|
Tom Acton Philosophy 330: Moral Philosophy Dr. Pettit 9 April 2002
To Cheat or Not to Cheat:An Examination of the Merits of Stealing From the RichThrough the centuries, a few principle ethical theories have been developed to answer life's sometimes-difficult questions. The theories of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill differ greatly, in both their responses to this dilemma and in the importance to certain ideals that justify their beliefs. Only a close examination of all three will allow for a reasonable decision to be made. Aristotle's Aretaic theory of ethics, based on the supremacy of Virtue in the decision making and life planning processes, would seem to say that the blundering professor should be honest, and not cheat. To Aristotle, living a life full of the virtue of Honesty is one thing a person must do to reach eudaimonia, a happiness stemming from self-actualization. To understand why Aristotle would favor honesty, you have to understand his larger theory. When Aristotle speaks of "Happiness" he is referring to that which is Good, that which everyone strives for in every art or inquiry, that which will make a life fulfilled. One way to illustrate what Aristotle means by the Good, or Happiness, is to show what he definitely does not mean. Happiness cannot just be sensual pleasure. It's not just feeling good. If it were only feeling good, then the thing to do, in order to live a Good life, would be to throw away your text books and spend your time eating or having sex or maybe drinking. Those pleasures seem small to Aristotle, whom some have referred to as an "intellectual stud," and whom obviously regards intelligence and study highly. Happiness cannot be simply avoiding doing anything wrong, having excellence, because a person can do that while asleep. Certainly the Good cannot be reached while sleeping and not actually doing anything. The Good life cannot be defined by wealth or honor. Wealth is used only to gain other things; having honor is dependant on the perceptions of others. Happiness is complete and self-sufficient. It is something you do for its own sake and as an end unto itself. Happiness is something that, when you have it, you are missing nothing, and needing nothing. Virtue is the only way to Happiness. To reach Happiness, which few do according to Aristotle, one must have excellence in accordance with virtues that, themselves, are rewarding. A person must have all of their needs met, physically, emotionally, etc. as well as develop their full potential (whatever it may be), and then still must practice Virtue. Certainly one of those Virtues a person must find joy in practicing is Honesty. A person living the Good life will find happiness in being honest, and so, to be Good and find Happiness, one must be content with not cheating others out of money, regardless of how much money the victim may already have or how in need of that money one might be. A follower of Aristotle's theory will be happy to remember that wealth is not needed for Happiness; the Honesty is much more important and fulfilling. There are problems that arise in this theory when virtues seem to conflict; that will be addressed later in this paper. A couple thousand years after Aristotle's theory was developed came another theory that is probably a little easier for a culture as based on Biblical teachings, as today's American culture is: Immanuel Kant's Deontological theory based on his Categorical Imperative. His rule based theory, at first glance, seems easy to apply to any situation, and seems to follow the Golden Rule, which so many are already familiar with. The first formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is commonly stated simply as "Act only on that maxim that you can consistently will to be a universal law." It seems as simple as any ethical theory can come. In order to choose the correct actions to take, simply run the plan you are pondering through the Categorical Imperative and its truth or falsehood becomes clear. If it passes, follow that maxim and the good life will be yours. The plan of action one chooses must only follow two stipulations to be in accordance with what Kant believes in the good action to take and a moral law of value. First off, the maxim chosen must be one what will be consistently desired. Choosing cheating this time, but choosing the opposite the next time a similar situation comes around is not allowed. There is no "just this once I'll indulge," and there is no "it's alright for this man, but not for another." A maxim is always the path to follow. Secondly, a maxim must be, for lack of a better made-up word, universalizable. That is to say, the maxim must be something that one could wish for every person in the world to follow. If your maxim is "Everyone should eat a Quarter-Pounder with Cheese everyday of their lives," then the maxim is not going to pass the Categorical Imperative. Obviously, if everyone ate that much beef, our planet's supply of cattle and cardiologists would soon be exhausted and McDonald's would rule the world--certainly something no one would wish for. So to answer the question of whether or not to steal from the rich, one must ask himself if the maxim to "steal from the rich whenever you will not get caught and when you need the money much more than your victims" passes the Categorical Imperative. It is when you seek to actually test a maxim that you come across the major flaw in the theory. A vague maxim will undoubtedly conflict with another, whereas any maxim can be written specifically and precisely enough to pass the Categorical Imperative. If the maxim in question is simply "be honest" then what is to be said when your girlfriend asks if her new moomoo makes her look fat? To some, the maxim "be honest" seems to conflict with the maxim "don't needlessly hurt someone's feelings." If the original maxim were written "everyone should be honest excepted when asked by my girlfriend, clad in a moomoo which does make her look fat, if she looks fat," then there would be no problem applying it to everyone. The problem is that maxims that specific could be written to justify any act. Hitler could have written a maxim saying "if you find yourself acting as a dictator in Germany, while the economy is struggling, blame the Jews, and begin killing them." That maxim would be seen by everyone as wrong, and yet it passes the Categorical Imperative, as Hitler would have wished that anyone in that position begin murdering Jews, and he would not have seen a problem applying that maxim universally to everyone. So would Kant endorse stealing from Jordan and Barkley? It would depend on how the maxim under which the cheater were acting was written. If the maxim said simply "do not steal," and did not allow for any extenuating circumstances, then one should not steal. If the maxim were written "do not steal unless you are in need of money and you are stealing from someone that will never really notice his money is gone, as he does not need it," then the losing golfer might be justified. This illustration just shows how Kant's theory can be viewed at times to be incredibly arbitrary and often inconclusive. There is another theory one can use to find the path to the good life -- John Stuart Mill's Consequentialist Utilitarianism. Mill's theory is a simple one, and like the two previous, seems solid at first glance. Utilitarianism can be summed up by a concise phrase suitable for a bumper sticker or even the briefest of sound bites..."The greatest happiness for the greatest number." In Mill's search for the Good, or Happiness, or that which is the only thing desired, he decided against basing his theory on motives, or virtues, or rules, but instead on results. To Mill, the ends do justify the means. In a difficult situation, all one must do to is choose the path that will lead to the most happiness. If a new law will make 500 people happy, but will make 499 people conversely unhappy, to the same degree, then the law must be passed. Objections have been raised to Utilitarianism, and many of them have been answered. Some have argued that Utilitarianism is a "pig's philosophy" because it reduces humans down to the level of the common animal. Though many humans may not actually be that far from your average pig, it must be pointed out in the spirit of fairness that there are many pleasures which are unique to humans that Utilitarianism would encourage. A good game of chess, for instance, is not normally enjoyed by a hog, but would likely be encouraged by a Utilitarian. Some have also argued that Mill is really preaching Egoism, only hiding it behind a new name. By its very definition, Utilitarianism (which strives for the greatest good to the greatest number) is not Egoism, and anyone who sees their Utilitarian theory as a form of Egoism is simply misusing and misunderstanding the theory Mill wrote about. Others have argued that to try to calculate how an act will affect the populace each time one goes to act is too demanding of a person. That simply is not true. Once a decision has been made following Utilitarianism, that decision can be used to influence many choices in the future. It is not as if a completely new diagnosis of popular happiness must be undertaken. If a choice was wrong last week, it is likely still wrong today. To some it is too demanding to look out for other people at all. Those people are simply lazy and selfish; I would hate to live in a world where they reign supreme. A society where no one cares for their common man in any facet at all is doomed to fail. Though those objections are handled well by Mill, there are many problems with Mill's theory. One important flaw is that it assumes a person is capable of knowing each and every result of an action. Most will fully grant that the average man is incapable of knowing each and every repercussion of his action. If a Congressman votes to pass a law, is he really capable of understanding how it will affect each and every person in this world? Of course he is not. Some would say that as long as you know most of the consequences and are acting in a way you believe will create the most happiness you are acting well, but to say that is to forget that, to Mill, motives are not important at all. Just because you are acting with good intention does not mean you are excused from making the wrong decision because of a lack of information. On a similar note, a person trying to measure the amount of happiness an act will create or destroy faces the impossible act of measuring happiness! How can you look at a person, talk with a person, and find an objective way to measure the happiness you have created? That task is an impossible one to accomplish with any precision...another reason that the needed information is impossible to gain. Utilitarianism also tends to devalue virtue. Mill would argue that those who act with virtue will find happiness in acting with virtue, so virtues are always good to have. However, as illustrated be the mildly disturbing example of a man who feels incredible, astronomical, unmeasurably high amounts of pleasure from stomping on puppies, sometimes people find happiness in things that are obviously immoral and wrong, and sometimes those immoral actions create more happiness than they destroy. Some see Mill's theory as not giving proper regard to justice. An example of Utilitarianism working against justice is not hard to find. Picture a man on death row. The townspeople are calling for his execution because the facts seems to show his innocence. The Governor is informed of a crucial piece of evidence that proves the man's guilt, and also is informed that the actual murderer has escaped and is now living as a hermit deep in the wilderness where he will likely never be found or see another human. If the Governor brings to light the new evidence, the people of his state will live in fear of another murder, and will feel as though their legal system is horribly flawed, even though this occurrence is certainly an anomaly. If the Governor goes ahead and executes the man, the people will be at ease, only one man will die, the general population will have faith in their legal system, and no one besides the Governor and his aide will know what really happened. A person who respected justice would release the innocent man, but Mill would likely have him killed. All sorts of circumstance can be described for the situation, on both sides, but in the end, justice loses to Utilitarianism. So the question remains, to cheat or not to cheat? Utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperative sound good, but both have fatal flaws that cannot be escaped. If a theory is flawed when viewed through any specific situation, be it a man stomping puppies or telling his girlfriend that she's fat, the theory is weakened, if not ruined all together. It seems Kant and Mill do not have the answer. In the scope of this paper, that leaves only Aristotle and a virtue-based theory. It is my inclination to claim that virtue, in this case the virtue of Honesty, has value unto itself. It is itself an end and an end that someone should take pride in having reached. "Doing the right thing" is not necessarily following rules established by a flawed system and is much more than looking out for the greatest good. At the same time, simply saying that one should strive to be honest or just or charitable seems to be risky. Certainly those are good traits to have to have most of the time, but by no means does that mean that they are always essential and desired. Sometimes dishonesty should be tolerated, sometimes applauded. Some have tried to amend Aristotle's theory. Alasdair MacIntyre, for one, proposed ranking virtues. That seems mildly arbitrary, so what I will propose is that when virtues seem to conflict, quasi-Utilitarian principles need to be followed to sum up all of the virtues in the situation. What one should strive for is the greatest virtue and the knowledge of which actions will practice the most virtue. When viewed as a system of virtues, one choice in a dilemma will always have more virtue. For instance, if the police come to your door to arrest your roommate under an unfair law, ask you his whereabouts, and you happen to know he is hiding in the closet, you are faced with what at first seems like a dilemma. Do you lie, disregarding honesty but practicing loyalty or do you hand over your roommate, practicing honesty but disregarding loyalty? That dilemma is not really a dilemma at all when you take into account that by giving up your roommate to the police, you are violating and disregarding an important virtue, justice. When you take into account the value of justice combined with loyalty weighed against only honesty, the balance is decidedly shifted towards the first option, lying to the police. My hypothesis, which admittedly needs more work and thought, is that any situation lends itself to a handful of virtuous acts, and that all one needs to do to live a good life is maximize virtue. Where does that put us in regards to cheating at golf? The principle virtue in question is honesty; that much is certain. Also one must take into account the virtuous act of taking care of your children ("After all, I am just a philosophy professor with three children to feed and student loans left to pay..."). Being as though the children are presumably already being taken care of, even without Jordan and Barkley's money, the clear choice is to live a life of virtue and honesty, and not steal the money. The weighing of virtue-sums does not rule out cheating and stealing in all situations however. If the dilemma was whether or not a starving man with a starving family should steal bread for his family, then the virtue dealing with providing for your family would actually come into play, as would the virtue of charity in helping those desperately in need. In that case, honesty would be outweighed, and would lose out to stealing food. Some might try to argue that the weighing of virtue will have the same problem that Mill's Utilitarianism has when it comes to knowing all the needed information, but it seems that the virtues coming into play in a situation are much easier to spot than the multitude of results. Some will argue that the weighing of virtues is impossibly difficult, and possibly lends itself to arbitrary valuing, because it seems there can be different degrees of violation in terms of virtue. Is a little white lie about your girlfriend looking slim equal to a lie to the police about the whereabouts of a fugitive? The lies may be considered effectively equal because any decision will still involve benevolence, loyalty, justice, etc. The weighing of degrees of virtue violation could feasiblely come into play in a hypothetical situation I have not yet considered; this theory still needs some thought. But the underlying plan of weighing the sum of virtues in a situation is likely still the way to the good life.
|
Rants Columns Dialogues Essays Contributors Preserves Links Contact Guestbook Sign View View/Old Quotes Pictures Home |
|||
|
|