|
Tuesday, 06 February 2007 15:41 |
By JOHN NORTH
HENDERSONVILLE ÇƒÓ In determining when it is ethical to break promises, the paramount considerations are giving the interests of the group precedence over any individual ÇƒÓ surpassed only by the perpetuation of the species, according to Charles Rowe in a Jan. 16 lecture at UNC Ashevilleës Kellogg Center.
Roweës presentation, titled "Promise-Keeping in Ethics," drew about 45 people to the monthly Great Quotes series co-sponsored by the the UNCA Philosophy Department and the Institute for Applied Philosophy. Rowe, an Asheville resident and IAP member, is author of "The Reconciliation of Christ and Nietzsche."
Rowe
based his presentation around a quote of Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
in "The Prince" ÇƒÓ "... a wise prince cannot and should not keep his
pledge when it is against his interest to do so and when his reasons
for making the pledge are no longer operative."
On a lighter
note and in a pragmatic mode, Rowe cited a quote of St. Augustine, when
he was age 32 ÇƒÓ "Give me chastity," he prayed, "but not yet."
In his lecture, Rowe:
ï Used
Machiavelli as a "lightning rod" to discuss the issues of keeping and
breaking promises as a focus for determining ethical behavior.
ï Shared his viewpoint regarding an approach to determining ethical behavior.
ï Examined the two general approaches for determining ethical behavior and presented where Machiavelli fits in.
ï Reviewed one Native American approach for determining ethical behavior.
Rowe cited
several dictionary definitions of the term "Machiavellian," one of
which was "being or acting in accordance with the principles of
government analyzed in ǃÚThe Prince,ë" with political expediency "placed
above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the
authority and carry out the politics of a ruler...."
Circumstances
that can jeopardize promise-keeping, Rowe said, could include too
little information available when the promise was made, promises made
under duress and the time gap that occurs between when the promise was
made and the fulfillment of the promise.
"Why can we ever
consider breaking a promise?" he asked, rhetorically. In answer, Rowe
cited a quote from what he termed "another potential promise-breaker" ǃÓ
whom he identified at the end of his lecture as Abraham Lincoln: "As
bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad
promise and break it, whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it is
adverse to the public interest."
Rowe asked the
audience to consider the following question: "Can anything replace the
importance of perpetuation of the species?"
To that end, he presented the following conundrum for consideration:
"______ is so important that I will follow ________ës dictates even if so doing will contribute to the extinction of humanity."
Rowe then
presented the perpetuation of the species as "the greatest good,"
adding that "the greater good that contributes to this goal is
perpetuation of the various groups that make up humanity."
He contended that "the group is more important than the individual," leaving "selfishness as the bete noire of ethics."
As for how this
philosophy plays out in daily life, he asked, "Do we discard such
cherished values as justice and our obligation to others?
"Of course not!"
Rowe said, adding, "We do acknowledge that the greatest injustice would
be to permit the extinction of humanity and our greatest obligation is
to ensure that our grandchildrenës grandchildren have the opportunity
to exist."
The
aforementioned helps one to understand whether to keep promises, he
noted, because "within any group, keeping promises is important, but
keeping promises is not the goal. The goal is the survival of the group
and the perpetuation of the species."
He added,
"Ultimately, it is for the good of the group that we keep promises and,
therefore, if it is bad for the group to keep a promise, then ethically
we are obligated to break the promise."
Next, Rowe
paraphrased U.S. historian-author Will Durant regarding Machiavelli as
follows: "His is a political philosophy. There is no metaphysics, no
theology, no theism, no atheism, no discussion of determinism or free
will. Ethics itself is shoved aside as almost a tool of politics. He is
interested in states, and individuals are seen merely as members of the
state."
In citing two
general approaches to appropriate behavior in ethics, Rowe included:
(1) a person must be virtuous, which results in the means justifies the
ends and (2) one determines what goal or consequence is most important
and acts accordingly, which translates into the ends justifying the
means.
As for
Machiavelli, Rowe asked, "Has there ever been a more blatant
consequentialist?" He added, "ǃÚThe Princeë is about preserving the
state. To achieve this goal, this consequence, any and all means are
acceptable."
From "The
Prince," Rowe cited Machiavelliës assertion that "the prince would do
well to seem to be, and to actually be, merciful, faithful, humane,
frank and relgious. But he should preserve a disposition which will
make a reversal of conduct possible in case the need arise."
Thus, Rowe said, one is left with the following conclusions regarding keeping promises:
ï One must
recognize that if he does not agree with the goal, he does not have to
agree with the behavior to have that goal achieved.
ï Conversely, if
one agrees with an objective goal, such as perpetuation of the species,
there is no doubt there will be situations where a Machiavellian
approach "will appropriately and ethically apply,"
Rowe said. "We
cannot abandon what is for what we think should be."
Rowe also cited
a theory of ethics based on perpetuation of the species, which, he
said, "is fundamentally the same as the Iriquois American Indian
tradition of the seventh generation."
Specifically, he noted, "The
first mandate is to ensure that decision-making is guided by
consideration of the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation
to come. It is a practical guide to specific moral decision-making."
As for Lincoln,
Rowe cited an open letter the then-president had written to New York
journalist-politician Horace Greeley: "My paramount object in this
struggle is to save the union and it not either to save or destroy
slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would
do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it;
and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I
would do that."
Rowe finished
his lecture by quoting Oren Lyons, a chief of the Onandaga, a tribe of
the Iriquois League: "Walk carefully, there are generations coming one
after the other."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
