Society and Reality

A Model of Ethics and Value Structures

The classical ethical systems are normally considered as independent systems. However, Beauchamp and Childress1 point out that deontological and utilitarian ethics relate to behavior, and virtue ethics relate to character (Flores 1988). Communitarian ethics is not considered in their article, but it is possible to integrate communitarian ethics with individualist ethics.

In as much as deontological/utilitarian and virtue ethics have correspondences, so do group behavioral ethics and virtue ethics, and there are relations between individual and group ethics. The schematic in Figure 1 classifies ethical systems in two dimensions: individual/group and character/behavior.

Figure 1

My first hypothesis is there is such a thing as group ethics. This presumes that groups are ontologically real, as would be accepted by Critical Realism. Groups can act as agents, and thus are moral actors (Beggs 2003) and not mere aggregations of individual agents.
The two dimensional model should be understood as the structure of ethics, not the content. This idea is homologous with the idea of the structure of values (Connery 1989). The model can also be extended to consider the structure of values following Connery, and is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

My second hypothesis is that the structure of values is independent of the structure of ethics.

Testing the Two Hypothesis

For the two claims (group ethics and structural independence) to hold, the following statements would have to make sense:

An individual at the obedience stage would have to be capable of virtue.
A group at the law and duty stage would have to be capable of group virtue.
A virtuous group would have to be virtuous in the face of individual vice.

For item I, a child that tries to avoid punishment can aim for the middle if they are punished for extremes, thus tending to virtue if external behavior becomes habit. For item II, law and order can be a bottom-line for a group to protect against individual law breakers, yet be virtuous. For item III, there are organizations that exhibit internal goods in spite of a few bad apples. Therefore, prima facie, these combination seem to hold, even if the rate of incidence is low. There well may be affinities between structures, and changes of content in one structure may encourage movement in other structures.

Gymnastics

The gymnastics exercise is to evaluate ethical dilemmas within model to see if:

1. Does the model hold?
2. Are there common affinities in the structures?
3. Are there common movements of individuals and groups within the structures?
4. How do each of the dimensions affect the other dimensions?
5. Are there internal relations between dimensions?
6. Do various societal configurations encourage or discourage moral development?

Work Cited

Beggs, D. (2003). The Idea of Group Moral Virtue. Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(3), 457-474.
Connery, E. & Nelson, D. (1989). Moral Psychology. American Business Law Journal, 27/1, 8.
Flores, A. (1988). Professional ideals. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS