethical
theories that give us some additional justifications
for following the rules, right? Utilitarianism
has a whole explanation of why rules are beneficial
in the long run, create a better outcome in the
long run. You know, Kant's principles fundamentally
are kind of rule -based. Key is that at some
point, we realize that the rules are not what's
important. It's actually the underlying moral
principles. The rules are just trying to capture
something like a rule of thumb, right? It's trying
to guide you in a certain direction, but the
rules are imperfect. They're just rules, right?
But moral development doesn't stop at the rules,
right? gain clarity on the justification for
what is right to do. And at some point, we don't
seem to need a clear justification to do what
is right. The fact that it's right to do is enough
to do the right thing. It's not that we're not
cognizant of the wrongness of causing harm or
treating others as an object. Instead of as a
rational person, we are aware, but we don't seem
to rely on these justifications for doing what
is right. We just acknowledge what is right and
do it since justification has now kind of become
a part of who you are and the way that you reason
about it. In some ways, I'm being very Aristotelian
about this, right? We become, ideally, if you
develop all the way to becoming this, right,
you become a virtuous person who does the right
thing for the right reason at the right time
and the right way, and you do it wholeheartedly.
You just do it because it's kind of who you are.
I understand that wholeheartedly as someone who
does not strain to do the right thing, like who
doesn't need some motivating justification to
do the right thing, right? You don't, in essence,
you don't need a theory to tell you what is right
to do. You pick up on whatever it is that you
need to pick up on in order to realize that something
is the right thing to do. At the end of the day,
ethics is our attempt as a humanity to better
understand how to live a good life. Nothing more.
By making good choices and by having a positive
impact in our communities. Whether you want to
acknowledge it or not, you are, in fact, engaging
in applied ethics in your daily life when you
are trying to figure out what you do with your
time, money, heart, influence, so on. A study
in applied ethics is nothing more than an attempt
to just slow down, reflect on what it is that
we're thinking, feeling, what values are guiding
us, what decisions we're considering. and just
talking it out on how we can do it better. And
if that doesn't matter to you, well, let me know
where you live. I can call the cops because I'm
going to assume you're a sociopath. But the point
is this, right? At the end of the day, what it
is I think that all of us are wanting from applied
ethics is real -life guidance on living a better
life. And I can't think of a better way of doing
that. than to employ every tool in our tool belt
to make such an important decision. And so that's
why I wanted to talk about applied ethics separately,
because if you chain yourself to a theory, in
some sense you're not allowing yourself to use
all the tools available. And I hope that in using
all the tools that you can use in applied ethics,
that I hope that that means that you, me, we,
end up just becoming better decision makers.
And that ideally we become like this virtuous
person that just knows and is motivated and wants
to and has a clear sense of the right thing to
do for the right reasons, with the right feelings,
at the right time, in the right way.