If there is one thing I have learned
during this fellowship it is that ethics are anything but simple. The
complexity of various situations and the extent of ethical history leave me
wondering for hours over what is truly “right.”
People, or leaders, who fail to
recognize the complexity of ethical behavior become prone to rash, uninformed
actions. This became clear in our debate over dropping the atomic bombs in
Japan, to use an extreme example.
The decision to drop the bomb on
Hiroshima entailed a number of ethical considerations before the final decision
was made – and even after all of that, years later, there is still a debate as
to whether the right choice was made.
Truman had to consider the lives of
American citizens in the country he was to be leading. He had to consider the
lives of Japanese citizens who equally deserve simple respect simply because
they are people—but also who were fighting under bushido code, meaning they
would fight to the death no matter what. He had to consider the actions of
other countries like the Soviet Union and what consequences those actions would
have and how dropping the bomb would affect the way these countries viewed and
interacted with the United States. He had to consider the long term effects of
introducing nuclear warfare in to the world.
With all of these considerations, a
simple statement such as “don’t harm others” is inadequate. Without being
critical or “playing devil’s advocate” as some would say, not all of these
considerations would have been brought to light. It would not have been
considered that a warning should have been delivered before hand, or why a
conditional surrender was offered and what that would have entailed, or that
communication with Hiroshima would be completely cut off after the bomb and
what that would mean for the country. And many of these things were not considered
– but are discussed in the present day as people still try to muddle through
the bombing and what was or was not ethical.
It is true that these implications can
create a substantial task for a leader as he considers a decision. It can be
easy, then, to try and disregard several aspects. People may stop themselves
from asking the hard questions or fail to push themselves to look at all of
sides of a situation. They take the easy way out, or lump groups together and
ignore certain consequences, thus developing the uncritical relativist approach
to a more complex aspect of leadership.
To prevent this, a leader, or even a
person simply trying to act ethically, must put himself in a position in which
he is supported in all aspects of tough situations. We read an example of this
in the speech at West Point – a recommendation that leaders should have
solitude in order to think and reflect with themselves, but that they should
also have someone around to talk to, bounce ideas with, and get advice about
life and decisions. Someone one can trust and be honest with. Similarly, in a
play I’ve been working on, two of the characters, though complete opposites,
visit each other constantly and debate about current topics in their lives and
in the town. They talk about life decisions and serious matters as well as
frivolous things like gossip. They disagree often and they argue, but it helps
them figure things out. When asked why they spend time together, Elsa, the
younger of the characters, states that it is because Helen challenges her. She
has developed a relationship that keeps her on her toes, thinking and
questioning. Elsa knows herself and her beliefs better because of Helen. Even
as I have been sitting composing this journal entry, I have been bouncing ideas
off of Liz, and she’s been doing the same with me. Our entries are more thought
out and well composed after talking and brainstorming with each other and
figuring out the answers to the harder or confusing questions.
Often times, ethics cannot be figured out on
one’s own. We all come from differing backgrounds and influences, with have
different perceptions of the world and different ideas about the way people
function. If we were to focus only on the way we think and feel, we would miss
the ways of many different people around the world. Without these other
perceptions, we lose the ability to perceive certain complexities when making
ethical decisions and become blinded. We must surround ourselves with people
who also make us think in order to really begin to understand the world around
us and delve deep in to ethical discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment