We seem to be lacking in ethics as a culture, I have noticed. Yesterday I encountered a jaw-dropping example of this, and today I am listening to a podcast covering the lack of ethics in alternative medicine. But those are just two examples of many out there - I'm sure each and every one of you can give examples.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom").
Right and wrong. In a world where truth is defined by how you feel about it - what feels good must be right, and what feels bad must be wrong - the erosion of ethics is inevitable. The argument I had about the willful murder of disabled humans was being justified on the part of the person arguing for it as follows: if they feel pain, they are better off dead. What she really meant was that having a disabled child would inconvenience the parents by the special care they would require, and that a disabled child is not likely to have as long a life as a fully healthy one. So therefore, such a child is better off dead. I am, of course, referencing a conversation that arose from the horror happening in Iceland with the eradication of children with Down's Syndrome. Ignoring that even the original article comments "Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years." The woman I briefly engaged with was convinced that they would be better off dead. She meant that she would be better off not having to care for them, look at them, or as she said, deal with the pain their disability caused. She is not alone in this belief.
Most rational humans would recoil in horror from what she was proposing. She attacked me for simply restating her own words, unable or unwilling to accept what she was saying. Right out in public! Was she right, simply because she felt she was right?
Somewhat unrelated (or is it? If we look at this from another angle, we can see that this topic is connected to the first by the desire to avoid pain, live longer, and be more perfectly healthy) is the rabbit trail I wandered down after listening to an episode of Quackcast (sadly, now on permanent hiatus, but you should look at Mark Crislip's book for his typical witty sarcasm) talking about naturopathy. I knew from my interest in the FDA and their inspections and letters (related to my work) that many of the supplements currently on the market are being sold as what they are not. Even worse, "There is no evidence that routine supplementation with a multi-vitamin or specific vitamin is of any health benefit, and it doesn’t replace eating a well-rounded nutritionally complete diet. Antioxidants are useless and may, in fact, be harmful." While this is fairly commonly known in the health industry, do ethics prevent the continuing recommendation and sale of such things? No, because not only is it a huge industry (I highly recommend reading the linked article in the following quote), but culturally we want to feel better good, at any cost.
The end result is a public who largely believes the lies told to them by an industry trying to sell them worthless and possibly harmful products, often with outrageous claims. All cons begin with a compelling story, and the supplement-alternative medicine industry have theirs – natural is magically safe and effective, health product regulations are about limiting consumer choice (rather than protecting consumers from fraud), doctors are trying to keep you sick, and the pharmaceutical industry is evil.
“Natural” has been marketed as a lifestyle. Consumers are encouraged to just feel good about the health halo surrounding anything “natural” and to forgo actually thinking critically about plausibility and evidence. Feel-good philosophy has been on the rise since the 1960s. Ethics, strangely, have been on the wane since the same time. Perhaps there is a correlation? We find that with science, we deal with the black and white of 'is' and 'that doesn't work' while with morality, we recognize that, for instance, those of us who are strong and healthy have a duty to protect the weak and infirm. To do otherwise is to wander down the seductively 'scientific' path that led to Eugenics and the horrors of the Holocaust. The roots of that were based not in hate, as so many today seem to think, but in science and the movement called Social Darwinism, as explained by Herbert Spencer. "Spencer coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, giving Darwin’s purely biological notion of fitness a sociomoral twist: for the good of the species, the government ought not to interfere with nature’s tendency to let the strong dominate the weak." Sound familiar? It should. It is, in essence, the argument the woman I was jousting with made. The weak are better off dead, and the human species will be better off without them.
I am a moral realist. I believe that there is, and ought to be, a higher moral standard than simply following the dictates of biology. We are more than our drives and urges, and we can reach out and shelter the weak. We can lift up the disadvantaged if we happen to stand on firmer ground. We ought to do this. We are not limited by what feels good in the moment, we are humans, not animals. We can look forward into the future and imagine what can come of enduring some discomfort now, for the effects of our work later. Small steps: we work hard, we can retire and live on the money we saved by not buying whatever the whim of the week was when we were earning it. Bigger steps: we can prevent the wholesale murder of people who are 'not like us' but who are human, with human right to life, liberty, and happiness. The reward? What do you think?