Wilkens - Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. – 230 p.

ISBN 978-0830839360

 

It should not take too much reflection to conclude that we need to be careful about staking the important ethical decisions in our lives on bumper sticker catch phrases. The problem is not that any advice that can be delivered in a small amount of space is necessarily wrong. The problem is that the ideas expressed in these bite-sized pronouncements have broader implications.

 

Ideas are built on certain assumptions, and if the assumptions are untrue or only partly true, what we build upon them is shaky. Moreover, the idea communicated in a bumper sticker is connected with other ideas. Thus, while the ethical aspect that is explicit in the bumper sticker may look good at first glance, other ideas that follow from it may not be so attractive. Most of us have heard or used the cliché “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” and it can sound like worthwhile advice. But what if the standard practices of the “Romans” stand in direct conflict with your moral or religious convictions? This is why we need to get behind the cliché itself. Such assumptions and connections are not made explicit in the shortened versions of ethical systems. Before we commit ourselves to any bumper sticker, we want to make certain that we can accept all that is implied in the slogan. In short, we have to get beyond “bumper sticker ethics” to see what else is in the package.

 

That is what this book is about. If you look at the bumper stickers at the beginning of this chapter, you may notice that they do not give specific solutions to specific problems (although in certain contexts an answer may be strongly suggested). Instead of direct answers, they provide the germ of a process for making decisions. For example, when we say “It’s your duty,” we imply that solving an ethical problem begins with recognizing our obligations to ourselves and other people, even when the results of following through on those obligations may not be attractive to us. Moreover, we can see quickly that this will involve a way of approaching moral decisions different from a bumper sticker like “Look out for Number One.”

 

The process of how we work through moral issues is called an ethical system. My strategy in this book will be to use bumper stickers as a point of departure to explore ethical systems. This approach is possible because we can find a short, popular expression that captures the essence of just about every major ethical system. The difference between the bumper sticker and the system itself is not content; rather, the system makes explicit what is only implicit in the slogan. Instead of accepting bumper stickers at face value, the system fills in the blanks and provides arguments about why its views are better than other options. Only when we dig deeper into bumper-sticker-sized bits of moral directive can we know if an ethical perspective will bear the weight of a lifetime of moral decisions.

 

* * *

 

Virtue Ethics

 

Be Good

 

“Be good.” My guess is that you would be wealthy if you had a nickel for every time these words were said to you while growing up. Although the intent was probably to put a stop to some immediate behavior, “be good” can have a deeper significance. There is a difference between doing good and being good. The first refers to a single action at a given moment, while the second focuses on who someone is. “Doing” is fixed on activity, but “being” draws our attention to character.

 

An evil person can do good things occasionally, but that does not make such an individual a good person. Generally, when we refer to someone as good, we are talking about more than sporadic acts. Instead, it is a matter of character. The idea that ethics demands more than just occasional good deeds is at the heart of virtue (or character) ethics. Virtue is the predisposition to do good things, an internal motivation that not only does the right but also loves what is right.

 

Virtue ethics had its heyday in the classical Greek period, and the primary representatives of this theory will be drawn from that age. However, while it has been out of favor for some time, it is making a strong comeback today. Until recently, modern advocates of virtue ethics have largely stated their case in books written for the academic community. Today, virtue has burst into the headlines. Many schools now emphasize the development of character, with character awards given to students who exemplify various virtues. In response to headline-making corporate abuses, business schools have incorporated ethics classes as standard fare for MBA programs, most of which offer a healthy dose of virtue ethics. We hear a lot of debate today in news-papers, talk radio and periodicals about “the character issue.” Indeed, ethics has become a hot topic, and virtue and character are frequently offered as the antidote for society’s ills.

 

While the idea of virtue is often left vague in many of the debates today, it is worth examining whether this theory can provide the answers for contemporary questions. Is virtue the answer to street crime and poverty? Is it the catalyst that will restore respect for teachers and help right a struggling educational system? How important is the connection between someone’s private and public life? Should a person’s past moral lapses disqualify him or her from certain jobs or offices? Should we care what people do after hours if they get the job done between nine and five? Perhaps some two-thousand-year-old ideas about virtue hold the answers to these questions, and those who argue that ethics is about being good are onto something.

 

What Is Virtue?

 

Before we get too far, we need a definition of virtue. First, while character is often taken today to mean one’s personality type, the classical meaning refers to an internal predisposition to act in certain ways in certain situations. Although personality type is primarily a matter of genetics, virtue is learned. Moreover, while personality types vary from person to person, the virtues can be the same for all. For instance, one person may have an intense personality and another may be easygoing. However, virtue ethics says that both can and should have character qualities such as courage, self-discipline and benevolence. How we manifest these attributes will differ according to our circumstances, but a newspaper editor, a student, a full-time parent or a police officer all need them.

 

Second, virtues are not just any internal dispositions that lead to action. They are good character traits that result in good acts. Thus, virtue ethics involves a belief in ethical truth. It sees a real difference between good and evil, and between good people and evil people. These terms do not simply refer to our preferences or tastes; they point to some kind of objective truth about the way we ought to be.

 

Third, character ethicists are more concerned with virtue than with virtues. The Greek term arete8, usually translated as “virtue,” means something like “excellence.” While we may be able to isolate particular areas of intellectual and moral excellence in a person, the ideal is that they reside in individuals as a package. It is not enough that an individual be only courageous, fair or self-disciplined. Virtue is not a multiple-choice affair in which people pick and choose the virtues they like. The goal is to be a good person. This involves possession of all these moral excellences and others as well.