Thu 13 Sep 2007
Because of all the IM chats and emails and chatter over yesterday’s moral dilemma thought experiment, I’ve decided to post another one from the yet to be reviewed book*:
[A corrupt, yet never convicted businessman arranges a meeting with the Prime Minister of England and says,] ‘many people don’t like me and don’t respect the way I run my affairs. … my reputation means I’ll never be honored by my country. … I’m prepared to give 10 million pounds to help provide clean water for hundreds of thousands of people in Africa, if you can guarantee that I’ll be knighted’ … The Prime Minister knew this was a kind of bribe, but could it really be so wrong to sell one of his country’s highest honors when the reward would be so obviously for the good?
Or, framed differently, is it morally acceptable for a woman engage in obscene/morally degenerate behavior (e.g. to be a stripper or a prostitute) in order to pay her way through college? It is wrong to embezzle money to pay for your child’s education? Under what circumstances do ends justify the means? When is it justifiable to break laws?
* ref: Julian Baggini
September 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Those aren’t good comparisons.
The initial story is an out and out bribe, and one that I don’t think would be enough to by a knighthood. His initial actions were never done for the primary reason of being able to donate the money — he was donating the money to try and buy a good reputation after the fact.
If the PM was fair and just, s/he would have said for him to donate the money and see how the public responds. Then follow up with more charitable actions and THEN they’d consider the knighthood (can PM’s even grant knightings? I thought it was all up to the monarchy…)
The alternately “framed” situations you provided are premeditated actions carried out with a single end result in mind. While each one would need to be considered individually, there usually are viable alternatives to immoral means.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
You’re assuming that being a stripper or embezzling money, or any other such action, is immoral to the person doing the action.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
only if we’re talking about “moral relativism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism), that is, that “no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.”
the opposite is, of course, “moral absolutism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism), which says that “morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will or character of God, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.”
September 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Well, Ryan Byrd, which one are you talking about in this blog posting?
It seems “moral absolutism” is based on social norms, making it therefore relative….
–Will