Last night's Newington College Ethics Centre lecture was delivered by Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, a not-for-profit organisation that promotes the exploration and application of ethics. He argued for an ethics grounded in reason, not religious dogma or sacred texts (whilst he came across as a humanist I was later interested and surprised to discover he is in fact a Christian).
It was an outstanding lecture; he talked about Socrates' quotation - "the unexamined life is not worth living", and built an argument for ethics, and ethical debate, being important in both living a meaningful individual life and in building a better society; predicated on the belief that humans are capable of not always acting instinctively but are capable of making ethical decisions.
He spoke about Access Economics' increasing role in Australian public debate in recent years; for example, environmentalists now argue that it is important to reduce carbon emissions because it will cost us all more in the long run - but not because screwing up the planet is just unethical; they even produced a report last year on the economic damage caused by child abuse. His point was 'what does it say about a society when the economic cost of child abuse becomes an important factor in our political debates?'. He called to mind William Wilberforce, and suggested that it would have been rather odd for him to stand in the House of Commons 200 years ago and argue that the slave trade should be abolished because it was 'uneconomical'. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" of 1776 can only be properly understood, he argued, if his "Theory of Moral Sentiments", published around 15 years earlier and upon which it is grounded, is read first.
Longstaff argued that both hedonism and fundamentalism were uncritical, unthinking approaches to life (scientific, political or religious fundamentalisms that promise simplicity to their followers) and that fulfilment was to be found in the pursuit of living an examined life - that is, where the choice between two right actions only becomes clear through a considered ethical approach.
I reckon both he and Socrates might be on to something.
* * * * *
We are moving!
On Friday afternoon I will sign the lease on our new apartment. The house is (virtually) packed up and the removalists, along with the Asburkes, are heading over on Saturday morning - I will, unfortunately, be largely absent once again due to rugby. Which has gone down as well as would be predicted.
Drop me a line is you would like our new address!
.jpg)
Does the considered ethical approach apply when you're being chased by a bear?
ReplyDeleteAs a Kantian I suppose I'd need to universalise the maxim "it's good to run away if a bear is chasing you". Unfortunately, I suspect the bear may have eaten me before I completed the process. So, in answer to your question, no.
ReplyDeleteDamn bears. They undermine everything.
ReplyDelete