[Exit menu]

21

The Ethical Model

So far, we have established at least this point: ethics is not easy. Ethics is complex, so much so that we have organized our thinking around a series of models which can be useful both in teaching ethical concepts, and in analyzing ethical issues in real-life situations. Our study is almost complete, but before proceeding, we should review the major points so far.

First, our worldview is a universal or systems worldview, that harmonizes current knowledge about the external material reality with the reality of internal human psychological ("spiritual") functioning. A science that denies human spirituality is incomplete and incorrect. So is a religious or psychological system that seeks to deny science. There is of course a conflict between science and certain religious ideas. However, the concept that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between science and religion is unacceptable both to true science and to true religion, for truth too is an interactive unity. *

Our survey of the universe as system has yielded these "life-lessons" as particularly useful in ethical thinking:

1. The universe is an interactive wholeness, a system.
2. Life is ordered toward survival, and has needs which must be met.
3. An organism must interact with its environment in a functional niche.
4. Life is ordered toward balance, not perfection.
5. Life systems change (evolve).
6. Individual life is limited.
7. Masculine and feminine functions are equally important to survival.
8. Human survival requires the orderly functioning of consciousness,
_____ in support of the operation of unconscious survival mechanisms.

Second, the "ethical system" is not so much an organized body of knowledge about ethics as it is a recognition of interactive elements normally operating in a balanced and ordered universe. Thus, much of ethical teaching may be reduced to functional models that express operating inter-relationships. As such, the models are not the reality, but are thought constructions that are designed to operate in a manner analogous to reality. In this work and its companion volume, we have presented the following models as particularly useful in understanding ethical thinking.

1. A comprehensive worldview can be modeled as a complex lens with differing colors in many axes of vision, varying according to many individual factors, both internal and external.

2. Systems theory itself models the multi-level realities seen in the operation of the universe.

3. The dynamics of the total human psyche may be modeled as a living unicellular organism.

4. An understanding of homeostatic balance for survival yields a model of ethics vs. evil, in which the Good is the optimum balance of a self-regulating system, and ethics and evil describe movements toward and away from the Good.

5. A consideration of the many forces impinging on and shaping all actions yields a model of ethical "field theory." That also helps express an ethical "uncertainty principle": In the complexity of the field, there is always uncertainty as to which rule to apply, and as to outcome. Ethical decisions must be individually analyzed for each situation.

6. Ethical thinking requires multi-level thinking. There are multiple levels at the object level (the issue or problem that is the object of the decision and action). There are also multiple levels to the analysis which must be applied. These concepts are incorporated into the metaethics "model."

Third, the metaethical postulates (statements) are presented as concepts that are important to ethical systems theory. But they are more than a mere list of statements. As a functional description of ethical process, they may also be understood as a dynamic functional model.

All of the statements apply to the whole enterprise of making correct decisions. However, some deal with general attitudes and concerns which are especially prominent at the start, or input phase, of the decision process. Others apply especially to the middle or processor phase, while the remainder characterize the result or output phase of the process.

Grouping the statements in this way helps illustrate that ethical decision-making is an orderly, systems-oriented process, subject to analysis. It is a process summarized in this unlikely mnemonic, made from the key word in each statement: RND GLO DIRT, or "RouND GLObe of DIRT."

INPUT phase: Proceed in awareness of --

R - Reverence for life
N - life Needs
D - life Development

PROCESS phase: Consider --

G - Global effects
L - Local level
O - Outcome, probability

OUTPUT phase: Result must conserve --

D - Diversity
I - Individuality
R - Responsibility
T - Thought, knowledge

[ Review: Metaethical postulates ]

In developing the metaethical statements there was no thought at all that they would or should make any sort of acronym or mnemonic. It is only now, while seeking a teaching device to summarize the ethical process, that a mnemonic based on key words first becomes apparent. Certainly, if a catchy phrase were our objective, we would have come up with something less demeaning than a reference to "dirt"! After all, should not ethics be a noble pursuit of lofty celestial concepts, designed to raise humble mankind to perfection?

No. That view, I think, is a primary reason for the inadequacy of much ethical thinking. The view of an ethics of some sort of celestial perfection or moral absolutism makes ethics an unreachable goal and an impracticable pursuit. By contrast, this presentation has sought to derive an ethic which is attainable. It is an ethic derived and practiced at the human level. This ethic is literally grounded in the dirt on which we live -- this globe. Thus the mnemonic is entirely appropriate, for it speaks of the earth of our very existence. It is an ethic grounded in the humus of humanity itself. Is it not interesting and significant that the words humus, human, and humility share the same root?

The systems ethic does not reach for a remote and unattainable sinless goodness. Yet there is a sense in which the natural ethic reaches for perfection. It seeks the perfection of the good of homeostasis, the healthy balance of all life. It finds in the teaching "Be perfect as your Father [the Creator] is perfect" the meaning that we should seek in our own lives the perfect harmony of creation. * That interpretation also parallels the insights of various Eastern religions. Ethics seek perfect wholeness of life for the individual as well as for society.

Is there then one final model which summarizes and illustrates the ethical imperative? We turn again to our understanding of life systems, to look at the wholeness of the unicellular organism. In such a cell, all that is contained within the cell serves the purposes of the genetic programs of the nucleus, which guide not only the reproduction of the organism but also the processes of metabolism. Because of this genetic autonomy, we may consider all activities of the cell to be organized around the nucleus. In responding to the control of the nucleus, all processes of the cell function to sustain the "wholeness" of the organism.

Also, we used such an organism to model the psyche according to Jung's theory. There, the nuclear Self seeks to guide the whole organism by coordinating the work of the Ego (consciousness) with the work of the other complexes or energy-structures in the psyche and thus maintain a balance. In both models, the problem is to support and sustain the object at the center, and in so doing, support and sustain the whole.

The basic ethical problem of any given situation, simple or complex, can be expressed as the problem of how correctly to deal with, or serve the requirements of, some object at the center of attention, while simultaneously sustaining the wholeness of the system. The unicellular organism also serves as a helpful model here. Using that as a model, we may now restate the ethical problem as follows:

Ethical action visualizes the object of concern
as being at the center or nucleus of the local ethical system;
the actors positioned around the nuclear object,
respond to support the function of the whole as a system.

The object of concern may be an individual, as it is in medical practice. The object could also be a thought-object, such as a public works plan or political action plan. In either case, the object is an entity that has an identifiable integrity that gives it a certain autonomy, and which (potentially) influences the whole.

In an ethical model of a medical practice situation, the physicians, other care-givers, and family members represent the organelles or other non-nuclear structures of the cell, which serve the requirements of the autonomous patient. In modeling the ethical considerations of some public plan of action, the organelles may be said to represent all life forms affected by the plan in any way.

The local ethical system is represented by the whole cell. The cell model must be drawn sufficiently large to represent the entire reach of influences in the particular situation. It must represent the whole environment in which the homeostasis of the system operates. The model illustrates that the organelles ("actors") and the nucleus ("object") are all parts of an interactive whole.

The ethical field of forces is represented by the cytoplasm of the cell, within which are dissolved both the nutrients and the poisons of the system. Providing the former and eliminating the latter are both matters of concern in the ethical model.

The whole of the system supported by the actors, must of course be taken to include both the object and the actors. Further, as the ethical actor, I relate to the nuclear object. If that object is a person, I relate to the whole self of that person, but I am not bound to the caprices of that person's own ego. In acting to serve, I must respect the conscious wishes (autonomy) of that person, but I am also obligated to respect my own knowledge and judgement. In serving that object ethically, I do not become subservient.

Developing the analogy between this ethical model and the model of the psyche provides some additional insight. In my psyche, there is an ego-self relationship of conscious will with the unconscious regulators of homeostasis. From the standpoint of my internal ethics, the actions of my conscious I must be consistent with the needs of my nuclear self to maintain my homeostatic balance. Similarly, I may model my dealings with others by putting them at the nuclear self position. In this interpretation of the model, my conscious ego serves as though the other person were my own self.

Thus, the ethical model becomes an elaboration of the golden rule. Encumbered as it is with terms and concepts from physiology and psychology, this "modern" ethical model has found no more basic insight than the ethical teachings of antiquity, grounded in an understanding of the balance of nature. The ethics of systems homeostasis is in fact no more modern than Confucius or Aristotle.

Earlier, we referred to Aristotle's concept of regulation to a Golden Mean, and to the Confucianist writing The Doctrine of the Steadfast Mean or Middle Way, which pairs the concept of "correct course" with that of the "regulating principle." There, the teacher builds ethics on the natural principle of balance, and develops a "principle of reciprocity" or Golden Rule of ethics.

What heaven has conferred is called the nature; and accordance with this nature is the Path of Duty ...

The Master said, This path is not far from man. When men try to pursue a course which is far from the common indications of consciousness, this course cannot be considered the path. When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the path. What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others. *

In orthodox Christian theology, the ethical teachings of Jesus, as divinely revealed law, are often interpreted as strict rules. Yet in Jesus' teachings too, one finds considerable awareness of correlations between the balance of nature and the balance of personal life, * and emphasis on salvation or wholeness found through following his "Way" * to the "kingdom of heaven within." * All of one's being is to live in harmony with the Creator and creation, and that principle superceedes the strictly interpreted traditional law:

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. *

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said to them, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. *

The principle of the golden rule also operates in Kant's formulation of the "categorical imperative." Any proposed action is tested by this question: Would it be just as acceptable to me if others always acted toward me in the way I am about to act toward them?

I do not, therefore, need any penetrating acuteness in order to discern what I have to do in order that my volition may be morally good. Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for all its contingencies, I ask myself only: Can I will that my maxim become a universal law? *

In his Philosophy of Civilization, Schweitzer also directly derives the golden rule from our awareness of our own existence in relation to the existence of others. We have already quoted the passage:

Ethics consist, therefore, in my experiencing the compulsion to show to all will-to-live the same reverence as I do to my own. *

Though our inquiry into a natural ethic started with a deep and broad concept of the systems-order of the universe based on modern knowledge, we have been led to affirm mankind's earliest ethical teachings. Moreover, we are affirmed in the position that ethics is a matter of attitude, not of law. Ethics consists in seeking the ethical attitude or insight that is higher than the law, and that sums the law. Law must be subservient to ethics, not vice versa.

Here then is the ethical model which is the prescription for an optimistic worldview for survival. Though it is derived in full consciousness of human spirituality, it is not presented as religious. Though it is derived from a broad base of knowledge, it is not presented as scientific. It is presented as an affirmation of life, that must undergird all action. The prescription for healing and survival is the ethics of life.