Introduction to Ethics

Photo: Colleen Hayes / NBC.

Generally speaking, Deontological approaches maintain that there are moral factors and considerations beyond the goodness of outcomes. In justifying such a position, defenders often appeal to some shared feature applying to all persons, which sets up limits and constraints on how we can treat each other. This may allow us to formulate the notion of a common (or shared) good for Deontology that might stand in contrast with the greater good of Utilitarianism. In orienting us to this issue, the November 2015 Paris attacks provide an illuminating real-world situation for considering the nature of threats to the common good.

For this module, there are three learning outcomes. When done, you will be able to…

Explain the three types of information an appeal to the common good involves,
Compare and contrast how the Corporate Conception and Generic Interests Conception understand threats to the common good, and
Apply those two conceptions to how countries ought to approach concerns with national security and individual rights.

Read This:

Threats to the Common Good

Paris Attacks: Security and individual rights

Context

Utilitarianism appears to rest on the assumption that the utility of the group should be distinguished from the utility of each of its individual members. One consequence of this view is that certain actions, typically regarded as immoral (like torturing innocents), are permissible during emergencies if done to promote the greater good of the group.

In the last module, we saw Michael Walzer’s response to this problem. He treats it as an instance of a moral dilemma, where an emergency may permit a leader to “dirty their hands” by sacrificing the interests of the few for the interests of the group.

American philosopher Alex John London, however, presents a different approach. He argues that the conception of the good endorsed by utilitarianism—and seemingly also by Walzer—is problematic while a more promising alternative exists. By replacing a concern for the greater good (which London identifies as a “corporate conception”) with a concern for the common good (which London calls the “generic interests conception”), violating individual rights may not be considered a viable alternative.

Do not let London’s focus on the ethics of medical research during times of crisis fool you. The application of his views to decision making during any emergency should quickly become apparent. To illustrate, I have included a partial transcript of a Weekend discussion, hosted by Paul Henley, about the November 2015 attacks in Paris. These attacks provide a very real crisis where individual rights seem to come into conflict with the greater good of society. In such a case, what does a concern for the common good demand?

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

Alex John London argues that appeals to the common good necessarily involve three sorts of claims:

A.	A normative claim,
B.	A triggering condition, and
C.	A practical constraint.

What are each of these and how to they come together to provide “very specific parameters on the kind of information that is relevant” (London, 2003, p. 18) in an appeal to the common good?

What is the “corporate conception of the common good” (London, 2003, p. 19)? What are the two types of interests that it contrasts? Why does this conception put a lot of emphasis on the triggering conditions and less emphasis on the practical constraints?
Why does London believe the corporate conception is both too broad and too narrow? Why does Utilitarianism seem to endorse the corporate conception (hint: see endnote 18 on page 25)?
What is the “generic interests conception of the common good” (London, 2003, p. 21)? What are the two types of interests that it contrasts? Why does this conception put a lot of emphasis on the practical constraints and less emphasis on the triggering conditions?
London suggests that the corporate conception tends to encourage unproductive “zero-sum thinking” whereas the generic interests conception favors non-zero sum problem solving for “integrative solutions” (London, 2003, p. 21). What does all that mean, and why it is an important consideration?
How would each conception approach the tensions between security and individual rights occurring in the wake of the attacks in Paris?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

London, A. J. (2003, September-October). Threats to the common good: Biochemical weapons and human subjects research. Hastings Center Report, 33(5), 17–25.

Henley, P. (Host). (2015, November 14). [Paris attacks: Security and individual rights] [Radio broadcast transcript]. In Weekend. BBC World Service. (D. E. Gray, Transcription)