Acting from Duty, Caring For

In this posting I want to consider acting from duty. My starting point is an example given by Thomas Hurka. He asks us to imagine, 

“that you’re in hospital recovering from a painful operation and a friend comes at considerable inconvenience to visit you. When you say how much you appreciate her visit and concern for you it shows, she says it isn’t that she cares for you; she just knew that as a friend, she had a duty to visit.”(1)

Hurka uses this example to argue that in some situations acting out of duty seems to be an inferior way of acting when compared to caring. Hurka’s argument has personal interest to me. A few years ago when my father was getting old and was not as capable as he once had been I found myself travelling to see him every day and helping him out as best I could. I told my wife I was acting out of duty at the time and a few years on after reflection I still believe for the most part this was true. Should I regret acting mostly from duty? I do not. More generally is acting solely from duty in some way inferior to acting because you care?

Intuitively we seem to accept Hurka’s argument. However everyone, including Hurka’s hospital visitor acts because they care about something. Perhaps the hospital visitor only cares about doing her duty. At this point I want to make a distinction between two ways of caring. To ‘care about’ someone means the carer identifies himself with the person she cares about and becomes vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits depending upon whether who she cares about is diminished or enhanced. This definition is based on that of Harry Frankfurt which I use regularly in this blog. To ‘care for’ someone means to understand someone’s needs and to respond to them in an appropriate way. In the light of this distinction I will assume Hurka’s hospital patient wants his visitors to ‘care about’ him but that he wants his nurses to ‘care for’ him. A nurse who cared a ‘great deal’ about his patients but was not very good at ‘caring for’ them would not be a very good nurse. In practice most caring is a combination of ‘caring about’ and ‘caring for’. However it is possible in theory to ‘care for’ someone but not ‘care about’ him. Caring for someone is related to duty and as the example of nurse shows caring for is also important. If Hurka’s hospital visitor is acting out of duty she must ‘care for’ the patient. If for instance she simply went to the hospital and did her SuDoku next to the patient each day during visiting time few people would think she was doing her duty. She must address the concerns of the patient. The hospital visitor acting out of duty must ‘care for’ the patient but it seems what the patient really wants her to do is ‘care about’ him. My original question now becomes this. Is the patient right in believing it would be better if his visitor cared about him rather than for him? Is acting from duty by ‘caring for’ someone in some way inferior to acting because you ‘care about’ him?

If someone acts from duty she must make a real effort to do her duty. Feeble attempts and gestures at doing one’s duty are not doing one’s duty, doing one’s duty is quite demanding. What must the hospital patient’s visitor do when doing her duty? She must ‘care for’ the patient. She must attempt to understand the patient’s needs and to respond in an appropriate way. Clearly she cannot respond to the patient’s medical needs and such needs must be met by the medical staff. She can and should respond to the patient’s practical and emotional needs when she can. One of the emotional needs of the patient is to be ‘cared about’, loved. It follows if the visitor is serious about doing her duty she must make an attempt whenever possible to ‘care about’ the patient. Just bringing him his paper and the fruit he asked for yesterday and then settling down to do her SuDoku for the rest of the visiting time is not doing her duty. It follows doing one’s duty need not be divorced from ‘caring about’.

Let us assume the patient’s friend cannot visit tomorrow and in her place comes his son. His son comes purely out of a sense of duty because he suffers from Aspergers syndrome. People with Aspergers are often extremely conscientious about acting from duty because they have difficultly with empathy or ‘caring about’ as I have defined it above, see Simon Baron-Cohen (2). Acting from duty is central to the lives of some people if they are to act morally. According to Neema Trivedi-Bateman there is a link between moral emotions and offending behaviour in young people, see the conservation . Her research shows that young people are more likely to carry out violent acts if they have weak empathy, shame and guilt. Unfortunately for autistic people empathy, shame and guilt are hard to acquire perhaps because they cannot read other people’s emotions. For higher functioning autistic people acting from duty is of great importance it is essential to acting morally. Parents of such children should try to inculcate a sense of duty in them rather than the moral emotions which they might find impossible to assimilate. Returning to our hospital visitor, he now has had two visitors both visiting from exactly the same sense of duty. If our patient thinks his first visitor is acting in an inferior way does he also think his son is similarly acting in an inferior way? I would guess not. Does then he then come to the view that his first visitor is not acting in an inferior way? Once again I would guess not. What reason might he advance for not changing his mind? He might suggest that whilst his son only has the option of acting out of duty his other visitor can ‘care about’ him.

Is this a reasonable suggestion? I will now argue it is not. The patient believes his visitor has the option to care for him, I believe she may not. I would argue ‘caring about’ or having empathy for someone involves loving her. A mother’s love of her child would be a good example of ‘caring about’. But as Frankfurt points out, love is not a matter of choice (3). One cannot choose to love someone. It might of course be possible to place oneself in a position so that one comes to love someone else. A successful arranged marriage might be an example of so doing. However even in these circumstances love grows and is not chosen. I do believe it is commendable for someone to cultivate the circumstances in which love can flourish. Moreover I do not deny it is good to be loved for the beloved but I do not believe a lover’s love is a matter for praise.

What conclusions can be drawn from the above? Firstly acting from duty is not an inferior way of acting. Indeed for many people, such as higher functioning autistic people, it is perhaps the only way to act morally. Secondly whist caring about is good and should encouraged it isn’t always praiseworthy whilst acting from duty might be.

1. Thomas Hurka, 2011, The Best Things in Life: A Guide to What Really Matters in Life, Oxford, page 127.
2. Simon Baron-Cohen, 2011, Zero Degrees of Empathy, Penguin, page 65.
3. Harry Frankfurt. 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge University Press, page 135.

Assisted Suicide and the Nationalisation of Morality

The Commission on Assisted Dying published its final report on 05/01/12. This report suggests a framework which would permit people with a terminal illness to be assisted to end their lives whilst protecting those who are vulnerable. I have argued in a previous posting, see Assisted Suicide, Slippery Slopes and Empathic Caring , that if we have true empathic concern those with a terminal illness it should be possible to assist them in this way. I will not repeat my arguments here. Instead I want to concentrate on one of the reasons given as to why this assistance should not be forthcoming. I accept of course that a purely private morality is nonsense but I will argue society as a whole cannot determine our morality, society as a whole can of course influence it. However, even if a purely private morality is nonsense so too is the idea of a national morality, any morality must include personal acceptance. The idea of a national morality is dangerous one.

George Pitcher writing in the Daily Mail concerning the death of Geraldine McCelland at Dignitas clinic in Zurich, see Geraldine-McClellands, asks us to consider two statements.

"You are in pain and feel humiliated. We agree with you that your life is not worth living. It's your life to do with what you wish, so go ahead and kill yourself. We will help you.

Or:

"You are in pain and feel humiliated. But your life is infinitely precious and is of equal value to anyone alive. We will support you and cherish you, but we won't help you to kill yourself. We will help you."

He goes on to state it is the second statement that that our society should offer as its moral choice. And it's the one which should continue to be protected in our law. In the above Pitcher goes seamlessly from offering us two statements to talking about moral choice. All choice moral or otherwise must involve options. If Pitcher really believes society should offer the terminally ill a moral choice then what are the options related to that choice? It seems to me the only choice Pitcher and those who hold similar views to him is between dying alone, probably in great pain, and receiving palliative care. This is not a meaningful choice. Of course society doesn’t always have to give its members choice. We cannot choose to drive at any speed we would like to on a motorway for instance. However ever since Mill it seems to be generally accepted that in a free society individuals have a right to make personal choices provided these choices do no significant harm to others. Indeed I would argue it is a necessary condition for a free society. Any society that does not permit individuals the right to make such choices is not really a free society. It may of course be a caring society. For instance such a society might prohibit the consumption of tobacco. However in such a society the state makes moral decisions rather than individuals. In the case of assisted suicide society is saying to those with a terminal illness we will help you but only as society sees best. I would suggest that such a society has nationalised morality and the result might possibly be a deeply caring society but it certainly is not a truly free society.

Someone like Pitcher might object that such a society is both a free and caring society by allowing people only to make choices that are best for them. The trouble with this argument is that someone is not really free if his choices are restricted to what is good for him. My objector might respond that someone should not be able to choose assisted suicide because it isn’t good for him but rather because such a choice harms others. His objection seems to be based on the premise that if the terminally ill can commit assisted suicide then the weak and the vulnerable are harmed. I will assume the reason they are harmed is because they might feel under pressure to do likewise. It is this reason I wish to question.

I now want to consider why the weak and old might feel under such pressure. I will not use the term ‘the vulnerable’ in this context because to be vulnerable is to be susceptible to pressure and it is this susceptibility to pressure I want to question. The weak and the old might feel vulnerable for two reasons. Firstly someone may feel vulnerable simply because he is weak or old. Secondly someone may feel vulnerable for some reason connected to their age and weakness but that reason is not simply one of age or weakness. For instance someone may feel vulnerable because he needs a catheter inserted up his penis due to old age rather than simply because he is old. I want to consider the second reason first. In its evidence to the above commission The British Geriatrics Society,

“emphasised the negative impact of low quality care, and the feeling they are not valued by society, on older people’s decision-making processes: In the experience of many geriatricians, the feeling of many older people that life is unbearable in its later stages is a direct result of the reaction of others to their frailty and the care and treatment they are afforded. Our concern then is that many older people, because of the care given to them by society in general and the NHS and Social Care system in particular, will perceive themselves as a burden and feel under pressure to end their lives.”

Perhaps then the weak and old might be vulnerable because they aren’t valued, they are simply existing. They have, to borrow a phrase, an unbearable lightness of simply being. According to Pitcher our attitude to the terminally ill should be one that sees their lives infinitely precious and of equal value to anyone alive. We should support and cherish them. Perhaps then this should be our attitude to all the old and weak rather than just the terminally ill. If the old and weak are supported and cherished they should not see themselves as a burden and hence should become less vulnerable. In which case there would be no need to protect them from feeling under pressure to commit assisted suicide provided this option was available.

My objector might respond even in this improved situation an old man with a catheter up his penis may still feel under pressure to take his own life. I agree he might well want to take his own life. But I would deny he is under pressure to do so. Clearly if we see the lives of the old as infinitely precious and cherish them this old man is not subject to outside pressure. If my objector replies he is under pressure from himself then I would suggest my objector doesn’t understand pressure. If my old man wants to take his own life and is under no outside pressure, he simply desires to take his life and the idea of pressure is irrelevant. I would suggest again that if we really think the lives of the terminally ill are precious then we should also think the lives of the weak and old are precious and hence address the causes of their vulnerability rather ban assisted suicide the terminally ill.

Now let us consider the second scenario in which a few of the weak and old might be vulnerable simply because they are weak and old. In this second scenario I am perfectly willing to admit again that someone who is weak or old might want to commit assisted suicide. But his want is once again caused by his desire due weakness and age not by pressure. I would suggest he would have this desire irrespective of whether or not the terminally ill can commit assisted suicide. Of course if the terminally ill can commit assisted suicide some of old and weak might claim it is a matter of justice that they can also do so. I will not enter into this debate here.

To conclude the following seems to hold. Opponents of right of to the terminally ill to commit assisted suicide argue that this practice should be illegal in order to protect the weak and old. They argue we should do this because we are a caring society. I have argued that provided we do care for and cherish the weak and old, in practice rather than simply talk about doing so, then the weak and old would feel under no pressure to commit assisted suicide even if the terminally ill could do so. If we ban assisted suicide for the terminally ill in these circumstances we have restricted freedom in our society because of a false illusion. If however we do not care for and cherish the weak and old, but nonetheless insist on banning assisted suicide because of the harm that might come to them, then we might rightly be accused of hypocrisy.

Aspergers, Autism and Love

In this posting I want to explore the way someone loves someone else on the autistic spectrum. This exploration is partly a personal exploration as one of my grandsons is on this spectrum. My exploration starts with Charles Foster’s remark that his son is dyslexic and that he is glad . I’m not glad about my grandson’s aspergers and my reaction is one of indifference. Some might think me a very hard hearted person and that Foster’s attitude is infinitely preferable to mine. But I will argue indifference to my grandson’s condition is the only reasonable position for me to take and that being either glad or sad are inappropriate. My indifference does not mean I am indifferent to him as a person. Prior to making my argument I must examine exactly what Foster is glad about.

Let it be accepted that Foster like all good parents is glad to have his son, is glad his son exists. But is there any connection between his natural gladness and dyslexia? What exactly is Foster glad about when talking about his son’s dyslexia? Firstly, Foster might be glad his son is dyslexic or secondly he might be glad his son has dyslexia? To answer the above questions it is important to differentiate clearly between what is meant by being dyslexic and having dyslexia. Being dyslexic means someone’s character is inevitably tied to his dyslexia; his dyslexia helps determine his character. Having dyslexia means someone suffers from dyslexia and that his character is not inevitably tied to his dyslexia. If Foster is glad his son has dyslexia then it is hard to see what he is being glad about in addition to being glad about having his son. It seems to me that Foster must mean he is glad that his son is dyslexic. In this context it seems if he is glad about his son he is glad about the dyslexia only because he believes his son’s dyslexia is inevitably tied to his son’s character; is inevitably tied to his son as a person. I am by no means convinced that dyslexia is inevitably tied to character as having dyslexia doesn’t appear to alter the underlying emotional structure of the dyslexic. I will not pursue this question further here. Unfortunately, aspergers syndrome affects someone’s underlying emotional structure which I believe means it is inevitably tied to his character.

In the light of the above am I not being both unreasonable and hardhearted with my indifference to my grandson’s aspergers? Am I not being indifferent to his character and perhaps even his essential being? Clearly it seems this is what Foster would believe. Before proceeding I had better clarify exactly what I mean by my being indifferent. Being indifferent means I hope that I am neither hard hearted nor callous, but on the other hand I’m not glad either. Moreover, my indifference is not simply a grudging one because I have no choice and wish things were otherwise. I simply accept my grandson’s condition. My acceptance, my indifference, is not expressed as some kind of emotion but rather as a lack of any desire on my part to change the situation. In addition my acceptance includes a lack of desire that the situation might have been different. In the light of some of my previous postings concerning the philosophy of Harry Frankfurt it is important to make it clear my acceptance is simply acceptance and is not a form of loving or ‘caring about’. Loving or ‘caring about’ involves the agent identifying himself with what he cares about. I simply accept or am indifferent to my grandson’s aspergers, to the cause of his character. However, there is no reason why my indifference should carry over to his actual character. This indifference should give no reason why I should fail to identify myself with him and what he ‘cares about’. I have no reason not to love him and many reasons to do so. Does Foster’s being glad at his son’s dyslexia involve any more than my simple acceptance? I’m not sure, but if it does doesn’t his gladness imply that if his son was not dyslexic he would be less happy?

Intuitively my indifference seems to make more sense than being glad about my grandson’s condition. However, should I be sad about his aspergers? Am I not wrong to be indifferent to this condition? I will argue I am not. Firstly, Foster believes if we could take away his son’s dyslexia he would be a different person. I’m not sure Foster is correct. However, I am sure that if we could take away my grandson’s aspergers he would be a different person. If I was sad about my grandson’s condition what exactly would I be sad about? I cannot be sad about him not being a more social person for this is impossible. As a more social person he would be a different person. Provided I cannot reasonably be sad he isn’t the same person but with additional talents then it would appear if I am sad I must be sad he is not someone else. It appears to follow I must be sad he exists provided that he could be replaced by someone else without aspergers syndrome. However, I love my grandson and I believe this love rules out such a thought. Someone might object that I could love someone else with additional talents instead. It is of course true I could love someone else, perhaps an additional grandchild, but I would argue I couldn’t love someone else instead. Frankfurt argues ‘caring about’ someone is equivalent to loving her. Caring about someone means you identify yourself with that person and become vulnerable to his losses and susceptible to what benefits him (1). Moreover, the lover is not free he is captivated by his beloved and his love. The will of the lover is rigorously constrained. Love is not a matter of choice (2). If I love my wife I can’t simply swap her for a younger woman with a Phd. My objector might counter that this is exactly what lovers do all the time especially rich middle aged men. I would counter argue that my objector is construing the terms ‘lover’ and ‘partner’ as being interchangeable. Partners need not be lovers. A patriot cannot simply swap the love of his country for a bigger and better one any more than a football supporter change his allegiance and support a more successful team. It seems inconceivable that a lover of Newcastle United could simply change his allegiance to a more successful team. It follows a lover cannot easily love someone else instead of his beloved. His love is constrained or captured by his beloved. It further follows that because I love my grandson I cannot want to replace my grandson by someone else. It still further follows that I have no reason to be sad about his aspergers and hence my indifference to this condition is a perfectly reasonable.

Nevertheless, even if it is accepted my indifference to his condition is a reasonable position a personally awkward question arises.  People are easily deluded and perhaps I am deluding myself when I say I don’t see why his condition should make me love him less? Perhaps all I'm doing is adopting a stoical attitude and stoics have problems with love, see why I'm not a stoic. I suggested above if you love someone you identify yourself with him and become vulnerable to his losses and susceptible to what benefits him. You ‘care about’ his interests. Accepting the above my objector might suggest that I must care less about my grandson because his aspergers means his interests make it more difficult for me to ‘care about’ him. This lessening of my ability to care might occur for two reasons. First it might be suggested someone with aspergers has narrower interests than most people. Second it might be suggested that even if someone with aspergers does not have fewer interests than most people that nonetheless he has different interests. This second suggestion seems plausible after all someone with aspergers often has difficulty with social relationships and these are of major concern to most people. Moreover, those with aspergers are attracted by routine and order. My objector might now proceed to point out most people find it more difficult to ‘care about’ routine and order rather than social relationships. This follows because to ‘care about’ requires an emotional response. She might then argue this difficulty causes me to love my grandson to a lesser degree due to his aspergers.

If this is all there is to loving then I have to concede that my objector might well have a point and even if I am not being hypocritical I might nonetheless be deluding myself about the true extent of my love. Perhaps for instance I am deluding myself because I love my daughter. Perhaps however there is more to loving, ‘caring about’, than making yourself vulnerable to your beloved’s losses and benefits. The important question is this, do you simply identify with your beloved and this means you become vulnerable to his losses and benefits? Or do you simply become vulnerable to his losses and benefits? I am inclined to favour the first option. However my objector might well ask me if I could love someone who was in a coma and had nothing that would consciously benefit or harm him. She might proceed to further stipulate this person has always been in a coma in order to rule out my being swayed by anything that would previously have consciously benefited or harmed him. Being truthful I would have to admit I could not identify with such a person. Nonetheless I am reluctant to accept the second option as it seems imply that the lover simply loves the properties of the beloved rather than the beloved. This the position Plato adopted in the symposium.

In order to consider whether I love my grandson to a lesser degree because of his aspergers I want to consider loving from a different angle. Do I love someone when I am asleep or when I am concentrating hard on something else. When sleeping and at certain particular moments it seems clear I am not actively loving, ‘caring about’, my beloved. Does the above lead to the conclusion that at these moments I do not love my beloved? Most people would be reluctant to accept such a conclusion as it is so counter intuitive. If such a conclusion is unacceptable then it would appear loving someone involves both actually ‘caring about’ a beloved’s interests and having a disposition to ‘care about’ these interests. My objector might nonetheless continue to suggest that a disposition to ‘care about’ is not an essential part of loving someone; loving someone should only concern actual ‘caring about’. However, accepting my objector’s suggestion seems to mean accepting that loving someone is really a series of discrete disconnected events separated by periods when the lover’s concentration is focussed elsewhere. It also seems to mean accepting if you love someone today there is no reason why you should love him tomorrow. Whatever my objector may believe love is not at all like this. One of the elements of love is persistence. We question whether a fickle lover really loves or understands the demands of love. If the process of actually loving cannot be sustained continuously over very long periods of time then it seems the demand for persistence can only be met by a lover having a disposition to ‘care about’ his beloved. It follows loving someone involves both being actually ‘caring about’ a beloved’s interests and having a disposition to ‘care about’ these interests.

In the light of the above discussion do I love my grandson any less because of his aspergers? Clearly my disposition to ‘care about’ what he cares about is the same as my disposition to ‘care about’ the things my other grandchildren care about. It follows in this sense of loving I do not love him less. Moreover, when I am actively loving him, ‘caring about’ his interests I become absorbed by this activity and I see no reason why my ‘caring about’, loving, him is of to a lesser degree. Nonetheless because some of his interests may make it harder for him to share these interests with me this might mean that I whilst I always have a disposition to love him that in practices I actively love him less often. This is a highly uncomfortable conclusion for me. However, if I accept it, and after some reflection I am inclined to do so, then I must make a greater effort to make it easier for him to share these interests with me.

1.    Frankfurt, H. (1988) The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press page 83.

2.   Frankfurt, H. (1999) Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 135.

The virtue of forgiveness

Ernesto Garcia argues we have a moral duty to forgive but that this duty need not necessarily involve giving up resentment (1). In this posting I am going to suggest the opposite; that we should always give up resentment but that we should not always forgive.

Garcia argues there are two levels of forgiveness. Firstly there is our personal relationship with the wrongdoer and secondly we way we see his relationship with the moral community. When Garcia talks about forgiveness he means readmitting the wrongdoer to the moral community. He does not believe that this re-admittance must necessarily involve overcoming the negative emotions we feel towards him. However I would worry that readmitting the wrongdoer to the moral community without giving up resentment might be difficult to achieve in practice. Our moral concerns and emotions are not easily separated. Many philosophers from David Hume to Shaun Nichols have pointed out there is an emotive element in moral relationships. Resentment is an emotion. It follows if we hold on to resentment as suggested by Garcia it might be difficult in practice for us to forgive at the second level.

Before attempting to answer the question, as to what is involved in reaccepting a wrongdoer back into the moral community, the domain of persons needing forgiveness by this reacceptance must be clearly specified. Let it be assumed my wife and family have been murdered by someone who is delusional. Let it be further assumed that he can never be cured of his delusions. Such a person never was and never will be part of our moral community and hence cannot be reaccepted back into it. Such a person of course should be part of our moral concern but then so should animals. Secondly if a drunken driver crashes into my car causing me harm but also causing brain damage to himself which means he will never again be part of the moral community then once again he is of moral concern but there is no question of his being reaccepted back into that community. I would suggest such a person was a wrongdoer but he is not now a wrongdoer and as such is not in need of forgiveness. Lastly if my grandchild, age two pulls, my hair there is no question of his needing forgiveness and needing reacceptance back into our moral community because he isn’t yet part of that community. He is of course again of moral concern and hopefully will one day be admitted to our moral community but his admittance is independent of his previous actions. Wrongdoers who might be forgiven are only those people who at the time of their wrongdoing were part of the moral community and can again be part of that community.

Should we always forgive wrongdoers by reaccepting them back into the moral community? Should we unilaterally forgive wrongdoers who do not apologise by this reacceptance? Whether we should seems to depend on what this reacceptance involves. If reacceptance simply involves the recognition of the wrongdoer as a creature like us who can make moral decisions and be held accountable for these decisions then of course we should do so. Indeed I would argue the very idea of a wrongdoer depends on regarding him as someone who was and could again be part of the moral community. However there is a difference between accepting that someone can be part of the moral community and someone is part of that community. In what follows forgiving wrongdoers means accepting someone once again is part of the moral community. What does it mean to accept someone is part of a moral community? Garcia believes acceptance involves normal­ized moral relationships and these relationships involve impartial goodwill and civility towards him as a fellow human being. Garcia further believes we are morally obligated to normalize relations with wrongdoers and treat them with civility (2).

If someone unjustifiably harms us should we unilaterally accept that he is part of the moral community rather than just someone who could be part of this community? Garcia believes this acceptance involves impartial goodwill and civility. I agree with Garcia that once our initial anger at the harm we suffered fades we should treat the wrongdoer with civility. Should we also treat the wrongdoer with impartial goodwill? Perhaps we should. However treating someone with civility and extending our impartial goodwill towards him is not all that is involved in restoring a normalized moral relationship. After my grandchild has pulled my hair I remain pleasant with him and he retains my impartial goodwill but there is no moral relationship to be restored. It is important distinguish between my moral concern and moral relationships. Moral concern involves caring about, empathy and beneficence. Moral relationships include these elements but also include trust. It follows the normalization of moral relations involves the re-establishment of trust. Trust is very important to our decision making for as O’Neill points an inability to trust produces a total paralysis of action, see (3) If we accept the centrality of restoring trust to the restoration of normal moral relations, when we are unjustifiably harmed, then two questions naturally arise. Firstly can we unconditionally trust the wrongdoer again and secondly should we?

If someone unjustifiably harms us we are more cautious in our future dealings with him and naturally become more suspicious of his motives. However some people are naturally more suspicious than most and others are more trusting. It certainly seems possible to trust a wrongdoer again event though this might prove to be difficult to achieve in practice as I have suggested above. Should we then trust the wrongdoer? This question splits into two. Firstly should we trust the wrongdoer for prudential reasons and secondly should we trust him for moral reasons. Whether we should trust a wrongdoer for prudential reasons seems to depend on his actions post his wrongdoing. If he fails to apologise and promise not to repeat his wrongdoing and we unilaterally trust him then we would seem to be guilty of gullibility. In this context we should not trust the wrongdoer. If however the wrongdoer apologises and promises not to repeat the wrong whether we should trust him again depends on two judgements. Firstly do we judge his apology and promise to be sincere and secondly if we judge his promise to be sincere do we judge him to be capable of carrying out this promise.

Nevertheless it remains a possibility that we should unilaterally trust a wrongdoer for moral reasons. At this point I should note I have a worry as to whether prudential and moral reasons can be completely disentangled. However for the sake of the argument I will put this worry to one side. It might be suggested that by unilaterally trusting wrongdoers we set them an example and hopefully they might come to emulate our good behaviour. It might be further suggested this is exactly what a good or virtuous person would do. I would reject these suggestions for three reasons. Firstly the virtuous person, at least in the Aristotelian sense, seems to aim at some mean. Intuitively the unilateral restoration of trust seems to breach the mean between being too gullible and too suspicious. Secondly the unilateral restoration of trust seems to over emphasise the virtue of beneficence whilst underplaying that of justice. Lastly virtue ethics is concerned with character. It seems to me virtue ethics must be concerned with the good character of others. If it were not would virtue ethics be an ethical system at all? It further seems if someone unilaterally trusts a wrongdoer hoping to set him an example, he might come to emulate, that she might be more concerned with her character than that of the wrongdoer. Let it be accepted a wrongdoer who apologises for his wrongdoing displays better character than a wrongdoer who does not. If someone unilaterally forgives all wrongdoers then she fails to differentiate between wrongdoers who apologise and those who do not. It follows she fails to pay attention to the character of the wrongdoer. An objector might attempt to rebut the above argument. She might argue an agent should only be concerned with her good character and creating the circumstances in which others can express their good character. She might further argue if we attempt to shape another’s character that all we really do is shape his behaviour rather than his character. For instance, if a wrongdoer apologises solely due to our reluctance to forgive his apology would be insincere and his character remain unreformed. She might then conclude the only way we should seek to change the character of others is by example. I would reject my objector’s argument because it is based on a view of the way we become virtuous which I would reject. My objector seems to believe someone becomes virtuous simply by copying the virtuous. I would suggest as does Julia Annas that if someone becomes virtuous simply by copying he might come to merely mimic virtue rather than be truly virtuous, see (4). I would agree with Annas that if we are to become truly virtuous that this requires learning. Learning requires understanding and that understanding sometimes has to taught rather than simply acquired through observation. Being taught why apology is sometimes necessary means expressing our disapproval by expressing what is wrong with the wrongdoer’s actions rather than simply unilaterally forgiving.

However not everyone is a virtue ethicist. Should we unilaterally trust a wrongdoer for moral reasons independent of virtue? It seems clear that part of any ethical system must be some sort of duty at least to preserve and perhaps even enhance moral relationships. It also seems clear moral relationships depend on some norms, some rules of behaviour. In practice we expect people to act morally. We don’t usually check whether others are behaving morally towards we simply trust them. For any system of morality to be reasonably functional we have to take a view of others based on trust, see O’Neill above. A wrongdoer can harm us in many different ways but if we are aware of his wrongdoing then he always harms us by damaging our trust. It might be objected this damage is restricted solely to us as persons and need not of necessity damage our moral relationships. It then might be further objected trusting is not part of a moral relationship. Trusting is only of instrumental value in preserving this relationship. Trust might be seen simply as a lubricant that oils the machinery of morality. I accept trust is instrumental in preserving moral relationships and oils the machinery of morality. Let it be accepted trust helps preserve moral relationships. However if we also accept we have a duty at least to preserve moral relationships then trusting others is also part of moral relationships and we have a duty to preserve. I would suggest that we are less likely to trust wrongdoers who do not seek forgiveness than wrongdoers who do. I would further suggest that unilaterally trusting wrongdoers is likely to make at least some wrongdoers less likely to seek forgiveness. It follows we should not unilaterally forgive wrongdoers as this will make them less likely to seek forgiveness damaging trust which in damages, rather than preserves, moral relationships.

At this point someone might object basing forgiveness purely on the restoration of moral relations restricts the domain of forgiveness. My objector might use the example of Eric Lomax who forgave Nagase Takashi (5). In 1942 Lomax was forced to build the Burma to Siam railway. During this time he was tortured and Takashi was the translator present. Lomax developed a deep hatred of the Japanese and this hatred was focussed on Takashi. Fifty years later Lomax met and forgave Takashi. Lomax wrote “meeting Nagase has turned him from a hated enemy, with whom friendship would have been unthinkable, into a blood brother”. My objector might point out in cases of forgiveness such as this it is possible that the participants will never met again. She might further point out any relationship between such participants will be non existent or extremely limited. In the light of the above she might then suggest we would do better to consider forgiveness in terms of the restoration of moral standing rather than moral relationships. She might argue that doing so would increase the domain of forgiveness. This expanded domain she might suggest would include people who are separated by large distances and who will have no future contact. I accept that the restoration of moral standing is important but I don’t believe moral standing can be detached from moral relationships. Moral standing is not simply moral concern. If we restore someone’s moral standing we must of necessity see them as someone who we could enter a moral relationship with, someone we could trust.

At the beginning of this posting I suggested we should do as Bishop Butler suggested and let go of our resentment towards wrongdoers. For Bishop Butlers forgiveness and the subsequent letting go of resentment is a moral matter. I have argued above we should not readmit a wrongdoer back into the moral community without an apology. It follows I do not believe holding on to resentment is necessary for us express our moral disapproval. I do however believe we should let go of resentment for prudential reasons. A resentful person is basically someone who characteristically sees himself as being undervalued whilst at the same time not expressing this feeling. This feeling when unresolved can become an emotionally debilitating condition. People who don’t have the ability to express this feeling of being undervalued run the risk of undervaluing themselves because of this inability. It seems clear having a resentful character harms an agent. However it is important to differentiate between having a resentful character and simply being morally resentful. Moral resentment involves seeing ourselves as someone who has been wronged. Moral resentment is connected to anger and indignation. I would suggest these are simple emotions which do not contain a cognitive element whilst moral resentment does. I would further suggest anger and indignation express our outrage at the wrong done to us and then like any emotion, free of a cognitive element, fade. However it seems to me moral resentment if unexpressed by anger or indignation may well persist because it contains a cognitive element. This persistence means the agent runs the risk of acquiring a resentful character which is harmful. In the light of the above it seems it would be better for someone who has been morally wronged to express his anger and indignation and let go of moral resentment even if he excludes the wrongdoer from those he regards as part of the normal moral community.

1. Ernesto Garcia, 2011 Bishop Butler on Forgiveness and Resentment, Philosophers Imprint, 11(10).
2. Garcia, page 17.
3. Onora O’Niell, 2002, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, page 12).
4. Julia Annas, 2011, Intelligent virtue, Oxford, page 17).
5. Eric Lomax, 1995, The Railway Man, Vintage.

Decreasing Violence

Steven Pinker argues in (The Better Angels of our Nature, 2011, Viking) that in the more advanced countries of the world our propensity for violence is decreasing. He gives various reasons to support his argument. One of the main reasons he gives is that since the enlightenment we have become more rational. John Gray writes that Pinker’s conclusion is nonsense; see (Prospect October 2011). Gray believes “the idea that humans can shape their lives by the use of reason is an inheritance from rationalist philosophy that does not sit easily with what we know of the evolution of our mammalian brain”. In this posting I will suggest our increasing ability to use reason effectively provides some limited support for Pinker’s thesis.

Before proceeding I want to make two points clear. Firstly reason is not simply some product of the evolution of our brain. Of course I accept that the capacity to reason is the product of our brain’s evolution nevertheless I still believe reason is not simply a product of the brain. Reason is something our brain’s increasing capacity allowed us to discover. AI does not depend on simply building bigger more intelligent machines. AI depends on the idea that we might build a machine with the capacity to become intelligent by reacting with some environment that is independent of the machine itself. Secondly I accept Hume’s point that reason is the slave of the passions. I would however distinguish between higher and lower passions. For instance fear might be seen as a simple physiological fact whilst resentment would seem to include a cognitive element.

If it is accepted that Hume is correct how can our increasing reason support Pinker’s thesis? Surely our goals are determined by our passions and reason is only instrumental in achieving these goals. Two responses are possible to the above. Firstly a great deal of violence is caused by nations and religions and it might be questioned whether either nations or religions have passions. They may of course encourage passions but this is not the same as actually having passions. Secondly I have suggested there is a difference between higher and lower passions. Higher passions seem to include a cognitive element, include reason. I would further suggest a great deal of large scale violence such as wars and repression is not caused by lower passions such as anger but by higher passions. If my suggestions are accepted then it seems possible that an increase in reason may indeed lower the scale of violence because higher passions contain a cognitive element. Increasing reason may of course do little to reduce domestic violence.

Someone might object the above is just a house of cards. She might point out there is no evidence for our increasing reason. I accept her point. I certainly don’t believe I am any more rational than Plato or that people in general are today more rational than for instance the population of ancient Athens. However my argument does not simply depend on our increased rationality. My argument depends on our increased ability to use reason effectively. This increase is not due to any increase in our brain capacity. As I suggested above simply increasing a computer’s capacity to compute will not make it intelligent. My increased ability is based on an increase in knowledge, on what I take to be true. I am not naturally more rational than Plato however I live in more knowledgeable times enabling me to use the rationality I possess better. I simply know more than Plato.

Might our increasing when reasoning effectively support Pinker’s thesis? It appears that Stephen Hawking would not. He has suggested if aliens are anything like us they are likely to be aggressive and either exterminate us or pillage our resources. It seems safe to assume any aliens, who can cross interstellar space, would have at least as great an ability to reason as us, see my posting of 25/05/10. In that posting I suggested any intelligent creature must feel some empathy. I then argued increasing knowledge naturally leads to increasing empathy because this knowledge forces us to see other people or intelligent creatures as entities that care about things in the same way as we do. I further argued this increasing empathy increases the domain of our empathic concern. If my arguments are accepted it would seem increasing our ability to reason effectively will reduce violence because it increases the domain of our empathic concern. A second reason might be advanced to support Pinker’s thesis. Let it be accepted Hume is correct and that our goals are determined by our emotions. However our increasing knowledge might tell us some goals are unattainable and that we would not appreciate some other goals even if we attained them. It might then be even if our goals are solely determined by our emotions that nevertheless reason determines which of our emotions determine goals. It is then plausible that our increasing ability to reason effectively rules some emotions, which would produce violence, as reasons to act.

Can Consent be Presumed?

Proponents of an opt out scheme of organ donation seem to assume that in such a scheme, provided someone has not opted out, his consent for organ donation may be presumed. Govert Den Hartogh argues out such an assumption is unsound (1). In this posting I will briefly outline Den Hartogh’s argument. I will accept his argument. Nevertheless I will then argue that nonetheless an opt out scheme still respects donor autonomy.

Consent is roughly defined as the giving of agreement or permission for some act. Clearly the dead cannot give their permission for organ removal. Proponents of an opt out donation scheme argue someone’s consent may be presumed provided he hasn’t opted out of the scheme. Den Hartogh argues “presumed consent” depends on a particular conception of consent. The mental state conception of consent “according to which consent to an action refers to a disposition to prefer or wish or desire that action to be done” (2). “Presumed consent” means it may be presumed that a donor had a disposition to donate her organs and by transplanting some of her organs a transplant team are simply fulfilling her wishes. It is clear that not all potential donors who have failed to opt out had would have had a disposition to donate at the time of donation. It follows that accepting presumed consent would mean accepting that some people who did not have a disposition to have their organs transplanted would nevertheless have had these organs transplanted. It further follows that “presumed consent” as defined above would be better described as “probabilistic presumed consent”. “Probabilistic presumed consent” simply means it was more probable a potential donor had had a disposition to donate than he did not. There are two problems associated with “probabilistic presumed consent”. Firstly accepting “probabilistic presumed consent” seems also to presume the majority of potential donors did have a disposition to donate. However as Den Hartogh points out evidence from the Netherlands would suggest this presumption may be unsound (3). Howevereven if we accept that a majority of potential donors did in fact have a disposition to donate why should we accept this majority view? After all in criminal cases jurors do not presume the defendant guilty because the majority of the evidence points to his guilt. The evidence must be overwhelming, beyond reasonable doubt.

More importantly in my opinion Den Hartogh argues the underlying conception of consent as a disposition to prefer, wish or desire that action is done is unsound. He argues that any form of genuine consent must involve the idea of authorisation. Possibly someone who has died and made a valid will might be said to have authorised some action. However if he has not made a will the idea of his presumed authorisation clearly seems nonsensical. It follows provided we accept Den Hartogh’s arguments that “presumed consent” is a fiction and hence not really a form of consent.

If we accept “presumed consent” is not a genuine form of consent does this mean that doctors should only be able to transplant organs from those who have registered as donors? I will now argue it does not. I will argue however even though “presumed consent” is meaningless in the context of organ donation it does not follow we cannot take healthy organs from donors who have not opted out. The reason why consent is central to medical ethics is respect for autonomy. Because I have argued consent is meaningless in this context I will base my argument directly on respect for autonomy. Den Hartogh believes when we presume someone consents the following holds. There is no compelling evidence to hold that someone would consent, nevertheless we proceed as if he had consented, unless there is sufficient evidence to show he wouldn’t have consented (4). In an opt out system we only have probabilistic evidence a donor might have consented to donate his organs. However I will now argue we do have evidence that a potential donor who did not opt did not care much about what might happen to his organs after his death. If he had cared enough he would have opted out. Autonomy is linked to caring about. If someone cares about nothing he is merely a wanton and it is difficult to see how he can lead any sort of coherent life. If autonomy is based on caring about then an opt out system offers evidence that a potential donor, who had not opted out, would not have made an autonomous decision to refuse to give consent to the removal of his organs. It follows we have some grounds to presume that if we transplant his organs we are not disrespecting his autonomy.

In the light of the above it seems reasonable to conclude that an opt out system of organ donation might be justified by respect for donor autonomy. And that it is permissible to transplant organs from all potential donors who have not opted out of the system. At this point I want to make it exactly clear what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting a potential donor would have made an autonomous decision to donate had he been in a position to do so. What I am suggesting is that a potential donor is someone who would not have made an autonomous decision not to donate. I would further suggest the needs of the potential recipients of his organs means we are justified in taking these organs provided he has not opted out.

It might be objected that if an opt out system is introduced some people who would have made an autonomous decision not to donate will not opt out because they were unaware of the need to do so. I accept my objectors point. However it seems to me her objection can be nullified to some extent provided the introduction of an opt out system is given sufficient publicity. My objector might then further object that some time after the introduction of the scheme people’s awareness of the need to opt out if they don’t wish to have their organs transplanted will diminish. I accept my objector’s further point. However once again I think this point may also be nullified to some extent. If an opt out system of organ donation is not to infringe donors autonomy must include an ongoing information program. Respecting autonomy involves making sure people have the opportunity to exercise their autonomy it does not involve ensuring they actually do so. This information should actively be made available in doctor’s surgeries and perhaps taught as part of citizenship in schools. Providing such information should not be costly. It follows that provided such information continues to be provided that an opt out system of organ donation will not lead to a diminishment of people’s awareness of the need to opt out if they don’t want to have their organs transplanted. Finally my objector might object that even if people are for the most part aware of the need to opt out that some people who don’t wish to have their organs available for transplant might delay doing so. She might suggest any opt out system does not fully respect the autonomy of these people. I would reject this last objection. Respecting autonomy involves making sure people have the opportunity to exercise their autonomy; it does not involve ensuring they actually do so.

1. Govert Den Hartogh, 2011, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 28(3)
2. Den Hartogh, page 296.
3. Den Hartogh, page 299.
4. Den Hartogh , page 297

Riots and the Unbearable Lightness of Simply Being

Recently in the UK large quantities of people went onto the streets to loot, attack the police and create general mayhem. I’m not sure whether such behaviour is best described as rioting, looting or a combination of the two; nevertheless in this posting for reasons of simplicity I will use the terms riots and rioters to describe such behaviour and those who took part. There are many causes of these riots, greed, gangs, unemployment and poor education may all play a part. However in this posting I want to consider only one reason why these riots occurred and what might be done to help. I want primarily to consider the mental state of the rioters. It might be thought that this state was mainly characterised by anger justified or not. I reject this characteristic and will suggest an even more characteristic of many of the rioters was an absence of caring about anything. The title of one of Milan Kundera’s novels is ‘The unbearable lightness of being’ in this posting I will suggest a major cause of this lawlessness was the rioters’ sense of the unbearable lightness of simply being.

What exactly do I mean by the unbearable lightness of simply being? I mean an absence of really caring about anything which inevitably leads to a sense of inner emptiness and a shallow way of living. What then do I mean by caring? As in previous posts I will use the term care in the way Frankfurt uses the term. Someone who cares about something identifies herself with what she cares about. She is hurt or benefited depending on whether the thing she cares about is damaged or enhanced (1). The person who cares about something is contrasted to a wanton. A wanton is someone moved by mere impulse and inclination and someone to whom nothing matters much (2). It is clear a wanton is not someone who is merely alienated from society. An alienated person must care about something in order to be alienated. I suggest human beings by their nature must care about something. Frankfurt argues that anyone who doesn’t care about anything including herself is not really a person (3), see also my previous postings concerning robots robethics and autonomy .  In reality there is of course a continuum between people who care a great deal about something and people who care very little about anything at all. I would further suggest if someone doesn’t  care much about anything that she will have a sense of simply being. Someone who has a sense of simply being is likely to find this state unbearable, because as I have suggested human beings have a natural propensity to care. Such a person a person will be bored leading to frustration rather than anger. Boredom is not some trivial unimportant state. Boredom is a state of simply being. Frankfurt argues quite rightly in my opinion that our interest in avoiding boredom is not simply resistance to discomfort but a quite elemental urge for psychic survival (4). One consequence of boredom is that a bored person may be easily swayed by emotions such as greed to loot. A further consequence is that a bored person may seek temporarily relief from her discomfort at her sense of simply being by rioting.

I have argued anyone who cares very little about anything can quite easily become a rioter. But why should someone who cares about something in her life be less likely to become a rioter? Firstly if someone cares about something then because she identifies herself with what she cares about her life is not empty. She doesn’t have that sense of the unbearable lightness of simply being in the way a wanton does. She doesn’t have this unpleasant state to relieve. Secondly someone who cares about something is likely to have a more distinct individuality than some who cares very little about anything and is thus less likely to follow the herd, see my previous posting. A lack of distinct individuality may be particularly important in the case of teenagers. Lastly someone who cares about something is likely to take deterrents seriously because these might harm what she cares about. Conversely someone who cares very little about anything is unlikely to take these deterrents seriously. Accepting this last point suggests current deterrent sentencing is unlikely to prove to be very effective.

If my analysis is accepted and a fundamental cause of the riots was, the rioters’ sense of the unbearable lightness of simply being, what steps might be taken to alleviate this sense and hence reduce the probability of future rioting? One obvious answer would seem to be better education. Firstly a better education might help someone get a job and this job might alleviate her sense simply being. I of course accept the fact that someone has a job does not automatically mean her sense of simply being is alleviated. It is also true that some of the rioters had jobs. Nevertheless I would argue being employed will in all probability alleviate this sense to some degree. Secondly a better education might allow some to gain a sense of achievement. Someone with a sense of achievement is unlike the wanton in that she must care about herself to some degree. It follows educational achievement might alleviate someone’s sense of simply being. However in the present economic climate there are not enough jobs to satisfy everyone and some people will never obtain a sense of achievement by academic means. Unfortunately it follows that better education will not be very effective in alleviating this sense of simply being for many people.

Are there any other steps that might be taken? I my previous posting I stressed the importance of good parenting and attachment theory. I believe people who where well attached as children are likely as adults to care about something and as a result are less likely to have a sense of simply being. I will not pursue this argument here. Secondly David Cameron has suggested that all sixteen olds should do some sort of civil service. Such a scheme might well mean that some sixteen year olds care about something and this caring might well help alleviate the sense some of them have of simply being. However not all sixteen year olds will gain this sense of caring. Many might see any such scheme as imposed on them and hence alien to them. Moreover such a scheme would be of limited duration. Nevertheless such a scheme might be of some limited value. Thirdly happy people have less of a sense of simply being and we should actively encourage policies that promote happiness, see action for happiness . Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, sport and music might be something which those who have failed at education, or who the education system has failed, might care about. Such caring might alleviate their unbearable sense of simply being for those who participate. It follows youth services promoting sport and music should be vigorously encouraged. Unfortunately in the present economic climate these services are likely to under financial pressure.

1. Frankfurt 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 83.
2. Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 106.
3. Frankfurt, 1999, page 90.
4. Frankfurt, 1999, page 89.