Everything
simple is false. Everything complex is unusuable.
Paul Valéry
(1871-1945)
SPEAKING FROM AN ETHIC POINT OF VIEW
Dr. EDUARDO C.GERDING
The following is Chapter 8 of my book Basics of Naval Health published in 2001 by Dunken Printing House. I presume it keeps validity.
How should we live? Should we look for happiness or knowledge?
If we seek happiness, will we find those things that make us
really happy? If the law forces us to fight in a war that we do not
support internally, should we disobey the law? Should we seek
our benefit at the request of harming those around us?
Can we make ostentation of opulence in a world so in need?
Are there just and unjust wars? Can a civilian population be
targeted for a nuclear attack? Can a Catholic woman commit
suicide to avoid being raped? Is there a practical difference
between killing and letting die? What are the limits of genetic
engineering? What are our obligations towards the rest of the
creatures of the planet and towards the generations that come
behind us? Should human actions be judged exclusively
according to their consequences (W.D.Ross)?
Is it always rational to act morally (Rawls)? Do we have an
obligation to help others to preserve their rights (Robert Nozick)?
From all these questions and many more arise a branch of
philosophy called ethics whose knowledge helps make
practical decisions in situations often critical.
The study of ethics covers not only the fundamental nature
of human value but also those guidelines according to which
human actions can be considered good or bad.
In 1977, Ronald Dworkin, author of a book on the rights of
man (Taking Rights Seriously), postulated that respect for
people was the fundamental principle of ethics.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming creator of the concept of Total Quality
, a term widely heard in our days, pointed to the importance of
man feeling safe as a fundamental premise to face any type of
activity with the greatest efficiency and that is also a Ethical
component of work (Proceedings-June 115, p69)
The religious man may have perhaps a deeper and even more
simplified vision when considering as William of Ockham that:
"Everything that is good comes from God and that the will of
God is not a matter of philosophy but of revelation and faith".
Or as the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) thought that the world is governed
by a perfect God and therefore is the best of all possible worlds.
• The origins of ethics
At present it is considered that ethics is born of two basic
conceptions that are altruism and reciprocity.
The Theory of Evolution interpreted in a restricted way would
seem to indicate that survival belongs to the strongest. Some
people apply this misunderstood law of the jungle in their daily
activities.
The correct interpretation of the Theory of Evolution is not as
ruthless as some want to make it seem to justify their actions.
The best example of this is given to us by animals.
• The example of animals
The wolf is an example of altruism within the same species.
When a wolf cannot participate in a hunt for any reason
(he is injured, or takes care of the young, etc.) the rest of
the herd brings him the meat he will need for his sustenance.
They will protect the needy from other predators and cover
each other. What would be the basis of this altruistic attitude
animal? Wolves know that if they protect the needy and their
offspring there will be more possibilities for the genetic
characteristics of their species to spread.
The dolphins give us an example of altruism towards other
species comparable to man. When a dolphin finds another
wounded animal in the sea it pushes it with its body towards
the surface so that it breathes and it helps it to arrive at the coast.
Every child arrives in the world with 50% of the genetic characters
of his father and 50% of those of his mother. This leads us to have
a supportive attitude towards our relatives (cousins, uncles, etc.)
for a reason of blood. In a small community, everyone is in a
certain way related and in the great societies values are shared
that induce us to help others.
Due to these elementary examples, human culture has developed
a sense of loyalty and exalts within society those people who
make sacrifices for the rest of the group and put the welfare of
their peers before their own interests.
Reciprocal behavior has been observed in wolves, wild dogs,
dolphins and monkeys. The monkeys usually remove the parasites
from the back of each other but there is an implicit obligation
of reciprocity between them. The monkey that does not observe
this reciprocal behavior when his turn comes is excluded from
the group or is attacked. Here in its most primitive form nature
establishes the sense of what is just and what is reprehensible.
When Confucius was asked about a single word that would serve
as a guide for a man's entire life, he replied, "Is not reciprocity
such a word? What you do not like to be done to you, do not do
to others. "
Conceptual errors widespread
It is said that "there is no universal ethic, because what is good
for one culture can be frowned upon by another."
This is not true. In China the obligations of the children towards
their parents may differ with those of the West, but the sense of
altruism and the obligation of reciprocity towards those who raised
us is a universal value.
It is said then that "all universal value is correct". This is not true
either. In many countries slavery is still approved and yet this does
not make it a less bad habit.
With this we come to an important conclusion and that is that we
do not do good just because our society requires it or
because it is a universal value or even a religious criterion.
Because of this, man has had to leave written to his descendants
those patterns of behavior put to the test and with solid moral codes
that will guarantee personal happiness in the midst of a united society.
• The first written testimonies about ethics
The first texts of ethics were written in Egypt 3000 years BC.
In these papyri passages are read with indications such as:
"The bread must be shared with the hungry," "humble people
without resources should be treated with kindness" and
"should not laugh at the blind or the dwarves."
These principles, imbued with an ancestral wisdom without
theoretical elucubrations, were directed to the people in
general but fundamentally to the leading Egyptian class.
• Ethics and morals
From the beginning of the history of humanity, societies have
developed moral codes linked to religious principles that have
allowed us to establish which were the correct behaviors and
which were the objectionable ones. These moral principles
are contained in ethics and are translated through rules of conduct.
Being the moral codes linked to religious principles and, when
attributed a divine principle, they have been unobjectionable.
In this way the men of the various churches have been the
guardians and interpreters of them. The link between morality
and religion is so intimate that it has been said that there can
be no morality without religion. Plato was the first to postulate
that what was right or wrong was independent of the gods.
Certain gods demanded human sacrifices. Was this correct?
Social life has demanded behavioral patterns from the beginning
of time and, historical experience has shown, that transgression
of these attacks the cohesion of every human group.
The ethics of the Navy Officer
In every Officer of the Navy there must be three values that
make the very essence of their profession, they are: honesty
, honor and integrity. We understand honestly the rejection
of the lie, theft or fraud in any of its forms.
Having honor implies having a permanent concern to keep
the demands imposed by our profession. Already in 1780
the founder of the US Navy John Paul Jones said:
“It is by no means enough that an officer of the navy should
be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a
great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal
education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the
nicest sense of personal honor.... He should be the soul of tact
, patience, justice, firmness, and charity.
Integrity is what defines the Navy Officer and denotes
trust and incorruptibility. It is the fundamental stone on
which the other attributes revolve. When integrity fails,
we can assure that the rest will fall soon. Integrity is not
the best policy is the only policy.
This can be compared to a ship that is torpedoed. Its external
integrity may be compromised by the damage to the hull
but if internally its integrity is intact it will not sink. Because
of this, it is so important to close the hatches when we are
assaulted by the temptations that threaten to break our internal
tightness.
How is integrity composed? Integrity is like a four-legged chair.
Each of the legs is called honor, ethics, morals and profesional
suitability. If one leg is missing, we fall in front of everyone.
At present we can see people who look with a certain irony on
the conservation of these values. Or perhaps publicly propose
them but do not apply them. A recent publication said:
"Today many young people do not grow up in an environmen
t with ethics and honesty ... Many members of our society do
not find this type of behavior normal, so that in many cases
they are being indoctrinated in something that is alien to them
"(Navy Times, April 11,1994-p3)
From this arises the fundamental question that has prevailed
since the beginning: Why do we need to have integrity? The answer
to this dilemma that every young person raises since he has use of
reason resides in the interior of every person. Integrity provides
inner strength.
A fictitious and unscrupulous personage of a well-known novelist
expressed it like this: "Save us from the man who lives under his
own codes, save us from the man with a clear conscience because
he is the man who will defeat us" (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged-
New York; Penguin Books, USA Inc, 1957-p514)
Why do good when you get benefits doing the opposite? Plato said
that in doing good things three elements entered into harmony:
intellect, emotions and desires.
The unjust person lives with a permanent internal imbalance of
these three factors. In this way, Plato linked doing good with
personal happiness.
What are the rewards of integrity? In the naval service there
are men and women who project their personal integrity both
in their profession and in the totality of society. It often seems
that they are not properly recognized and rewarded. The only
sure reward these people have is that they can look at themselves
calmly in the mirror every morning and know that they will be
equally seen by their family and comrades in arms.
This behavior must be followed even when there is nobody to
value it. According to a legend, Giges was a king who had a
ring which made him invisible. The legend pointed to a
philosophical question: if nobody could see it, did it make sense
to continue behaving well? . Someone has said that integrity
is the one thing in the darkness of your cabin.
How is the historical uselessness of the petty person shown?
The most illustrative answer is obtained through an ethics
exercise that starts from a hypothetical situation. It is known
as the prisoner's dilemma. They are two inmates accused of a
crime. The inmates have no communication with each other.
Each prisoner is told the following: If one confesses and the
other does not, the prisoner who confesses will be released
immediately and the other will be sentenced to 20 years in
prison. If none of them confess they will be retained for a couple
of months and then released.
If both confess they will be sentenced to each one to 15 years
in prison.
If the inmates act according to their own interest they will
conclude that it is better to confess than not to confess no matter
what the other inmate does.
It may sound paradoxical, but if the inmates seek their own interest
without caring about the good of the other the result will be worse
than if both act altruistically.
The Navy Officer must know that he must always act with truth
and generosity because he belongs to an institution in which
human lives and not money depend on his integrity.
Machiavellianism, the masterpiece of amoral cynicism, should no
t have a place in the Navy. The same could be said of indolence.
At this time, how to put into practice a code of honor at the
level of the Navy? Several articles indicate that this code should
be concise and energetic. "Everyone who lies, deceives, steals
or defrauds the trust placed in him must be separated from
the institution" (Proceedings-April 1994-p 43).
On the other hand, we must not only state what is punishable
but what is expected in terms of behavior. Having printed a
code of honor and a code of ethics are nowadays insufficient
because they enunciate only the minimum conventional levels
of behavior and therefore the daily circumstances overcome them.
A teacher used to say to his students: "Today I am going to take
two exams: one of trigonometry and the other of honesty, I hope
you will approve both but if you must fail one that should be trigonometry
, there are many good men in the world who do not trigonometry
but there are no good men who won´t pass the
honesty test. "
I remember that the motto of my school, embroidered on the
shield of the blazer, said the words in Latin "Certa Bonum
Certamen"(Fight the good fight) and that several years passed
before we as alumni realized the meaning of them.
Integrity is intertwined with the old naval traditions which have
their reason for being. Therefore, a person lacking in principles
will try to disqualify traditions in the first instance and look with
scorn on every ethical principle. An ancient naval tradition
established that it was not hierarchy or office that gave an office
luster but the character of man and his performance in it.
The institution remembers the man not his position
(Proceedings-June 1993, p 50). Hence perhaps W. Churchill said
"fortune is evil with those who break the traditions of the past."
What are the causes of integrity being violated?
The main faults are: a) The mistake of confusing what one is with
the work entrusted to it, b) Losing the objective of the misión
through the three great temptations that assault man: ambition
, greed and the ego, c) Loss of self-esteem due to the fear of
confrontation and the habit of covering up one's own mistakes,
d) Lack of professional aptitude and e) Moral blindness due to
poor prior education or the absence of a code of personal behavior.
Greece was the cradle of different positions. One of the positions
that originated a huge rejection was that of a Sophist named
Trasimaco who thought that "Justice implies the obedience
of the laws of society.These laws are drafted by the most influential
political groups with a view to their interests. justice represent
s nothing but the interests of the strongest. " The Greeks repudiated
it because they immediately realized that it was against the
freedom of the man of to objectively discriminate good from evil.
The Stoics who had their representative in Rome with Cicero
gave a very important value to the use of reason. Marco Aurelio
said that reason converted all men into citizens. The Epicureans
on the other hand had an ethic based on pleasure and postulated
something like "friendships were good as long as they brought us
some good" Have we heard these concepts in our days?
Historically, the concept of the Greeks and Romans who admired
personal independence, magnanimity and worldly success was
destroyed by the introduction of Christian ethics. They are totally
disparate conceptions and do not admit average terms and it is
enough for us to read the Gospel of St. Luke (Lc 12, 49-53)
Friedrich Nietsche (1844-1900) opposed that Christian ethic
which he considered as a slavish morality being his best known
aphorism "God is dead".
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a Reformation-era thinker who
had witnessed the horrors of the Civil War (1642-1651) in England.
He tried by all means to develop a system of ethics based solely
on human nature and the circumstances that touched him to
live man. Hobbes considered that man always seeks his own
pleasure and self-preservation (this concept was refuted by
the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury because it does not explain the
altruistic inclination towards the public good). He considered
that the only way to preserve peace was through a social
contract and a sovereign with great moral authority and an
enormous power to underpin and guarantee this contract.
Without this guarantee there would be competition for wealth
, security and glory.
There would be a war of "all against all" and the life of man
would be "brutal, short, indecent, poor and lonely". These
concepts and the terms used have been cited many times
when referring to the implications of a nuclear conflict.
What simple advice can be given to the young naval Officer
to help him preserve his integrity in the midst of the storms
of life? First of all, you should know that you will always have
that healthy anxiety to know what will happen and how the
moment will behave. As Wellington said, "I've spent my life
trying to guess what I'll find behind the next hill or around
every corner."
The following rules summarize the experience of great
drivers: a) Always do and say the right thing and do not
worry about the consequences and b) Live your life as if
you will ever have to explain each of your actions. Be your
most severe judge.
For those who follow a Christian ethic, these guidelines
will allow them to say as Job "I will not abandon the
justification I have begun to make, since nothing in
my whole life discourses my conscience" (Job 27: 5-6)
• The great debates
To finish I would like to leave to the young reader the
following concerns that encourage him to probe in the
depths of life. It will help them to be better people and,
as one philosopher said, "it is better to be a dissatisfied
Socrates than a satisfied fool".
Is morality based on reason or feelings (David Hume)?
Is there a universal feeling? Are we part of a constant internal
struggle between pleasure and pain (Jeremy Bentham)?
Are we an integral part of a huge system (Benedict Spinoza)?
Is the concept of the general will important
(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)? Does human nature vary
according to the society in which it moves (Friedrich Hegel)?
Is freedom obtained only by disappearing the dichotomy
between personal interest and general interest (Karl Marx)
Is there no God and man was not created for any
particular reason (Jean-Paul Sartre)? What happens when
we try to universalize moral ideals (R.M.Hare)? Does altruism
have a rational basis (Thomas Nagel)? Should each one attend
exclusively to his own interests (Ayn Rand)? What are the basic
and good human values accepted by the Catholic Church
(John Finnis)? Do we have a soul and our bodies are the means to
achieve spiritual goals (St. Augustine)?
