The Nature of Ethics

It would be convenient if there were a complete consensus both about the rules for ethical behavior and about the best scholarly and scientific approach for analyzing ethical problems. Unfortunately, beyond a few very simple principles that are more a reflection of Western democratic institutions than of deep philosophical thought, there is no consensus. One reason is that several distinct societal institutions and academic disciplines make it their business to address ethical issues, and they do not agree entirely about fundamental principles. Another reason is that competing interests and ideologies take opposing positions on key issues.

The traditional source of ethical principles is religious doctrine (Stark and Bainbridge 1987, 1996). Western religions are often seen to be supportive of technological progress, in part because they often conceptualize the world as an environment prepared by God for human benefit, and they may go so far as to suggest that God has given humanity dominion over nature. However, specific technologies may run afoul of one or another traditional doctrine, as is the case with human reproductive cloning in the judgment of many theologians and other believers (Bainbridge 2003). A good continuing source of theologically based analysis of the ethics of science and technology is the journal Zygon.

In modern societies, with traditions of the separation of church and state, there has been hope that firm ethical principles could be established on a secular basis, perhaps by academic philosophers. Philosophy is the academic discipline most dedicated to asking penetrating questions and doubting widespread assumptions. As such, it is an excellent part of a well-rounded liberal education, but it may be poorly prepared to give definitive answers to the questions it raises. Nonetheless, academic training in the philosophy of ethics is a valuable part of preparation for decision makers or their advisers, because it helps them see important factors that may not be obviousnot only potential ethical problems but also solutions to them.

Participants at the conference Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology II: Maximizing Human Benefit (Roco and Bainbridge 2005) were divided on the issue of the contribution professional ethicists can make. Philosophers of ethics analyzed issues relating to equity and the quality of life, contributing insights that seemed valuable. However, other participants doubted whether academic ethicists possess the knowledge about nanotechnology or reliable techniques of philosophical analysis that could give their views greater weight than those of interested amateurs among the general public, or could arrive at judgments that were not simply political in nature.

A fundamental debate in philosophy concerns the extent to which good and evil can be objectively defined or instead are a matter of a judgment made by human beings from their particular standpoints and interests (Kant 1787; Moore 1951; Rawls 1971). The extreme view, expressed most famously by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (18861887), is that morality is a scam practiced by dominant people to gain power over submissive people, and unfortunately many people today behave as if they believed this theory. A more manageable position is that morality is negotiated between people in order to enhance cooperation and to serve their mutual interests and their enlightened self-interest (Homans 1974; Gauthier 1986).

By means of traditional political procedures, government agencies establish rules in such areas as environmental protection and workplace safety; legislatures write laws regulating industry and prohibiting actions that are deemed to be dangerous; courts apply and interpret the law in particular cases brought to them by plaintiffs who have their own interests and often intense feelings. At times, the actions of social movements trump those of these other political actors, especially when a movement is able to set the terms of debate about a particular issue. Some individual promoters of nanotechnology have spread unreasonable views about its power for good or evil, and there is a danger that their views are defining the issues. In the modern world, it is impossible to escape the fact that ethical issues are always political issues.

Both sociology and anthropology study the factors and processes that establish, sustain, and challenge morality. Thus, these disciplines have much wisdom to offer concerning the dynamics of ethical debates. Sociologists and anthropologists tend personally to sympathize with powerless groups in society, and to be somewhat suspicious of the corporations and government agencies that generate new technologies. Perhaps ironically, this bias illustrates one of the most valuable insights they have to offer: Ethical principles are not objective or uniform across humanity but instead are rooted in specific social groups. The sociologist notes that ethical principles reflect the material interests of the people who promote them, whereas the anthropologist celebrates the cultural relativism of varying moralities across radically different societies.

In practical terms, this perspective can be very useful in dealing with a concrete ethical dispute. On the one hand, it suggests that it may not always be possible to achieve an ethical consensus and that it can be especially difficult to bring opponents around to one's own way of thinking. Although these observations seem pessimistic, they can save wasted effort in trying to achieve an agreement that is actually out of reach.

On the other hand, awareness that other people have their own distinct needs and values can help one learn to accommodate those interests. In addition, awareness that others may have really different cultural beliefs and values can facilitate honest bargaining with them. Understanding need not mean surrender, but it can help frame issues in ways that have the best chance of finding mutually satisfactory compromises.