Jeff wrote:
> Doing the Right Thing
It's the "the" that causes trouble; "a" would be better.
> Eric wrote:
> >Too many people take the easy (seductive but harmful, in my opinion) route
> >by adopting the ethical relativism that says, "What I believe to be right,
> >is right for me; You may have a different belief, and so what is right for
> >you may be different". It sounds very diplomatic, democratic and tolerant,
> >but look deeper at it. It's basically saying that nothing is "right", and
> >we can do what ever we want.
>
> Well... I believe the statement that "What is right for me,
> may not be right for others". I don't believe nothing is
> "right" and we can do anything we want. So.. is there another
> way to view "right" and "wrong"?
Many ways to view them I'm sure. By "What is right for me, may not be
right for others" you seem to be saying that everyone has a unique
situation and so what they choose to do will be different for each
individual. If this is what you are saying, I agree with you. In this
discussion the difference between ethical principles and actions needs to
be clear. Given the same ethical principles and a different situation the
actions are likely to be different. You seem to be referring to actions
and not the principle behind the actions.
When you say "I don't believe nothing is "right" and we can do anything we
want." Do you mean you believe that there are some things that are
universally right? and therefore some things are not right, universally,
and therefore we shouldn't do them?
The above quote is from my post to another list is soon followed by:
"If nothing is right in a general sense, then how do I decide what is right
for myself? Doesn't it just lead to some other definition of "right" . . .?"
I may not have been clear, but I was saying something similar to what I
think Jeff is getting at. If there isn't a
"right-for-all-people-at-all-times", a "general right", then perhaps there
are different rights, meaning that there may be more than one right thing
given the same situation. As I mentioned above and Jeff mentions below
there are different rights given different situations, which seems obvious
enough.
> Is there a right way to live sustainability? A wrong way? Or
> many ways? How do we decide? Maybe we can begin by looking
> at language and recognizing that it is biased and allows us
> to create abstract "right" versus "wrong" states which do
> not fit the real world.
It seems obvious that there isn't _one_ right way, but many ways to live
sustainably. By definition, there can't be a wrong way to live
sustainably, but, perhaps more meaningful, there _are_ ways of living that
are not sustainable. Once we have some working criteria for "sustainable"
we can begin to check the way we live. We will never be aware of all
factors at a given time, so we must do what we can and continue to improve
our understanding of relevant factors and variables.
I am not trying to suggest that there is one right answer, and I don't know
why I keep feeling like I have to write this (probably because I keep
running into "either / or" summaries or comments about what I have
written). The words right and wrong can be applied when there are many
right ways and many wrong ways of doing something. I think the concepts of
"right" and "wrong", if taken as "correct" and "incorrect" are universally
experienced. If taken as "this is the only right way" and "this way is
wrong", then it may be rare to have them fit the real world, especially if
one tries to apply them universally. By "correct" I mean fits the criteria
chosen. These criteria are the ethical principles I refer to. We all make
choices all day long in everything we do. This is a complex process of
evaluating a given situation with as many variables and factors as we can
and deciding what action will most likely, and in the best way possible,
accomplish our goal, which is in itself full if many interacting factors
and variables. Choosing one way does not mean all others are wrong, nor
can it be said that all ways are right.
Here are some examples to show what I'm getting at. If I am trying to
catch a fish, there are many ways to go about it. As long as a method has
some reasonable chance of success I think it could be considered "right".
If you begin to add variables or restriction to the goal of catching fish,
there are fewer and fewer right ways to go about it. For example, if I
want to catch fish, but I do not want to use a boat or spend more than one
day. Being creative, there may still be a very large number of ways, but
there are _fewer_ ways than before the restrictions. As the restrictions
overcome creativity, the number of choices diminishes rapidly. Standing in
the middle of your bedroom with a toothpick in your hand is not likely to
catch a fish (Please don't go into possible fish tanks, etc.). My point
being that if the goal is to catch a fish to eat without using a boat or
spending more than one day, standing there in your bedroom could be
considered a "wrong" approach. I am sure there are better words, or at
least different words, to use, but this is how I use these words.
Here is an ethical example. If I think killing with intent to kill but
without good purpose is wrong, then I might decide to be a vegetarian,
knowing that I can feed myself without killing animals. I may also decide
to eat foods that do not require killing a plant, or to stop supporting the
killing of animals by not buying furs or leather. I may also be extremely
careful not too step on insects. My choices will be effected by that
guiding ethical principle and with the number of factors I can become aware
of. (I am reminded of . . . Sandra's ? four point system) In this case
shooting at a flock of pigeons who are in my yard just for fun would be
"wrong". I saw this the other day and was uncomfortable with the thinking
behind this action. I could also decide that what they did was wrong, but
this is where people often get into trouble. It is very difficult to
understand someone else's situation well enough to pass such a judgement.
But here's the point I'd like to make, _they_ could decide that what they
did was wrong if they realized that they believed in certain ethical
principles that did not allow such an action.
What I am suggesting is that open minded people who intend to be "good",
should be willing to engage in discussions about ethics with the hopes of
continually sharpening their ability to think about and apply ethics and
become aware of as many relevant factors as they can.
> We see components of sustainable thinking in various societies
> and often we don't recognize the ideas for many years. We
> assume our thinking is "right" and can't see outside our
> cultural box.
Misunderstanding will probably always happen, but should not stop us from
trying to judge right from wrong for ourselves. As I mentioned above,
accurately judging the actions of _other people_, especially from
unfamiliar cultures, is virtually impossible. We need to remain open to
the possibility that we are not privy to enough relevant factors. This is
where discussion can help the most to open up our perceptions of what is
relevant and of what is right.
> For me, this concept of "right" and "wrong" is part of the box.
> We might say "right" is the rule that comes from interpreting
> ethics. So, why not focus on the process of translating ethics
> into decisions. This avoids some of the problems with rules
> that don't fit some cultures or bio regions.
If people are aware that there is rarely if ever one right answer, then
there isn't much problem discussing ethical principles either, and the
boxes begin to dissolve. These kinds of discussions are also a good way to
become aware of the boxes we put ourselves into, precisely because they
make us wrestle with our assumptions and blind spots. I'm not sure it is
any easier to agree on applications of ethics any more than it is to agree
on ethical principles. It all deserves open minded discussion.
> In this area the rain impacts how we mulch. The "right" way
> here is different from the desert. You can try to handle this
> by having different rules or a general ethic and process.
That there are different ways to mulch in a given situation, let alone
different situations, is obvious, I think. I'm not quite sure why you keep
mentioning "the right way"; I guess I am being defensive, thinking that you
are accusing me of such thinking. Has anyone suggested that there is only
one way to mulch, or anything else?
> Sustainable society may consist of ethics driving
> educational and decision process's.
> I'm pretty sure sustainable paths do not lead to "right"
> versus "wrong" thinking and more rules.
Definitely! It is much more likely to lead to more open minded thinking
abilities.
Perhaps it all comes down to:
Does the words "right" and "wrong" ever have any useful meaning in the
context of ethical discussions? In any context?
Do they always represent a dichotomy or opposites?
How do we decide what to do? Can't a reasonable solution be considered
"right"?
Given similar enough situations, can two people end up with the same
"right" action?
Are there better words than "right" and "wrong" to describe our choices?
I see this list as a positive method for people to work on their abilities
to think about and evaluate ethics and actions. It is this kind of open
discussion that I am calling for, not any given solution or any right way
to live.
Eric Storm
