So What?

The question of so what? as far as it relates to our ethics and decision making is one that we have been grappling with throughout the course.

My mindset going into the discussion and my mindset after the readings is that most individuals will follow duty based ethics, if any at all.  From readings done in some of my other classes, most notably Political Theory, I've had the opportunity to get a glimpse at what some of the more famous philosophers have to say on the subject.  Plato and most the follow believe that individuals themselves tend to see justice and morals as something that are determined by the society in which individuals are living in.  Meaning that people are for certain things such as murder or rape or robbery being illegal not because they themselves do not want to do these things, but they do not want them done to them.  Perhaps it's a bit off on a tangent to go to such extreme examples, but as far as a cultural reflection on the topic, I think it's valid to understand how human nature and the building of society has seen the role of ethics in the sustainment of  humans.  To be part of a society, most individuals agree at least tacitly to be a moral and ethical person.  That is, to the degree that society believes certain behaviors and actions are moral or ethical.  I've used the example of my speeding occasionally on my way to school.  I realize that it is against the law, and duty based ethics keep me from doing things that I see as truly dangerous, but my training and my background give me reason to believe that I can get away with certain rule violations such as speeding while others may not.  I believe it is this duty based ethics system that kept Dr. Jekyll "good" for as long as it did.  Without the duty based ethics and the responsibilities the Dr. Jekyll saw in a man of his stature in Victorian society, I believe he would've let Mr. Hyde run rampant far earlier.

When it comes to the individual members of said society, once you get passed the duty based ethics that control most truly extreme negative behavior such as murders, rapes, etc., you are left with those that practice more virtue based ethics.  They believe certain things such as drinking, cheating on tests, are morally wrong and will not or should not do them not because society necessarily says that they are wrong, but because there own beliefs tell them to do what is right, even when others aren't looking.  I think this virtue ethics comes into play in the movie Source Code.  Although keeping a soldier alive, even in the mostly vegetative state that he was kept alive has led to the saving of countless lives, Cpt. Goodwin believes that it is morally wrong to do so, and even though society may think differently, even though her duty based ethics would more than likely disagree, she helps Cpt. Stevens.

All told, there are several layers of ethics and different types of ethics at work that keep society as a whole moving forward.  As to what level each plays in the overall scheme I still cannot say.  My belief is that duty based ethics, comprised mostly of whatever is the norm or considered moral or ethical by society at that time plays the larger role.

So What?

Why do ethics even matter? What is the point to them? Aren't they just subjective? These are a few questions I have formed through out this semester in relation to our question of what is right and which form of ethics are the correct way to live ones life. There are so many different ways people can live their lives, so there are so many different forms of right. One action may be wrong to one group of people, but could be completely acceptable to another, so what's the point? Why are we trying to decide what type of morality is right and what type is wrong?

Through out this semester I have really taken the time to think about things through a different perspective. For instance, just today I overheard a conversation between two students talking about their living situation for next semester. One of the students was saying that his group of friends were wanting to live in Belmont Commons together in a 4 bedroom apartment, however only 3 of them were able to get into the same place and that the 4th student, who wasn't in their group, was refusing to switch out so that the main group could include their 4th person. They were really upset and were calling the other student "stubborn" and "A d-bag" for not wanting to move out. At first I agreed with them, I thought that it was selfish of that student to not give up his spot so the four of them could live together. However, immediately after I thought that the 4th student was not selfish at all, he was just wanting to secure his spot in the on-campus housing for next semester. When I checked the housing lists the day before, Belmont Commons was completely full. Perhaps this student had been planning on living in Commons for a while and so he signed up when there were still rooms available. There is no where he could switch to in Commons because every room is full. This made me think that the group of 4 were actually the ones in the wrong. They assumed that they would all be able to live together next semester and that if someone took one of their spots that the new person would just leave. The student who wasn't in the group has all the right to stay in that apartment. He signed up at his given sign-up time, the other kid was out of luck because he probably had a later sign up time.

I got into a discussion with my roommate about it and he sided with the group of 4. When I asked him why he told me "While I see your point, I don't know why this kid would want to live in an apartment with a 3 other people who didn't want him there in the first place." Is this really a justifiable reason for someone to leave? Is that right? While I believe the outsider student was in the right, my roommate believed the group was in the right. This just proves that there are different types of morality and different views on what is right and what is wrong. So what? Why do we argue over what is right and wrong when it is so subjective. The outsider student saw that he would be out of a nice house if he succumbed to the groups pressure and left, so he is deciding to stay, which shows he makes his decisions based on consequences. The other group based their belief of what was right based on virtues. They assumed that the 4th guy would see their dilemma and do "the right thing" and give up his spot.  

Moral Decision Making: So What?

Moral decision making is a part of every day life.  We make these decisions even when we don't realize it.  As students we make decisions such as cheating, plagiarizing, being the lazy one in a group project, and skipping class.  As business people we decide weather or not to play by the rules, to steal or share trade secrets, to price products and services reasonably, and whether or not to bribe or blackmail.  As people in relationships, we make decisions in regards to cheating on our partner, lying about where we go and the money we spend, and even lying about our feelings.  How do we work through these decisions?  How do we determine what's right?  I believe we use a combination of all three normative ethics:  virtue, duty based, and consequential ethics.

For example, let's look at a situation involving a student.  The student has a test to take online by a certain date; his friend, however, as already taken the test and received a perfect score.  The questions and answers are going to be the same for each student, so the friend offers to give the other all the answers so he can make a perfect score, too.  First, the student works through virtue ethics - it is morally wrong to cheat.  He should be practicing integrity and self-control.  However, thinking in ethical egoism terms, receiving a perfect scone on this test can really help his final grade by bumping it up from a C to an B.  The end result is favorable towards him.  Duty ethics, on the other hand, says that the university's students have agreed to act ethically - in regards to cheating, stealing, etc. - or face consequences such as expulsion.  The professor, he reasons, would never find out if the students shared answers.  At the end of all this thought process, the student decides that it is morally wrong to cheat on a test, and decides instead to study and if he has any questions to ask his friend for help.

I feel that I do this on a daily basis.  There are some things that you have to work through to really come up with an answer that best fits the situation - and then it may differ from person to person.  In the movie Source Code, for example, Rutledge and Goodwin reason through the task of pulling Steven's life support differently.  Rutledge reasons that Stevens will save lives if he remains "alive" and thus decides to lie to him about pulling the plug.  Goodwin, however, reasons that although he could save more lives, she is morally responsible for keeping her word to him about ending the life support.  There are times in my life where I know something is "wrong", but it is how I feel the situation should be handled.  I'm not sure if I've used this example already, but I speed.  I go between five and fifteen miles over the speed limit (depending on where I am).  I know that you're supposed to follow the speed limit, but if I feel like I'm not harming anyone then I just drive.  The down side is that I'm always scanning the road for cops, and if I see one I slow down.  Why?  Because I don't want to get a ticket.  So I guess I contradict myself - I don't care, but then again I do.  It all depends on the situation.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: A Question of Moral Decision Making

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a literary classic.  Dr. Jekyll, wrought with frustration from conforming to society, creates a drug that transforms him into Mr. Hyde, a man of pure evil.  What starts out as pure joy and fantasy quickly turns to fear and nightmare for Jekyll.  He cannot control Mr. Hyde - the evil has become too strong.  What is to become of the pair?  Contemplation of suicide have fallen through, yet life cannot continue as it is.  While the first half of this novel experiences the pair through the third party of Mr. Utterson, Jekyll's lawyer, the second half provides a first person narrative of the happenings and how things got to be so bad; it is this part in which we can look to discuss the questions of moral decision making.

"Hence it came about that I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of life...it was on the moral side, and in my own person, that I learned to recognize the thorough and primitive duality of man...that in the agonized womb of consciousness, these polar twins should be continuously struggling..."

This section of text is found in the beginning of the last chapter (Henry Jekyll's Full Statement of the Case), and lays out Jekyll's revelation of his duplicity of life.  Growing up, he was taught to conform to society, to be proper and uphold high standards of living.  While this can be seen as "be the best that you can be", it also causes a repression of wants and desires.  To be unable to act on these impulses can drive a person mad, even if they don't realize it.  You essentially become two different people - the one that everyone sees and the one that you yearn to be.

"I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked, sold a slave to my original evil; and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine...the evil side of my nature, to which I had now transferred the stamping efficacy, was less robust and less developed than the good which I had just deposed.  Again, in the course of my life, which had been, after all, nine tenths a life of effort, virtue and control, it had been much less exercised and much less exhausted..."

 Here we see the mentions of "virtue" and "control".  Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior.  Most virtue ethic theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits.  These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured.  Moral character develops over  long period of time.  People are born with all sorts of tendencies.  These natural tendencies can be encouraged and developed or discouraged and thwarted by the influences one is exposed to when growing up.  Our natural tendencies, the raw material we are born with, are shaped and developed through a long and gradual process of education and habituation.  Jekyll was never fully able to discourage his natural tendencies, his true evil nature; thus he transforms into Hyde.

Throughout the rest of the chapter, and even throughout the rest of the novel, Jekyll struggles with his moral self.  He is aware of the atrocities that Hyde has committed, and tries to right the wrong by doing good deeds.  He becomes afraid of Hyde, but he still desires the freedom that the evil side offers.  When control can longer be maintained, when Hyde has become too strong, Jekyll can't bring himself to commit suicide because he feels pity for the fear Hyde feels about death.  In the end, he gives in and let's Hyde take full control, even though he wants to live on being only Jekyll.  This constant struggle between virtue, between right and wrong, just keeps Jekyll going in circles.  He became addicted to the freedom from virtue and morals, and it became his ultimate demise.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

The story The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a classic that everyone knows the basis of. There's a guy, Jekyll, who drinks a potion that turns him into this hideous, horrible beast of a man that runs rampant among the streets of London. However, many people do not normally see a different side to the story. The way I like to look at the story is that Hyde represents the psychological Id that Freud always discusses. While it may not be an exact representation of Freud's human Id, it tends to follow the same basis that Freud has talked out in human nature.

Mr. Hyde represents all things evil in the story. He is the beast that is violent and does whatever it wishes without thinking of morality. He is everything that society tells us we shouldn't be, and while he may come off as being evil in the story he can also be seen as a representation of true freedom. I'm not talking true 'Murica freedom, but rather literal freedom, having no one tell you what you can and can not do. Mr. Hyde is simply one way that Dr. Jekyll can escape from the societal pressures of the 19th Century Victorian era.

There were so many rules and standards back then on how people should act, and while some rules are crucial for a happy society, there was tremendous pressure on Jekyll to act like a gentleman and how society wanted him to act. He was succumb to what would be known today as Social Anxiety Disorder, which meant that he was afraid of societal reject or always aimed to please others. This disorder lead him to experiment and find the potion that turned him into Mr. Hyde. I feel as though the potion is a representation of drugs or alcohol. Many people use drugs and alcohol to escape from the world when they feel there is too much pressure on them to perform up to societies standards. This potion gave Dr. Jekyll the freedom from constantly having to live up to societies life styles. I also feel as though even though Jekyll said he was trying to control Hyde, there was a part of him that wanted Hyde to continue taking over.

Jekyll felt as though Hyde was his scapegoat into a world with no responsibility and strict guidelines. When Hyde took over, all morals were gone from his mind. This brings me back to my point about Freud's Id personality. A persons Id is the very basic, primal lifestyle that we as humans have. There is no moral to the Id, so there for it chooses to do what it pleases. When Hyde killed the elderly man and pushed the young girl, there was no sense of remorse, there was no morality in his decision making. Hyde only knew what he wanted to do and nothing was going to stop him. These are my feelings as to how The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has a much deeper meaning and why it is a good example of what we consider to be morally right or wrong.

Last group meeting

Jekyll & Hyde and Moral decision making

     Having read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde previously, it was refreshing to go back and read it with the specific questions regarding moral decision making in mind.  Perhaps it is my realist views of the world in general, but I have always been in the minority camp that believes Dr. Jekyll is not transformed in Mr. Hyde necessarily, but that Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll's true form, or to put it better, the form that he has always wanted to be and it was societal restraints that allowed him to live as Dr. Jekyll for the majority of his life.  My thought is that man by nature is more evil than good in the sense his decisions are based off of self interest and if allowed to run amok, most of the decisions made by man would be considered evil or at the very least inhumane in most societies. 

     The consequential ethics of the time period in which the story is set plays a major role in both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  In 19th Century England, Victorian society has several very strict guideline for what a "gentleman" was supposed to be and Dr. Jekyll had a difficult time living within those guidelines.  It was only when he was able to transform to what I believe was his more natural state, or at least his more natural personality, that he was able to live his life free of the burden placed on him by society.  It seemed that Dr. Jekyll feared being found out not because of the things he was doing but because of what people would think about him after revealing the things that he did.  If not for these consequences of being shunned by the class of gentleman that he had grown accustomed to being a part of, I don't think Dr. Jekyll would've been nearly as conflicted with what was taking place.  If he could live as Mr. Hyde and still keep his place in society, I think he would've done it without thinking.  One could make a case that this aligns with duty based ethics as well, but overall I don't think it's a sense of duty that keeps Dr. Jekyll "good" but rather the fear of losing his status.

     If not for the consequences of trampling the child in the beginning of the novel, or beating to death the elderly man with the cane, the rush that Mr. Hyde felt from these events would be the driving force in many of his other decisions.  The underlying theme in my mind with The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one that goes beyond the duality of man theme that is commonly referred to.  I think the undertones are more in reference to the nature of society and how the consequences of going against that society and its norms are what keep a lot of individuals like Dr. Jekyll from turning into a Mr. Hyde.