Binary Ethics

Am I looking for what’s right or what’s wrong?

You’ve got to love any moral or ethical system that is binary; so simple even a five year old child can address probing moral questions. That is way too easy. Was it “right” to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then to do it again to Nagasaki? Ask the soldiers that were on the invasion force, ask the civilians whose last moment was a gasp of horror as the sun exploded over them. Even the apotheosized 9-11 episode can be played out in several lights. Just because more than one way of seeing a question does not imply that all options are equal: indeed, most options are non-starters. But to ask a question as simplistic as whether there is a pure good and a pure bad choice is a short-cut to thinking.

Morality exists in shades of gray; it is those textures in-between light and shade that makes it so interesting..

I recall a class on ethics that I took while a graduate student. I was asked to abstract my ethical thinking into one phrase: “That which affirms life is good.” This, of course, means that there may be many “good” choices. Situations change, as will the choice. What affirms life in one setting may not in another. One is forced to consider context – hopefully to take the time to know the context – before making a decision. Is abortion good? My answer: it depends.

To answer yet another one of the “right questions” I have to say that I endeavor to affirm life. I try to do live by the following: “If I cannot help you, I will not hurt you.” Notice that I did not say “shall not,” which implies an absolute future, but “will not,” that speaks to my intentioned actions.

Looking at the list of “The Right Questions” I have to ask when the author will actually pose an interesting question that is more than mere drivel.

Ah but I am merely a fool…