Essay IV, ethics

Lifeworld and ethics

The lifeworld provides us with norms and conventions with which we normally comply and become decent members of society. Most of those norms are not regarded as ethical rules of society but just conventions, and departing from them is eccentric behaviour rather than immoral action, if a person does not offend anyone’s rights. The borderline between ethical norms and good behaviour changes with time. Our choices are now made more on practical grounds than by convention. For example, we can wear clothes that are suitable for the weather and a moral code may come into the picture only through certain religious norms. Social conventions certainly still guide our dress code for concerts and special occasions, but these rules are becoming more practical. At least, we do not believe it to be an ethical issue whether or not we should wear white shorts when playing tennis. Crucial ethical issues have become separate from less important everyday questions.

Ethics seeks to establish the grounds of our values and morally acceptable actions. Gaining unanimity about the values and morally acceptable actions is even more difficult than reaching an agreement on scientific explanations, although they both are based on the lifeworld in the end. However, there is a crucial difference between ethics and science in the way they relate to the lifeworld. Scientific research can test its claims and observations (interpretations given by the lifeworld) with experiments on reality, whereas ethics is based only on our own reasoning and the shared beliefs of our lifeworld. In my view, there are no ethical principles outside our society. Even if people refer to the holy scriptures or some omniscient authority, we can only accept their views through our own understanding. Well, religions claim that we cannot understand them, but that I cannot understand. I will discuss these views in the essay on ideologies. My view is that we can only decide on the ethical principles of society by means of our reason.

We can only think of ethics as a feature of a community, concerning the shared values of the community and the voluntary actions of its members. No society can exist without some norms of behaviour, but if people are coerced into following those norms by a tyranny, their actions can hardly be evaluated on ethical grounds. We can doubt the genuineness of their ethics even in the case that they have been indoctrinated in those beliefs (to use the popular expression from 50 years back). We adopt the traditional values of society (lifeworld) through our upbringing, but we can rebel against those values – as teenagers often do. In this context, I address ethics with the assumption that the people of a community comply with some common norms and values voluntarily as responsible members of the community. 

Values and norms are open to debate, and our task here is to analyse what the relevant arguments in this debate are. Of course, I can pick only a few doctrines as examples of the vast philosophical literature on ethics, those that I find relevant to the relationship between the lifeworld and ethics. There are certainly many good textbooks on the topic. (In the Finnish version of this essay I have used Timo Airaksinen’s book). The most relevant references are John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice and Jürgen Habermas’ works on moral philosophy and communicative action. Rawls presents a very interesting idea of reasoning about ethics for a rational individual, whereas Habermas argues for communicative rationality, open discourse, as a true way to ethics. My standpoint is communicative rationality, which can use Rawls’ reasoning pattern as a good argument in the discourse. However, it is obvious that communicative rationality is an ideal type of social order, a goal that we reach for by means of these philosophical discussions.

Rawls derives his theory of justice, justice as fairness, through a very simple but powerful concept of rational choice in an ideal ‘original position behind a veil of ignorance’. His aim is to derive principles of justice that equal, rational persons would agree on when they do not know their share of the utilities ensuing from the principles, their social circumstances or personal characteristics. Rawls assumes a narrow concept of the rationality of economics, that of taking the most effective means to achieve given ends. A rational decision maker avoids risks and seeks to maximise his or her share of wealth in the event of being amongst the least advantaged members of a society. The choice of the principle behind the veil of ignorance guarantees their universality. Rawls’ standpoint of a rational individual is typical of European and American discussion of ethics, which Habermas calls ‘monological’. 

Kant’s universalisation principle is expressed in the categorical imperative: “So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as the principle of universal legislation.” (Critique of Practical Reason) Habermas replaces it with the principle that is based on formal conditions of discourse: Any valid norm must satisfy the condition that all those affected by the consequences of the norm must accept it when they strive for their interests. Decisions are made in an ideal speech situation which guarantees the participants’ symmetrical and equal chances to express their opinions and raise questions about any issue. 

Habermas and Rawls give two different but rather idealized procedures for the universalisation of ethical principles. Habermas does not, and from his standpoint cannot, provide any substantial ethical principles, because they will be the choice of the community. Habermas has been criticized for ignoring the challenges in implementing the ideal speech situation: not everybody has the same abilities to take part in the discourse and the future generations cannot be heard at all. It is not quite clear where Habermas sees the discourse taking place. 

Rawls’ idea of the original situation is likewise a hypothetical construction. We can combine their universalisation strategies so that Rawls’ idea of the original situation can be used as an argument in a real discussion: A claim that is meant solely to support personal interests at the expense of others is not a valid argument in the ethical discourse. Rawls’ conclusion is that the rational decision maker’s choice would be justice as fairness, which is expressed in two principles:

1.   Equality of basic rights and duties;
2.   Social and economic inequalities are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.

The goal is to maximize the welfare of the least advantaged members. I cannot recognise any society that has set Rawls’ idea as its goal, and if we take the global view of the matter, humankind is far away from this goal.  And the global perspective is how we must now define society. In the present situation, we must seriously take into consideration the limitations of the ecosystem as well.

 

My aim is to bring the discussion about ethics to bear on our lifeworld, to provide real debate with good principles. This discussion needs some “first” principles. They are the first ones merely in the sense that they are something to start with.

On what kind of principles can we base our argumentation, if we can question the beliefs given by our lifeworld as well? When philosophers have not recognized the role of the lifeworld, they have presented moral norms and values as self-evident (i.e., how they are given by the lifeworld) or given by intuition, which again can only rise from our human (=social) nature. I see ethics as a developing endeavour, but there are certainly some principles that have become rooted deep in our notion of humanity, for example: we must not cause any other human or animal unnecessary pain. In the history of ethics there are good candidates for the first principles. Based on the previous ethical discussion, I see ethical argumentation always relying on the social essence of ethics: (1) the moral code must be the same for the whole community, meaning that ethics is universal (within the limits of society and the capabilities of its members, ~categorical imperative); and (2) socially meaningful, morally acceptable acts always produce some common good, beneficial or, at least, harmless to everybody and nature. In other words, the second principle says that no one has the right to use other people only to advance his or her individual aims. Kant said that the human being must not be just a means to an end. The term ‘socially meaningful’ points to the idea that our moral code should say as little as possible about people’s individual habits of behaviour in other respects. So, for example if I want to go fishing at night and it does not harm anybody, I have the right to do so (if not very practical).

These principles are built into the present concepts of good and right. They should be understood as criteria for ethically valid argumentation, not as an authorization of any despotic order of society. So, these principles come before any other moral norms. For example, a totalitarian community cannot use these principles to coerce its members to submit to the will of an authority. The universality principle says that it is not a valid ethical argument to claim that a moral code concerns only others and I can do as I wish. Those who say so and act so, in fact set themselves outside the community. Society can protect itself against such acts that threaten its members’ health and rights by legal means. 

The idea of the common good is a historical one and depends on the living conditions of the people. At the dawn of humankind, the main concern must have been finding something to eat and getting protection from the dangers of nature. The struggle for survival dictated the ethical code to a large extent. This struggle affected humans even deeper than just in ethics. In the long prehistory of human race, under the conditions of the scarcity of food the greed managed better. So, greed has remained in the genetic code for some of us at least. The irony is that while we, as humankind, could afford to provide the needful for all, greed stands in the way. Even today millions of people live in hunger. We control nature by means of technology, but we cannot control ourselves. Now we can foresee an ecological catastrophe brought about by our own actions threatening our existence and the survival of the other species as well.

A popular but a very broad answer to the concept of the common good is given by various tenets of utilitarianism: the maximum pleasure over pain divided among everybody. This maximum can be reached in many ways. For example, some people may be extremely happy, so happy that it compensates for the unhappiness of others. A more equal idea would be to safeguard at least a certain level of pleasure to everybody by means of Pareto-optimality: the increase of pleasure for one person must not diminish the share of pleasure for other people. Rawls showed that his idea of fairness isn’t quite the same as the one the supporters of utilitarianism seek.  

Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1973, when the economic expectations were mainly pointing upwards. He did not define how the optimal economic situation could be achieved politically. The principle (2) is the same one for a recession and a boom, but it will be more painful to take care of the least advantaged members in the case of declining economy. Rawls’ second principle does not reject the situation in which some people increase their wealth more than others, if the living conditions of the least advantaged get better. Those whose defend economic inequalities argue that the economic growth for some, even for only a few, always brings the good for everybody. So, in the public discussion they accept the second principle, but very often this talk is meant to camouflage the pursuit of their own aims only. Accumulating wealth does not automatically trickle down to the whole of society. However, this shows that we have some hope of agreement on this moral principle.

When economists speak about utilities, they do not define them in any way. People acting in the market choose between products and services according to their own preferences. People may decide to keep their money in the bank account or invest it in stocks. The common idea is that the more money you have the happier you are. So, does society have the right to prevent people from enjoying their growing bank accounts? The prevalent opinion is that society can collect taxes to maintain public services, even in the manner that the wealthier you are the more you pay taxes, also progressively. This is the usual and accepted way to even out economic differences. However, an ever more popular practice seems to be to take one’s savings to tax havens to avoid taxation. This is not regarded morally right, because those who have extra money to spare do it secretly by means of complex cover-up procedures. Most countries define this also as criminal activity. Moreover, these activities erode the moral basis of society, because those people are often in such high social positions that they are pillars of society. The risk is that tax evasion becomes morally acceptable and taxation is regarded as interference in peoples’ freedom. In the end, it is a risk to social cohesion, i.e., the very purpose of ethics. 

In the current situation, we should recognize the survival of nature and human society as the most important issues of ethics. This is so mainly because humankind has such powerful technology to deploy the resources of nature. Other human endeavours would then be subordinate to these objectives. We should then use this as the first principle: (0) No human action can put the survival of nature or society into danger. This principle can restrict our freedom or striving for personal welfare. Under the condition of the stated principles, we can see that there are positive aspects in aspirations to amass as large a fortune as possible. Under progressive taxation a few large incomes yield more taxes than many small incomes. This is acceptable if tax revenues are used to better the living conditions of the least advantaged members of society to the maximum. The least advantaged are probably people who do not earn their income through employment in a firm or the public sector, i.e., elderly people and the unemployed part of active population. This may well be the fate for many people, when robots and industrial automation take over production, and those who own the means of production gather the profits. But there won’t be any profits unless consumers have money to buy the products, so the income must be distributed in one way or another. The group that will suffer the greatest losses maybe the middle classes, and then Rawls’ second principle can be questioned.

The human values should be reconsidered, when we begin to understand that economic growth consumes natural resources more than nature can sustain. The obvious reaction would be such that the measure of welfare and social prestige is no longer based on material property and consumption. I do not see much value in billionaires’ mania to earn the next million dollars or pounds. How satisfying a feeling can that be? It seems to me more like an addiction, comparable with any other dependency on something that gives a pleasure for the passing moment. Of course, there is a difference if the million is earned by means of selling products that help humankind or if it comes from selling stocks with profit. The inventor’s satisfaction may be more due to helping humankind than the good pay earned. 

In modern democracies decisions on the distribution of income takes place on the one hand in negotiations between employer and employee organisations and on the other hand through the decisions of political representatives in parliaments. This takes place mostly on the national level, but in Europe the parliament and commission of EU exert major influence on national decisions. Globally it is mainly the market and trade treaties that direct how income is distributed among states. Are these the forums of rational discourse? Well, they should be. Only the market is not a suitable place for rational debate, because money has taken the place of communication media there.  

Where else is rational discourse going on? Well, it is going on right here; you are reading a comment in this discourse. At least this is an attempt to take part in the discussion on ethics on rational grounds. In the same vein, we should read the classics of ethics, so I wonder why Habermas saw those texts as monological. Therefore, moral philosophers have not generally recognized Habermas as one of them.

There are many challenges facing the community that seeks rational ethics. A major problem with ethical discourse it the fact that we take all traditions and conventions of the lifeworld as granted. They define our identity, but in the same manner as science begins with wondering and asking for explanations we should raise questions about those traditions of which we do not quite understand where they come from. We cannot throw away all the conventions at the same time, because society must have some building blocks to keep it together. Ethical principles can only be changed piece by piece. This is the same as Kuhn’s idea about how a new paradigm of science can replace the prevailing one. Another problem is the fact that hidden personal interests lurk behind every corner. An open discourse is the remedy for this problem.

Developing society means developing humanity, defining the human being through the idea of rich life. Ethical discourse will hopefully have a significant role in this process, because technology and especially biotechnology provide very powerful means to affect the concept of the human being in a tangible way. Science makes it possible to change our genotype and for what purpose this new technology will be used is very much an ethical issue.

The famous Nazarene said, so the chronicles tell, that he is “the way, the truth, and the life”. Never mind the road, but truth and life are important; especially a true life is. And what would that be? In my vision a true life is based on understanding and developing the living conditions of humankind and developing oneself in those qualities that mostly benefit humankind and, obviously, oneself as well. To give everybody the chance to cultivate his or her talents would be a source of the common good. We are thrown into the lifeworld and first take is as granted, but we can together mould it to be a more harmonious place of rich experiences. That I would call a rich and a true life.