Clearly, we need a better basis for ethical judgment than our feelings. But what, exactly, should that basis be? Let’s begin by noting that all the offenses noted in the above examples have one thing in common— they violate people’s rights.
This theme of rights is found in many important documents. For example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence declares that “all Men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights claims that “human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” Similarly, medical associations’ codes of ethics speak of patients’ rights; legal codes of ethics affirm clients’ rights; and corporate codes of ethics acknowledge the rights of employees and customers.
Such acknowledgement of the rights of individuals is referred to in ethics as the principle of respect for persons. According to Errol E. Harris, the principle incorporates several requirements:
First, that each and every person should be regarded as worthy of sympathetic consideration, and should be so treated; secondly, that no person should be regarded as a mere possession, or used as a mere instrument, or treated as a mere obstacle, to another’s satisfaction; and thirdly, that persons are not and ought never to be treated in any undertaking as mere expendables (Harris, “Respect for Persons, Dæadalus, Spring 1969, 113).
Over the centuries ethicists have identified three criteria helpful in deciding when actions honor the principle of respect for persons and
actions, and that is irresponsible.
That is precisely why an interna- tional court found the Nazis guilty of “crimes against humanity” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 re- quired the owners of establish- ments that serve the public to treat all patrons equally.
Many similar examples could be cited. Robbery, sexual harass- ment, spousal abuse, rape, child molestation, and murder may be prompted by powerful feelings, urges, and impulses. Nevertheless, they harm others and violate their rights. That is why they are against the law.
Thinking critically about ethical judgments
181
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
THE STORY OF CHIARA LUBICH
When the bombs were dropping on her native Trent in Italy during World War II, young Chiara Lubich and her companions sat huddled in bomb shelters reading the Gospel. Certain phrases had special meaning for them, especially “Love one another as I have loved you.” They decided that love is supposed to be lived, and not just talked about. Thus began the Focolare (“hearth”) Movement. The name is apt, for this movement warms and nurtures the cause of brotherhood.
The movement’s main focus is the “spirituality of unity.” Members combine passion for their own religious beliefs with deep respect for people of different beliefs and no beliefs. The movement has developed dialog relationships not only with the members of the various Christian denominations, but also with Jews, Bud- dhists, Muslims, and Hindus, as well as agnostics and atheists.
These relationships go far beyond listening politely to one another. They aim at discovering common values and finding ways to express those values together.
The Focolare Movement has established little towns that serve as “models for a new humanity.” There are twenty such towns and they are found on every continent. The people who live and visit there subscribe to the “law of recipro- cal love.”
In Brazil and Argentina the movement developed an economic system known as “the economy of sharing.” In this system, participating businesses use one-third of their profits for capital reinvestment, one-third to raise the standard of living of the less privileged, and one-third for structures such as community centers in which the values of sharing and harmonious living are taught. More than 700 businesses are now participating in those and other countries.
In 1977 Chiara Lubich was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. For more information on Chiara Lubich, see www.rc.net/focolare/chiara.htm.
good thinking!
when they do not. The three criteria are obligations, moral ideals, and
consequences. Let’s look more closely at each:
Obligations.Human relationships create various kinds of obligations, all of which place requirements or restrictions on people’s behavior. Contractual obligations require people to honor whatever terms they have agreed to honor. Employment obligations make demands on both employers and employees. Professional obligations require that clients’
or patients’ interests be served. Obligations of friendship demand mutual support, encouragement, and the keeping of confidences. Marital ob- ligations demand mutual love and honor and faithful devotion in sick- ness and in health.
Moral ideals. Moral ideals, also known as virtues, are standards of excellence in behavior. There are many such ideals, the best known of which are justice, fairness, and honesty. Other important ideals include kindness, compassion, and forgiveness.
Consequences. This is the broadest of the criteria for making ethical judgments. All actions produce consequences. Some consequences are positive, others negative. Some impact the person who takes the action, others the people who are acted upon. (The effects may be physical, emotional, spiritual, social, and/or economic.) Similarly, some conse- quences occur immediately, whereas others are delayed for months and even years.