LAS MEDIDAS DE RESCATE DE LOS ESTADOS MIEMBROS EN DIFICULTADES

? ? ? ? ?

?

? ? ? ? ?

How Can I

How Can I Know Right From Wrong? Know Right From Wrong?

?

? ? ?

?

? ? ?

on demand. Then, without intent, my on demand. Then, without intent, my toothless gums squeezed thetoothless gums squeezed the nipple too hard. My mother flinched, drew away, withdrawing nipple too hard. My mother flinched, drew away, withdrawing food. I cried, and supply was restored. I attended to those things food. I cried, and supply was restored. I attended to those things and remembered: I responded to maternal actions, noted that for and remembered: I responded to maternal actions, noted that for some of my actions she would provide things which gave pleasure some of my actions she would provide things which gave pleasure and for others her response provided less pleasure. I learned which and for others her response provided less pleasure. I learned which things my mother valued and led to

things my mother valued and led to her supply of pleasure to me.her supply of pleasure to me.

She was thus defining right and wrong. As I acquired language, I She was thus defining right and wrong. As I acquired language, I conceptualised these ideas and, in dialogue with her, and, conceptualised these ideas and, in dialogue with her, and, increas-ingly, with others, refined these concepts. Right and wrong are ingly, with others, refined these concepts. Right and wrong are defined socially by interactions amongst other people and me.

defined socially by interactions amongst other people and me.

 They

 They are lare learnedearned. My . My desirdesire for e for accepacceptance tance into into sociesociety mty made made mee learn and conform to its ideas of rightness or wrongness.

learn and conform to its ideas of rightness or wrongness.

 A 

 A ^{LASDAIR LASDAIR}  M M ^{ACDONALD ACDONALD}, G , G ^{LASGOW LASGOW} 

 A 

 A 

s an individual I am born into a society requiring adherences an individual I am born into a society requiring adherence to a set of rules and values by which I did not choose to be to a set of rules and values by which I did not choose to be bound. I am expected to behave in a certain way and live by certain bound. I am expected to behave in a certain way and live by certain rules in order to live in harmony with my fellow citizens. Assuming rules in order to live in harmony with my fellow citizens. Assuming I have no psychological disorder, I begin to learn these societal I have no psychological disorder, I begin to learn these societal expectations from an early age, from associations with groups, expectations from an early age, from associations with groups,  which

 which form my form my culturacultural identl identity. Aity. As a mes a member of mber of a famila family, a y, a reli- reli-gion, a country, a school, a workplace, I am taught the practices, gion, a country, a school, a workplace, I am taught the practices,  values and rules

 values and rules of those associations. For example, as of those associations. For example, as a younga young family member, I learn through guidance by pare

family member, I learn through guidance by parents that it is badnts that it is bad to be spiteful to siblings, and that the right behaviour sets a good to be spiteful to siblings, and that the right behaviour sets a good example to younger siblings who may learn right from wrong from example to younger siblings who may learn right from wrong from me. As an adult, I am bound by an employment contract, losing me. As an adult, I am bound by an employment contract, losing my job if I breach it. As an autonomous being, I take responsibility  my job if I breach it. As an autonomous being, I take responsibility  for my actions regarding my choice of associat

for my actions regarding my choice of associations. With exposureions. With exposure to other cultures, moralities and belief systems, I may start to to other cultures, moralities and belief systems, I may start to ques-tion my learned behaviours and morals, reasoning as to whether tion my learned behaviours and morals, reasoning as to whether or not I wish to maintain those associations, wei

or not I wish to maintain those associations, weighing up the con-ghing up the con-sequences of discontinuing with what I know, and attac

sequences of discontinuing with what I know, and attaching myself hing myself  to new associations and groups – for example, changing religion to new associations and groups – for example, changing religion and the effect this may have on my family and friends. But in and the effect this may have on my family and friends. But in gen-eral, I can know right from wrong through my identity eral, I can know right from wrong through my identity associa-tions, sanctioning any resultant punishment concerning the tions, sanctioning any resultant punishment concerning the choices I make as an adult. There may be conflicts: for example, choices I make as an adult. There may be conflicts: for example, some cultures advocate honour killings, whereas others maintain some cultures advocate honour killings, whereas others maintain it is never right to kill a

it is never right to kill another person. So what to do if you associatenother person. So what to do if you associate  with a cu

 with a culture thlture that advocaat advocates honotes honour killiur killings, but ngs, but the laws the laws of theof the society in which you live do not allow this? Choosing to stra

society in which you live do not allow this? Choosing to stray fromy from  your o

 your original riginal associaassociations tions may resmay result in ult in penal pupenal punishmennishment.t.

S

S^HARONHARONPP AINTER  AINTER , R , R UGELEY UGELEY , S, S TAFFS TAFFS

B

B

asically, I can’t. Not in any definitive way. Unlike laws of asically, I can’t. Not in any definitive way. Unlike laws of  physics, which govern regardless of human understanding, physics, which govern regardless of human understanding, concepts of right and wrong are

concepts of right and wrong are constructions, products of a devel-constructions, products of a devel-oping self-awareness. Reason, as Nietzsche suggests, was a late oping self-awareness. Reason, as Nietzsche suggests, was a late addition to our animal instincts. To highlight the implications of  addition to our animal instincts. To highlight the implications of  this, look at attitudes towards killing. For early humans, the crime this, look at attitudes towards killing. For early humans, the crime of ‘murder’ would be a nonsensical idea. One had to kill

of ‘murder’ would be a nonsensical idea. One had to kill to survive,to survive, making ‘murder’ an accepted hazard of daily life. Only the move making ‘murder’ an accepted hazard of daily life. Only the move from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to settled communities lessened the from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to settled communities lessened the need to slaughter in self-defence, thus beginning the slow march need to slaughter in self-defence, thus beginning the slow march to recognising murder as immoral. However, there is a problem.

to recognising murder as immoral. However, there is a problem.

 Many

 Many beliebelieve kive killing lling can bcan be jue justifistified in ed in some some circucircumstanmstances. ces. SuchSuch ambiguities mean that knowing right from wrong in any absolute ambiguities mean that knowing right from wrong in any absolute sense is impossible, even in seemingly clear-cut instances. But the sense is impossible, even in seemingly clear-cut instances. But the same applies in other areas. No matter how abhorrent and same applies in other areas. No matter how abhorrent and objec-although people often have clear sentiments which tell them when

although people often have clear sentiments which tell them when behaviour is right or wrong, they also accept that there are times behaviour is right or wrong, they also accept that there are times  when

 when rigirigid d adheadherence rence to to the the same same prinprinciplciples es is is probproblematlematic ic and/and/oror unethical, making ethics as uncertain as any other branch of unethical, making ethics as uncertain as any other branch of phi-losophy. This means absolute ethical judgements on right and losophy. This means absolute ethical judgements on right and  wro

 wrong ng are are diffdifficulicult, t, so so impoimportanrtant t ethicethical al debadebates tes remaremain in unreunresolvsolved.ed.

 J

 J^{ONATHANONATHAN} T TIPTONIPTON, P, PRESTONRESTON, L, L ANCASHIRE ANCASHIRE

P

P

hilosophers can quibble over many different theories, but inhilosophers can quibble over many different theories, but in the end I would advocate a simple boo-hurrah approach to the end I would advocate a simple boo-hurrah approach to discerning right from wrong. Okay, I’m

discerning right from wrong. Okay, I’m not accounting for psy-not accounting for psy-chopaths. Nevertheless, I would argue that the majority of  chopaths. Nevertheless, I would argue that the majority of  human beings have an innate sense of disgust at immoral acts, human beings have an innate sense of disgust at immoral acts, stemming from empathy. If you want to know if your actions stemming from empathy. If you want to know if your actions towards another individual are right or

towards another individual are right or wrong, just ask yourself wrong, just ask yourself  if that’s how you would want to be

if that’s how you would want to be treated. That’s the objectivity:treated. That’s the objectivity:

 we’re

 we’re living, living, aware aware creatures. creatures. Why Why complicate complicate it it more more than than that?that?

 M

 M^ORGANORGAN M M^ILLARDILLARD, U , U ^RMSTONRMSTON, M, M ANCHESTER  ANCHESTER 

I

I

t might be inferred from the question that discet might be inferred from the question that discerning right fromrning right from  wrong

 wrong is is essentiaessentially lly cognitivecognitive. Thus, employing the terminology . Thus, employing the terminology  of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives in the of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain, I am able to

cognitive domain, I am able to recall recall things deemed right or wrongthings deemed right or wrong and I can

and I can understand understand  why they are so.  why they are so. I canI can  apply apply my recall andmy recall and understanding of right and wrong to act appropriately in specific understanding of right and wrong to act appropriately in specific circumstances; I can

circumstances; I can analyse analyse behaviours and determine which arebehaviours and determine which are right and wrong; I can

right and wrong; I can evaluateevaluate why  why some some are are right right or or wrong; wrong; andand I can create more finely nuanced conceptions of rightness or I can create more finely nuanced conceptions of rightness or  wrongnes

 wrongness. s. This This learning learning is is acquireacquired d by by trial trial and and error, error, andand inferred from the reactions of other people to what I do or say.

inferred from the reactions of other people to what I do or say.

But, it is an

But, it is an affective affective issue too: the reactions of others to what Iissue too: the reactions of others to what I say or do evoke feelings in me.

say or do evoke feelings in me. To use Bloom in this domain: ini-To use Bloom in this domain: ini-tially, I

tially, I attend toattend to or note particular actions that evoke responsesor note particular actions that evoke responses from others or feelings in me. I learn

from others or feelings in me. I learn toto respond respond to some actions into some actions in some circumstances by others. I feel, too, that some responses are some circumstances by others. I feel, too, that some responses are more

more valued valued by others or by myself. Iby others or by myself. I organiseorganise some of these valuedsome of these valued responses according to some principles. Eventually, these responses according to some principles. Eventually, these princi-ples interlink so that my conduct is characterised by them.

ples interlink so that my conduct is characterised by them.

For example, when my mother first put me to her breast I For example, when my mother first put me to her breast I fol-lowed an innate need for sustenance. However, I felt pleasures of  lowed an innate need for sustenance. However, I felt pleasures of  satiation, of warmth, of security. I cried when I felt

satiation, of warmth, of security. I cried when I felt hunger, or coldhunger, or cold and, later, fear. I learned that

and, later, fear. I learned that this woman provided for these needs,this woman provided for these needs,

   C

“No daddy, not what is the time; what is Time?”

“No daddy, not what is the time; what is Time?”

December 2017/January 2018

December 2017/January 2018 ^ PhilosophyPhilosophy^{NowNow 3939} ness can only be judged comparatively, against other actions.

ness can only be judged comparatively, against other actions.

 Then which act

 Then which actions? If we coions? If we could name the prould name the property that dperty that distin- istin-guished ‘right’ actions from the rest, we would have also named guished ‘right’ actions from the rest, we would have also named  what we meant by rightness and wrongn

 what we meant by rightness and wrongness. But if we could doess. But if we could do that, then we would be back to rightness and wrongness referring that, then we would be back to rightness and wrongness referring to some fact, and any apparent disputes would be reveale

to some fact, and any apparent disputes would be revealed as sim-d as sim-ply misunderstandings. But again, our failure to agree suggests ply misunderstandings. But again, our failure to agree suggests this is cannot be the case. If right and wrong are graduations of a this is cannot be the case. If right and wrong are graduations of a single system, and if we cannot place boundaries on that system, single system, and if we cannot place boundaries on that system, then that system must contain everything. What sorts of systems then that system must contain everything. What sorts of systems contain everything, or try to? Philosophical ones. So I would argue contain everything, or try to? Philosophical ones. So I would argue that our individual understanding of right and wrong is that our individual understanding of right and wrong is deter-mined by our own philosophy. In so far as we have such a general mined by our own philosophy. In so far as we have such a general philosophy, then we already know right and wrong. If we are philosophy, then we already know right and wrong. If we are unsure of them, it is because our philosophy remains unformed unsure of them, it is because our philosophy remains unformed in our own minds.

in our own minds.

 J

 J^OHNOHN W  W ^HITEHITE, L, L^ONDONONDON

 W 

 W 

hy should we expect to be able to know righhy should we expect to be able to know right from wrong?t from wrong?

 Moralit

 Morality y isn’t written into isn’t written into the universe the the universe the way facts way facts of of  nature seem to be: it’s a matter of human choice, and people nature seem to be: it’s a matter of human choice, and people choose to respond to moral issues in diffe

choose to respond to moral issues in different ways. Systems suchrent ways. Systems such as Bentham’s utilitarianism or Kant’s deontology have important  as Bentham’s utilitarianism or Kant’s deontology have important  insights but they all have drawbacks – the first for its wilful insights but they all have drawbacks – the first for its wilful disre-gard of innocent people’s (assumed) rig

gard of innocent people’s (assumed) rights, the second for its dis-hts, the second for its dis-regard of consequences. But what is the yardstick against which regard of consequences. But what is the yardstick against which  we judge

 we judge the apparent failings of the apparent failings of these two these two systemssystems? For ? For posi- posi-tivists, it’s a matter of psychology based on evolution and upbring tivists, it’s a matter of psychology based on evolution and upbring --ing. Does this lead to relativism, with its apparent contradiction ing. Does this lead to relativism, with its apparent contradiction that we should never intervene in another culture or criticise a that we should never intervene in another culture or criticise a psychopath? I don’t think so. Within most polities the idea of  psychopath? I don’t think so. Within most polities the idea of  inflicting unnecessary pain on the innocent is abhorrent. Through inflicting unnecessary pain on the innocent is abhorrent. Through some inner instinct or psychological prefere

some inner instinct or psychological preference, we know (or is it nce, we know (or is it  believe?) that such cruelty is wrong. And we know if we follow  believe?) that such cruelty is wrong. And we know if we follow  certain rules that our society will give us outcomes that more or certain rules that our society will give us outcomes that more or less accord with our moral preferences. In many countries enough less accord with our moral preferences. In many countries enough people share enough of these values to give a sense of common people share enough of these values to give a sense of common purpose in pursuit of morality. Why shouldn’t we seek to conv purpose in pursuit of morality. Why shouldn’t we seek to convinceince others, that ours is a way of life that suits human psychological others, that ours is a way of life that suits human psychological preferences, both theirs and ours?

preferences, both theirs and ours?

However, that cohesive set

However, that cohesive set of common instincts breaks downof common instincts breaks down in more problematic cases such as

in more problematic cases such as abortion or various versions of abortion or various versions of  Phillipa Foot’s ‘trolley problem’. For these there may be no Phillipa Foot’s ‘trolley problem’. For these there may be no agreement on what is right and we

agreement on what is right and we don’t have a method of decid-don’t have a method of decid-ing in some

ing in some formulaic way what the correct action is. Any formulaic way what the correct action is. Any solutionsolution  will

 will cut cut across across someone’s someone’s inner inner instinct, instinct, and and there there is is no no other other way way 

 will cut cut across across someone’s someone’s inner inner instinct, instinct, and and there there is is no no other other way way 

In document Derecho_Constitucional_25.indb 1 Derecho_Constitucional_25.indb 1 29/03/2017 12:27:23 29/03/2017 12:27:23 (página 92-98)