Understanding your choices, pt. 2
In a previous post I wrote about what I termed “Oracular Ethics” – after the Oracle in the Matrix films, who tells Neo: “… you’ve already made the choice. Now you have to understand it”. As I indicated in that post, this is really how I tend to think about philosophy: as a way of understanding our decisions – rather than a way to make decisions. This will not be the case all the time of course; in particularly thorny ethical discussion, one might well make a decision on the basis of a philosophical discussion – however I would submit for consideration the notion that if we’re truly honest about it, deep down we know what we want to decide anyway, and we use the philosophical discussion to justify that position. The point of this post is to discuss why that’s not necessarily a bad thing – except in that we don’t recognise or admit it.
The other extreme is to be found in accounts of the Greek ‘Skeptics’ – following Pyrrho (360-270 BCE). A story goes (as I read in ‘An Eye for an I’ by Robert Spillane) that once Pyrrho fell into a ditch and couldn’t get out. He was happened upon by some of his students, but they decided (a) they had no reason to believe it truly was Pyrrho in the ditch, and (b) even if it was he, they had no reason to believe he would be better off if they rescued him. So they left him there. Whether true or not, it serves as an example (by absurdity) of what I submit is the folly of basing decisions on deep philosophical debates.
If we accept that our decisions are already made, without conscious philosophical consideration, I see a couple of major implications – that are closely entwined. Firstly, if one does not consider the various philosophical/ethical/moral aspects to a proposed course of action, how can one be a truly moral agent? Secondly, what is the point of philosophy if it doesn’t inform our actions?
Virtue
Taking the first point, well, first … this is really what I like about virtue ethics – particularly as applied to the practice of medicine. At least, it’s what I like about what little I understand about virtue ethics; remember I’m not a philosopher, just a friday filosopher (filosofer?). 
I would think it’s clear that if we are not weighing ethical arguments before acting, it is our character that determines the moral nature of our actions. As opposed to a rule-based form of ethics, which focuses on actions while ignoring motivation, virtue ethics looks at the motivations – the character – of the person. I touched on this previously, with a rosy analogy In other words it’s not enough to do the right thing, but there should be a focus on the character that motivated that right action. Striving for excellence is an important aspect of ethical behaviour looked at in a virtue framework – which is why I like virtue as applied to the practice of medicine.
What’s the Point?
My second point related to the notion that we make our decisions without reference to weighty ethical debate was: what is the point of philosophy? Why bother with it if we don’t need it to make decisions? As the Oracle said: “…you’ve already made the choice. Now you have to understand it.” But why should we understand them, if we’re just going to make choices/decisions without reference to such ethical understanding next time anyway?
For me this comes back to the notion of having good character. How does one develop a good, virtuous character? I would suggest it’s through a process of <em>understanding our choices</em> beginning as children and getting refined as we get older . We learn the various internal and external consequences of different actions, and I’d suggest that goes a long way towards determining our character – which I think is what determines our actions. The point of philosophy is that it’s a method of focusing on the choices to be understood: a way to discuss them and debate the pros and cons, which further refines our ethical selves, and leads to continued development of character, and thence more ethical behaviour.
A Musical Analogy
I seem unable to do a post like this without drawing some sort of parallel This time I’ll relate it to music theory. While I know a lot of music theory, it doesn’t generally dictate what I write or play – and certainly not what I enjoy listening to. Basically I’m a “feel player”, and the theory is for me a way to understand what I like, what works, what doesn’t work – and a way to further develop my musical “character”. Music that comes purely out of music theory is likely to sound overly cerebral, and somewhat lacking in emotional engagement as a consequence. Conversely, a lack of understanding of any music theory would lead to a cacophony of sound. Musicians who say they don’t know theory actually do, if they know what notes fit together, and what harmony they work with etc. But if they don’t think about the theory of what they write/play/listen to (whether in their own terms or in standard terms) they will have trouble “understanding their choices” as it applies to music, and consequently their musical character would not develop.
Ethical behaviour is the same, to my mind: there’s not a need to know the ins and out of various philosophies/ethical schools, but we should reflect on our behaviour, and make an effort to understand our choices, in an effort to continue our development as ethical agents.
Popularity: 3% [?]
A very interesting proposition, and one not too removed from the view of one or two serious philosophers, who consider that their task is to explain the way that ethical positions are reached, rather than to tell people what is or is not ethical.
However, I would just comment that in the "easy" situations, little deliberation is required. Atistotle did regard the good life as one that is chosen after due deliberation, such that our choices are made deliberately. I think that the same applies to fully virtuous behaviour, even if the deliberation is at times post hoc as the decision needs to be made more quickly than full deliberation would allow.
And that is where virtue comes into its own. Virtue is a pattern of thinking and behaviour which is deliberately developed to lead one into excellence in one's field. Utilitarianism requires balancing goods and evils and the numbers involved to reach a conclusion about what is the correct action to take. The time required for such a process has resulted in the development of rule utilitarianism, which provides for "standard" responses.
Psychiatry is often a minefield for most ethical theorists, because of the ease with which a hard case can be decided in multiple ways depending on the theory used to justify one's actions. Liberal conceptions of the good can leave a mentally ill homeless person in a situation he may not have deliberately (ie after deliberation) chosen, and consequentialist theories could be used to justify coercive intervention. Virtue has the advantage that it brings the judgement about what should be done back to the agent; is she acting out of virtuous pursuit of excellence as a citizen, social worker, housing officer, psychiatrist, whatever? If so, then the action is virtuous and therefore ethically justifiable.
If one has the wrong character, one can break even the best rules. If one has a virtuous character, one can act ethically where there are no rules.
Thank you for the post
Allen