Moral Philosophy, Human Rights, and Consequences
I found a recent article in The Dispatch to be both fascinating (and troubling). It described the dilemma of pro-life advocates who are confronted with the fact that many current COVID treatments are created using tissue of cells derived from abortions, sometimes performed decades ago. This is a pretty widespread issue in medical research; fetal tissues are a research source on everything from disease cures to vaccines. Many in the pro-life community are very concerned about this. On the one hand, no one would dispute counting all the costs and benefits; these treatments are saving lives on the net. To many, this is proof they are the right moral choice, and objectors are simply sticking their heads in the sand.
But this line of reasoning begs an important question: are there ethical questions in public policy that should not be decided with costs and benefits as the primary judge? Or more formally: when is the ethical approach of utilitarianism not the right framework? When is it better to use a simpler system of fixed moral rules? Most modern public policy analysis (including economics, where my public policy experience is most grounded) assumes a consequentialist frame. But when pushed, almost everyone has specific issues on which they are not comfortable using utilitarian reasoning.
To steal an example from Harvard Professor Michael Sandel, consider the horrible story of Dudley and Stevens (warning, it is not for the faint of heart):
In the summer of 1884, four English sailors were stranded at sea in a small lifeboat in the South Atlantic, over a thousand miles from land. Their ship, the Mignonette, had gone down in a storm, and they had escaped to the lifeboat, with only two cans of preserved turnips and no fresh water. Thomas Dudley was the captain, Edwin Stephens was the first mate, and Edmund Brooks was a sailor—“all men of excellent character,” according to newspaper accounts.
The fourth member of the crew was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, age seventeen. He was an orphan, on his first long voyage at sea. He had signed up against the advice of his friends, “in the hopefulness of youthful ambition,” thinking the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.
From the lifeboat, the four stranded sailors watched the horizon, hoping a ship might pass and rescue them. For the first three days, they ate small rations of turnips. On the fourth day, they caught a turtle. They subsisted on the turtle and the remaining turnips for the next few days. And then for eight days, they ate nothing.
By now Parker, the cabin boy, was lying in the corner of the lifeboat. He had drunk seawater, against the advice of the others, and become ill. He appeared to be dying. On the nineteenth day of their ordeal, Dudley, the captain, suggested drawing lots to determine who would die so that the others might live. But Brooks refused, and no lots were drawn.
The next day came, and still no ship was in sight. Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and motioned to Stephens that Parker had to be killed. Dudley offered a prayer, told the boy his time had come, and then killed him with a penknife, stabbing him in the jugular vein. Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty. For four days, the three men fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.
And then help came. Dudley describes their rescue in his diary, with staggering euphemism: “On the 24th day, as we were having our breakfast,” a ship appeared at last. The three survivors were picked up. Upon their return to England, they were arrested and tried. Brooks turned state’s witness. Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They freely confessed that they had killed and eaten Parker. They claimed they had done so out of necessity.
Suppose you were the judge. How would you rule? To simplify things, put aside the question of law and assume that you were asked to decide whether killing the cabin boy was morally permissible.
Many people will acknowledge that a reasonable person would probably assume that without the cannibalism, all four of the men would have died. Thus, the act of cannibalism was necessary to save the maximum number of lives. However, many (including myself!) will find ourselves intuitively retreating to the idea that killing an innocent man is just morally wrong on its face and cannot be defended by the action's consequences.
In the same way, pro-life advocates would argue that even when medical research using fetal tissue has positive consequences, it is wrongheaded to use that to justify the abortion that produced the tissue in the first place. Critics of pro-life advocates will say that yes, abortion is bad and a tragedy, but would argue the pro-life perspective is far too black and white: we need to examine the consequences of fetal tissue use in medical research on a case-by-case basis.
We can see this tension in many other issues, from many different political persuasions besides issues of life:
Many who feel strongly about immigration will argue that there is a moral imperative to treat every migrant with certain human rights and dignity and to welcome them regardless of their citizenship or national origin. Critics of this perspective will argue that while human treatment is good, that a too welcoming immigration policy may, in specific cases, cause harm to the residents of the societies they are joining. The consequences of immigration policy must be considered on a case by case basis.
Many who feel strongly about free speech will argue that it is wrong for governments to censor speech, even when that speech will harm others because free speech is a human rights issue. Critics of this perspective may agree that free speech is good but argue that it needs to be weighed with the potential harm done by the uncensored speech can have on vulnerable members of society on a case-by-case basis.
Many who feel strongly about economic justice will argue that all people should be paid a living wage as a human right, regardless of their work or employer circumstances. Critics of this perspective will argue that just wages are good, but that mandates just wages (through minimum wage laws) can create negative unintended consequences in particular cases by driving small business out of business and reducing the number of hours worked by labor (which are often replaced by technology)
In many ways, this is a simplification of these philosophical debates: any real philosopher would poke many holes in my lay-person’s characterization of their perspective. And some (virtue ethicists) would probably argue I have presented a false dichotomy. We can reconcile these perspectives by looking at the negatives consequences on society when we make moral judgment relative (like making murder something that can situationally be justified).
My point here is actually quite a simple one: ALL political philosophies will end up making some moral choices, black and white, and others more subject to circumstance and consequence. I don’t care to use this post to argue for or against either meta-ethical approach or to argue that we should or shouldn’t use it on a particular issue. Personally, I think it quite possible to be a rigorous person who sees some issues through the black/white “human rights” frame while seeing others through a more “consequentialist” or cost/benefit frame (I certainly do this on my own political philosophy!!!)
But instead, especially with an election tomorrow, it’s worth all of us taking a step back and asking if it is worth examining our own moral matrices: what moral issues do you make so essential that they are “beyond consequences,” and how might that differ from other voters? As an individual, where can we be more rigorous in evaluating our own political philosophy by looking charitably where others may make different judgments?