Ethical Reasoning Across the Arts and Sciences: Liberal Learning for Social Change Alden Stout Morningside College

Transcription

1 Ethical Reasoning Across the Arts and Sciences: Liberal Learning for Social Change Alden Stout Morningside College Delivered February 5, 2016 at the Fifteenth Annual Conversation on the Liberal Arts Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA

2 Ethical Reasoning Across the Arts and Sciences: Liberal Learning for Social Change by J. Alden Stout In our current world, social change is fraught with complexities. Take a small sample of pressing issues: world poverty, socio-economic inequality, sustainability, and global violence. Properly addressing such large-scale problems requires thorough understanding of the relevant facts and ethical reasons for seeking change. Unfortunately, education within these domains is largely separated in the contemporary academy. The integrative features of liberal learning are needed to fully address the difficulties we face. Those sympathetic to liberal arts education will likely see the value of such an approach. However, practical difficulties quickly emerge when attempting to systematically integrate diverse disciplines. For example, an economist may be well versed in the causes of poverty and an ethicist could provide strong arguments for antipoverty initiatives, but students in these courses are unlikely to take the next step toward social change. In this paper, I describe an integrative framework of applied ethical reasoning that can show a possible way forward. This framework comes from philosophical research into the formal structure of moral reasoning itself. I present the philosophical framework, explain how it applies across the arts and sciences, present case studies, and explain how it can impact social change. The paper will proceed as follows: Section (1) will outline a structure of moral reasoning; Section (2) provides evidence of its applicability across the arts and sciences using case studies from genetics and mathematics; Section (3) explains how translation of ethical reasoning across the arts and sciences can contribute to positive social change.

3 Section 1: The Structure of Moral Reasoning Ethical reasoning is understood in this context as the ability to ethically analyze and evaluate concrete situations. Someone who is proficient in ethical reasoning would have the ability to provide arguments or justifications for their moral evaluation (for the purposes of this paper the terms ethical and moral are used interchangeably). This form of reasoning is distinct from critical thinking in one important regard. Moral reasoning involves normative appraisals involving properties such as good/bad, right/wrong. permissible/impermissible. recommended/discouraged etc. To put it clearly one could use critical thinking skills to devise the highest probability of a successful robbery without thinking through the morality of theft. There is a burgeoning literature on moral reasoning itself that has sparked many subdebates. Philosophers disagree about whether moral reasoning can be implicit or explicit, whether general principles are necessary or contextual values are sufficient, and how to distinguish what features of a situation are most ethically relevant. These debates are instructive because they reveal an overriding set of agreements regarding the overall structure of ethical reasoning. Relying on the summative work of Henry Richardson, the framework of moral reasoning provided here provides categories of these features. 1 Succinctly, moral reasoning requires the following: 1. Moral Uptake: The ability to recognize moral issues as such. 2. Moral principles: The ability to apply ethical concepts, principles, or values across diverse situations. 3. Moral Relevance: The ability to distinguish features of situation that are morally salient from ones that are not relevant. 4. Moral Disagreement: The ability to reason through conflicting moral evaluations. 1 Richardson, Henry S. Moral Reasoning, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Winter 2015) 2 Ibid.. 3 Frey, William J. Teaching Responsibility: Pedagogical Responses for Eliciting a Sense of Moral

4 My analysis here will briefly elaborate on these features. The picture of moral reasoning presented here will likely be clearer when applied. This has been my experience both inside the classroom and in conversations with colleagues. The primary goal applying ethical reasoning across the curriculum is to improve ethical reasoning skill acquisition and transfer. In other words, students do gain knowledge within an ethics class, but the real test involves using this knowledge in diverse contexts. One virtue the abstract framework described above is its generalized applicability. For example, moral uptake may look different in biology or business. However, students need to understand what features make a situation ethically laden. In general, moral reasoning is only possible when morally valence is identifiable. There is no generally accepted view on how moral uptake occurs. Many theorists disagree whether moral uptake is based on conscious reasoning, emotive reactions, or perception. In pedagogical practice, it seems that basic features of moral uptake, whatever their origin, are largely assumed to be present. They start the conversation on ethical reasoning. Without any ability to discern an ethical problem at all would be more fundamental than the ability to apply a framework of ethical reasoning. The second feature of moral reasoning, includes applying general principles to diverse situations. Here moral principles are understood in the broadest sense to include concepts, virtues, values, or reflection on general practices. As Richardson notes, although debates abound regarding the structure of moral principles and their inclusion in ethical theory, there are few who argue that moral reasoning can be well conducted without any appeal to moral principles. 2 Moral principles are especially helpful in at least two regards. First, they help us explain the wrongness of actions and help generate consistency between moral judgments. One of the important features of moral reasoning is to help students articulate a coherent moral framework. Second, moral principles are needed if one is going to create an argument for a 2 Ibid..

5 normative conclusion. As Hume taught us, one cannot derive an ought from an is and moral principles allow us to derive the ought. Finally, moral principles are often relevant to the next feature of moral reasoning, that is, identify morally salient features of particular situations.. 3 Take the debate about euthanasia. These debates often trade upon the distinction between killing and letting die. Current medical practice allows for doctors to withhold treatment, but precludes active euthanasia. This distinction reflects the basic feature in moral reasoning that allows us to distinguish morally relevant facts from facts that are not morally salient. One would have to judge the distinction between killing and letting die in order to understand the ethical debate regarding euthanasia. Proficiency in ethical reasoning requires one to distinguish between features that are morally relevant and those that are not. As a general rule, a feature is morally relevant when altering it could also imply a change in one s moral judgment. 4 For example, intentions are often relevant in ethical evaluation. We judge actions that intentionally harm people differently than one s that cause harm accidentally. In other words, identifying morally relevant facts is necessary to reason about the morality of particular situations. Finally, once one has reasoned through an ethical situation it is unsurprising that people hold differing views. One advantage to a structured framework of moral reasoning is that it allows one to identify precise areas of moral disagreement. Although some disagreements are more complex, in general, they revolve around differences in the application of moral principles or the evidence available for morally relevant facts. In identifying the features of moral disagreement one learns better how to reason with others. To summarize the framework of moral reasoning presented here includes (1) identifying moral issues; (2) Understanding applicable moral principles; (3) Distinguishing morally relevant facts; and (4) Specifying distinct features of moral disagreement. This structure is abstract enough to be applicable across the arts and sciences. Further, once its applicability is 3 Frey, William J. Teaching Responsibility: Pedagogical Responses for Eliciting a Sense of Moral Responsibility, Teaching Ethics. (Fall 2015) 4 Gert, Bernad. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford University Press, (2004).

6 understood it can become the basis of engaging instructors from various disciplines within ethical dialogue and demonstrating the relevance of ethical thought. In the next section I present case studies where this framework has been applied to genetics, and mathematics. Section 2 The application of this framework of ethical reasoning across the curriculum has had at least two interesting components. First, each of these interactions were invitations to include a week s worth of ethics within another course. Second, the instruction and student application occurred within these two courses. I will briefly go through each example, but I want to emphasize here is that one reason that other instructors were motivated embed ethics within other courses is the framework of ethical reasoning articulated above. I explain this motivational feature and the experience in each course below. Section 2.1: Genetics Genetics was the first test case for this methodology. It arose organically through informal discussions with a colleague. The basic question was, What does Kant have to do with genetics? The assumption of my colleague was that ethics belongs in one building and genetics in another. The linchpin for the counter-argument was that ethical reasoning requires the identification of morally relevant facts. When discussing complex features of genetics, those with sufficient background have abilities to distinguish these facts better than those without such a background. In fact, I argued, those that have a strong grasp of the genetics properly bring genetics and ethics together. The other aspect of the argument that seemed convincing was that there was, in some sense, a methodology to approaching ethics. Once morally relevant facts were seen as essential to moral reasoning, the importance of articulating moral principles and values became clearer. Without any moral principles, it is difficult to determine and justify the moral relevance of one particular set of facts. Finally, a focus on explaining the primary features of moral disagreement helps to justify the claim that some moral judgments are better

7 than others; whereas some moral disagreements are more fundamental. A student steeped in the understanding of moral reasoning should be able to distinguish these differences. So, off we went. I lectured on moral reasoning one day. The purpose was to explain the structure of moral reasoning, give examples, and provide a set of moral principles. I used Beauchamp s principlilism which emphasizes four fundamental principles, autonomy, beneficence, nonmalificence, and justice. 5 Finally, I explained that moral disagreement often arises from two different sources. First, there is a disagreement about ethical principles. Second, there are disputes about the morally relevant facts. After the lecture, the students spent a day on various case studies. Many of these studies were placed within the specialized language of genetics. This format required the students to use their knowledge to identify morally relevant facts. I think it is important to mention that most case studies are somewhat contrived to make these features apparent, but do not require the students to sift through greater amounts of information to identify them. However, in real world application this structured feature is absent. Students were given numerous examples, asked to outline an application of ethical reasoning, and given immediate feedback. Finally, the third day was devoted to one case study that students completed and turned in for evaluation. It was much like an exam based on one case study. Some features of this case study are worth pointing out. The case involved a deaf couple deciding whether or not to use preimplantation diagnosis in order to ensure that their child was deaf or to do a natural birth. Students had to use their background knowledge to understand that preimplantation diagnosis would result in a 100% chance of a deaf child, while natural birth placed the odds at 50%. Interestingly, the responses were varied as they were based on different moral principles and morally relevant facts. Two thirds of the students argued that it would be wrong for the 5 Beauchamp, Tom and David DeGrazia, Principles and Principlism, in George Kuhshf ed., Handbook of Bioethics: Taking Stock of the Field of From a Philosophical Perspective: Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York (2004), p. 57.

8 parents to use pre-implantation diagnosis to produce a deaf child, while the other students came to the opposite conclusion. For example, some students applied heavily on the principles of autonomy by arguing that the choice made by the parents unilaterally determined a specific tragectory for the child s life. Other students used the principle of nonmaleficence to argue that intentionally producing a child with a genetic defect was a form of harm. Conversely, those that defended the parents actions appealed to the principle of beneficence arguing that the development of the child within the context of deaf parents and with the background of a strong deaf community would have better consequences than the possible alienation that could occur. Further, they did not classify deafness as a form of harm, thereby disagreeing with their fellow students that the principle of nonmaleficence applied in this case. Each of the assignments was evaluated and the overwhelming majority of the students showed proficiency in ethically evaluating the case. The exercise showed that significant progress could be made within a week. Anecdotally, students reported high satisfaction with the exercise. Many comments on student evaluations mentioned the interesting and relevant feature of the course. Finally, my colleague and myself are placing this experience in subsequent sections of ethics. Section 2.2: Mathematics It may seem that ethics is strange subject to interject into a math course. In this particular course, application to real world problems is a central feature. Students quantitatively address issues in personal finance, evaluate situations that arise in professional settings, and analyze quantitative information related to civic issues. One of the projects in the course was to evaluate gun control policies and provide a quantitatively justified recommendation. Again, the introduction of ethics occurred conversationally. The primary discussion centered around the gun control. So, we set out to create a project that simultaneously used quantitative and ethical forms of reasoning within the students assignment.

9 Again, the process was very similar to the genetics course. I discussed ethical reasoning on one day. In doing so, I relied on Beauchamp s four principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. These kinds of questions were raised: What morally relevant facts are at issue? Would stricter gun control lead reduce harm or maleficence? Does the autonomy of gun owners trump the greater goods achieved through stricter gun control? In other words, does autonomy trump beneficence or not? In what ways could supporting gun ownership be indirectly related to harm or maleficence? Do stricter gun control laws disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens in a way that is unfair or unjust? When these questions were posed to the students, they carried the conversation to themselves. Their own conclusions are some of the most interesting parts of this experience. The students generally concluded that most of the disagreement did not revolve around the morally relevant facts. Facts regarding violence caused by guns were reasoned well and not disputed. Although there was disagreement regarding the effectiveness of gun control, there was a general agreement that harm would be reduced. The focus of the disagreement landed squarely on the priority of different principles. Students against stricter gun legislation prioritized autonomy over beneficence. Students in favor of more gun control favored the reverse. What surprised the students was that the clarifying the issue through ethical reasoning limited the scope of morally relevant facts and disagreement regarding those facts. Many students mentioned that most online sources regarding gun control would produce a litany of facts to support their position. However, close examination revealed that these sites emphasized facts that were not, in fact, morally relevant. Further, certain common arguments became less persuasive. For example, the argument, often cited, that gun ownership only punishes law abiding citizens was less persuasive. One bright student

10 quickly noted that all laws affect law abiding citizens different than non-law abiding citizens and therefore did not violate a principle of justice. Where the disagreement finally landed was on the priority of beneficence or autonomy. There was little to be added after that stalemate was reached. Importantly, it became a teaching moment to illustrate the importance of civic discourse and democratic participation. It should be noted that giving the students a framework for ethical reasoning allowed for the greater clarity. This clarity allowed my colleague and I to point out that this is discourse is a model for good democratic discussion. Further, when civil disagreements reach their end point, the next action to take is to vote. In fact, we turn next to the implications for democratic discourse. Section 3: Implications for Social Change The examples above demonstrate ways that a framework of ethical reasoning throughout disparate disciplines. I would argue that the framework could be applied across the arts and sciences. Like the examples above, the instruction is likely to be effective when combined with contemporary issues. For example, pre-implantation diagnosis is a very recent development and gun control is currently on the front page. At this point, I will gesture ways that this framework can be utilized for practical changes. It should be noted the framework of ethical reasoning here is a primarily cognitive endeavor. Recently social psychologists and empirically oriented philosophers have been questioning the relationship between ethical reasoning and ethical action. 6 Even if it is the case that cognitive exercises in ethics aren t sufficient to bring about ethical behavior, it may still have important social impact. For example, as noted above it may help model and motivate democratic discourse and civic participation. Part of the reason 6 Schwitzgebel, Eric and Joshua Rust. The Moral Behavior of Ethicists: Peer Opinion. Mind, Vol 11: (October 2009).

11 for its contribution to democratic discourse has to do with the normative content of ethical reasoning. Such reasoning is not equivalent to critical thinking as such. One could be an excellent critical thinker and lousy at ethical reflection. More importantly, ethical reasoning helps structure the moral disagreement. For example, once one realizes that most democratic disputes involve disagreement about the morally relevant facts or the priority of moral principles, then one understands where to engage the debate. Further, close examination of these two features can help deliberators sift the wheat from the chaff. Finally, a commitment to civic discourse presupposes the capability to deliberate ethically. Sometimes this deliberation can result in greater agreement and other times it does not. Some ethical disagreements may be irresolvable. For example, there may be no completely convincing argument for why one ethical principle should be prioritized over another. Further, different groups often share principles that are seen as foundational. Once there is disagreement regarding the content or priority of certain ethical principles, there is often little to say that others will find convincing. Some may disparage an acknowledgement of fundamental disagreement. In fact, some instructors may be worried that such an admission will leave students wondering about the point of ethical reasoning as such. It is at this point that an instructor can appeal to action rather than reason. When disagreement is endemic, then it is time to march, protest, vote, and work. Unlike Plato s philosopher kings, democracies don t operate on the assumption that political power comes from superior knowledge. Rather, political action wins the day. It should be emphasized that both ethical reasoning and ethical action are required for a healthy democracy. This framework emphasizes and provides a rationale for both of them. Additionally, some ethical issues are narrower in scope than civic issues. Some of the most difficult issues we face involve a myriad of specialized perspectives. Any

12 solution to world poverty would require an understanding of economics, climate change needs climate science, and sustainability presupposes agronomy. I will focus on agronomy because I teach an agricultural ethics course (FYI: Ag ethics is par for the course in a small Iowa college). One feature of that course involves technical knowledge of the relevant moral facts. Students in this major were asked to evaluate a new procedure called prescriptive planting. This allows farmers to get the best yields by sharing data with large companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Cargill. Students were asked to present ethical solutions to avoid certain pitfalls. One of the most interesting arguments presented involved the ownership of the data by farmers and farmer s consent for any additional use. The argument was that ownership rights over the farm extended to intellectual property rights to information inferred from the farm. What is important about this example is that ethical reasoning is embedded within the context of agronomy instead of being seen as external to it. The implications to others subjects should be clear. A general framework for ethical reasoning can be integrated throughout the arts and sciences. Embedding such reasoning throughout a student s education is an important feature of liberal learning. Once students gain greater competency in applying such a framework, then the large problems that involve technical training may also be viewed from an ethical perspective. Such liberal learning can occur across disciplines and motivate social change.