What Are The Most Pressing Moral Issues Today?

I've been working on a book called Was It Morally Good for You, Too?: A How-To Guide to Ethics in Sex, Politics, and Other Dirty Words. The idea is to present a readable, funny, but robust framework in which to meaningfully discuss ethical issues. The reason Americans suck at talking about moral issues is that we don't know how to do it; we don't really understand what it is we are supposed to be arguing about, so we argue past each other.  We close-mindedly declare our positions to be unassailable without argument.  We impugn the characters of those who disagree with us.  Or we simply retreat to an anything goes, shoulder shrugging relativism. I hope to be able to show why the need for rigorous, good faith moral deliberation in our own minds and discourse with others is not only unavoidable, but gives us a means to progress in our understanding about questions that have seemed intractable...if we learn how to talk about ethics well.

One of the chapters that I have been revising recently considers ethical questions in the political sphere. When I started working on the book a year ago, by far the most pressing question was the moral standing of torture. While that sadly remains of interest, it no longer occupies the central place in our contemporary moral considerations it once did. A book like this has a problem of needing to remain current, even if some of the issues are perennial.

So my question to everyone today is, what issues need to be in that chapter? What moral concerns are we facing today that need to be discussed around the dinner table? What ethical tangles are we talking about or not talking about that require our thoughtful attention?

Crossposted at Philosophers' Playground

•  All suggestions gratefully considered

  n/t

  by SteveG on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:59:39 AM PDT

•  Wow, so many from which to choose.

  Global Warming is a pressing moral issue, according to Gore. The Iraq war. Pollution. Healthcare. Frankenfoods. Cows on steroids. Child support. Treatment of women (Did anybody see those jackass college students on Borat?). Race. Rampant consumerism. The list goes on and on and on.

  hink

  by MrHinkyDink on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:04:17 AM PDT

  •  you couldn't pay me to see Borat

    I think it is racist for a Jewish man to create an ignorant biggoted Arab character to portray in a movie.
    So no I didn't see the college kids, but I can imagine, having gone to college in the 70s.  I am sure it has not gotten much better.

    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:08:21 AM PDT

    •  A minor correction

      Kazakhs aren't Arabs.  They're an ethnic melange of Turkish, Mongol and Indo-European inhabitants of the Central Asian steppe.

      My blog. Come visit.

      by hekebolos on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:16:02 AM PDT

      •  Well, it didn't help their image in the West.

        I saw it but I am now sorry that I wasted my time.

        by smerfish on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:24:57 AM PDT

    •  Really?

      Sometimes funny is just funny. I don't think Borat, the character, came off as ignorant at all. Maybe ignorant of American culture, in a very humorous way that skewered American culture, but definitely not stupid.

      If nothing else, check out the scene at the rodeo. He said, "We are with you in your war of terror... May George Bush drink the blood of every Iraqi man, woman, and child." The crowd applauded.

      hink

      by MrHinkyDink on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:50:32 AM PDT

•  death penalty

  I think it is immoral, does not deter crime and puts on a par with Communist China and some really funky governments in the Middle East.

  I don't agree necessarily that democrats don't talk about morals.  What we don't tend to do is talk about religious moral values because we respect or pluralistic society and because good Yankees and private minded westerners mind their own business when it comes to religion.

  by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:06:08 AM PDT

•  Bold face lying and not being called on it.

  The current administration has taken lying to the American public to a brazen level, in part due to the lack of the MSM to call them out on this.

  Also, the non-answers given when questions are asked is a huge problem.  Parsing everything has become a full time job for these people.

  by funluvn1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:09:10 AM PDT

•  protection of justice and the rule of law

  with a US dept of Justice scandal unfolding we can see the high level  threat against the People .

  by eddienic on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:16:12 AM PDT

•  Blind Loyalty

  leads to self delusion as is the case with Bushco.
  Complacency leads to ennui and inaction.
  Morality - The Golden Rule comes to mind.

  by JFinNe on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:20:34 AM PDT

•  Tough Topic

  The trick with a MS like this is to avoid coming off "preachy." What you don't want to do is start with an ethical position of some sort - killing is bad, torture is bad - and then justifying it afterward with argument.

  Good ethical frameworks are built on only a few basic premises, and where they meet the world is a matter of application. My own thinking here is informed by psychology and Kohlberg and Erikson's work suggests that in the vast majority of cases, a person's ethical outlook is formed during development and probably isn't amenable to much adjustment.

  That is, you can understand and explain a person's ethical reasoning, but you can't affect it very much because it is informed by certain fundamental premises that person has posited about how the world works. Or is that the tack your taking?

  by The Raven on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:24:23 AM PDT

  •  You are dead on right

    the last thing I am trying to do is come off as a liberal Bill Bennett.  More often than not, we win a fair fight, but the key is to understand that there are strong, well grounded moral intuitions on most sides of hard moral questions and while sometimes we do have to prefer one over another, that does not necessarily make the one not chosen virtueless, just less desirable in the context for rational reasons.

    by SteveG on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:21:20 AM PDT

•  Moral issues of our time. In a word,

  Neoconservatism.

  by smerfish on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:25:52 AM PDT

•  submission to fear,

  followed by repression of sexuality.

  by le sequoit on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:32:36 AM PDT

•  Becoming Excellent Leaders

  Can you incorporate a discussion on this from a 1997 paper:

  Virtue ethics is distinguished from most modern traditions in considering ethics to be concerned with how best to live an entire human life. Most modern ethical theories attempt to tell us what to do when encounter an "ethical dilemma," and have little to say to us the rest of the time. Their role is like that of the ten-yard chains in a football game. Most of the time they are on the sideline and far removed from the thoughts of the coaches and players. They are waved onto the field only when the officials need them to make a certain type of decision. Virtue ethics, in contrast, is concerned with every aspect of the entire game.

  Within roughly the past century, the social and behavioral sciences have claimed for themselves much territory that properly belongs to philosophy. Consequently, much military leadership literature is now based upon the empirical research of psychologists and sociologists. The problem with this approach is that the research cannot begin without a host of philosophical assumptions. It is relatively easy to show that many of these philosophical assumptions are false, and therefore that the research is worthless.

  Consequently, I wrote the following paragraph a year ago: "If virtue ethics (either Western or Eastern) provides the proper philosophical foundation for military character development, the appropriate way to teach officers and future officers is not to focus on arguments for and against Kant's categorical imperative, Mill's greatest happiness principle, and Rawls' principles of justice, nor is it to focus on moral dilemmas and case studies. It is to focus on the lives of great and not-so-great leaders, and on the character traits, both virtuous and vicious, that enabled them to be or prevented them from becoming excellent leaders."

  I came across David Lutz's writings while in Norfolk, VA, and  reading up on General McArthur who is buried in the McArthur Memorial downtown.  I wonder if this approach has been applied in the assessment of other leaders?

  by CincNavWif on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:46:08 AM PDT

•  corruption

  The lure of money and seduction of power.

  by jeff3 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:00:19 AM PDT

•  Having science, but choosing myth n/t

  by Paul Goodman on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:07:11 AM PDT

  •  I'll second that, with an amendment

    Too often, rather than admit their freedom and take responsibility for their choices, people choose to live according to the excuses suggested by some cosmic mythology... be it the ruling declaration of some supernatural superbeing (via "revealed" religious text) or the proclaimed reality of some deterministic principle (via the inexorable "discoveries" of a self-aggrandizing elite).

    by Flywheel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:05:19 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately

  This administration has made some of the settled issues in our past unsettled again.

  I believe it is a moral imperative of the highest order to restore these freedoms and rights to the American people:

  Freedom of speech
  Freedom of and from religion
  Freedom of the press
  Freedom to assemble peaceably
  Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
  Right to due process
  Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
  Right to trial by jury

  And then there's a whole slew of other things that need doing, but we have to set our house in order first.

  by nightsweat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:12:42 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to add

    the Fairness Doctrine. It was our only tool against the monster of the Golden Rule ... "He who has the gold makes the rules" ... especially via mass media.

    by Coolwateroverstones on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:33:31 AM PDT

    •  Do you mean Rawls? n/t

      by berith on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:58 AM PDT

      •  Rawls?

        Forgive me, I am not sure what Rawls is. Teach me?

        All I'm after is the requirement for public airwaves to meet the "equal time" deal we once had. Was that established by a case referred to as Rawls?

        by Coolwateroverstones on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:15:22 AM PDT

        •  John Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" ...

          is that justice is acheved when a hypothetical group of decision makers set rules for society without knowing their own socioeconomic status. He argues that such people would reach the standard of justice that would aim first and foremost at bettering the condition of society's worst off. It's a secular parallel to the Roman Catholic "preferential option for the poor."

          by berith on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:22:29 AM PDT

          •  Thanks

            I knew nothing of John Rawls. I thought I was referring to the simple rule for broadcast and print outlets, but the Rawls theory appears to dovetail with that.

            by Coolwateroverstones on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:27:16 AM PDT

          •  Definitely needed the explanation

            I was trying to figure out what Lou Rawls had to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

            "You'll never know... as log as you live..."

            by nightsweat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:50:00 AM PDT

•  i think the most pressing moral issue

  is sending republican fascists to jail. but hey thats just me, eh...

  by johnfire on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:18:40 AM PDT

•  The Universality of International Relations.

  Specifically, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.  If applied universally, Iran would have much more justification for attacking us now then we ever had to attack Iraq in 2003.

  So, this leads into a discussion of Thrasymachus's view in the Republic.  Does the US get to adopt a policy it would by no means grant other nations because the US is stronger?

  And isn't "the US is a world leader" another way of saying "the US is stronger"?

  Harder question: is it possible for any nation to have a foriegn policy that it itself regards as universalizable?  Are nation-states committed by their natures to adopting Thrasymachus's stance?  (I guess if we all agree that we all nations individually adopt Thrasymachus's stance then we can agree on real politique.)

  by LithiumCola on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:18:43 AM PDT

  •  Geopolitics

    Here's a question I've been mulilng for some time: What is a progressive geopolitical strategy?

    I am assuming that it is not the familiar drive for US dominance in the world. At the same time, it obviously cannot be passive surrender to the ambitions of unenlightened powers elsewhere in the world.

    by DBunn on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:18:42 AM PDT

•  Minding Our Own Business

  When issues don't concern us. i.e., I don't care how much sex my neighbor is getting - it's not my business.

  Or - Who cares if Iraq nationalizes its oil? It's theirs.

  Or - yeah, we broke it, but when are we going to fix New Orleans and Biloxi, MS?

  You get the drift.

  by Unique Material on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:21:36 AM PDT

•  Just because there's money to be made...

  ...doesn't mean you have to pursue every profit making opportunity.  
  Today, everything has a cost and there are an ever increasing number of middle men taking their cut.  The insurance industry takes an enormous bite of the cost of pharmaceuticals and health care.  Credit card companies charge very high interest for people whose credit is otherwise excellent but may have forgotten to schedule a payment.  Even my own townhouse association now requires a $150.00 fee ($75.00 refundable) for a one time use of the community room when just 5 years ago, this used to be free.  And that's on top of the monthly association fee.  My utility company will estimate the monthly heating bill but if you want them to be able to read the meter remotely, it costs $150.00 to put in a signalling device. Gas stations gouged the public last year when their actual wholesale costs, although higher, did not justify the prices at the pumps.  Executives create a system where their friends give them extraordinary compensation without accountability and they use the public megaphone to tell us all how valuable and scarce their talents are.  They feel entitled to the profits of other's productivity.  
  Someone is walking around with wads of cash in their pockets.    The "get-it-while-the-getting's-good" attitude is destructive to the community.  It promotes selfishness and greed.  It takes advantage of people who are least able to fight the system and creates a sub-class who can not get out from under crippling debt.  It creates a meaner, less prosperous society.  I don't object to wealth when it's earned.  You can be rich and ethical, generous and good.  But I do object to the notion that there are a lot of suckers out there and it is the mission of the businessman to find those people and milk them for all they are worth.  
  That's shameful.  

  by goldberry on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:25:07 AM PDT

•  My list

  Poverty: a more realistic poverty line number would help,
  Heathy care: We have the "best" heath care system in the world? but we can't provide heath care to all of our citizens?
  Religion: Freedon of and from. My spirituality is my own, thank you.
  Some common decency: The overpowering sense of entitlement that is pervasive. People who feel they can steal from big box stores, or drive like they want no matter who it might affect, just because they fel they "deserve" to.  

  by whipmeco on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:32:22 AM PDT

•  poverty

  Leaving millions, especially children, to live in poverty, with inadequate schools, without enough to eat, without medical care.

  Are we our brothers' and sisters' keepers? I think it's the perennial moral issue in politics.

  by hatdog on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:33:14 AM PDT

•  There are so many......

  as your posters have already demonstrated.

  From a Canadian viewpoint as a gay man, I would add Federal Protection from Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation.  The fact that a large group of Americans lacks this basic protection, and can be fired, tossed out of their home, assaulted, etc. is about as immoral as it gets.

  But then.... so is poverty.  Good luck with your book, it will have to be a long one :>)

  by CanadianBill on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:38:00 AM PDT

  •  The Ins and Outs of Sexual Ethics

    is chapter 5, so that one will receive plenty of attention.  In fact, it was my frustration with hearing those who support bigotry against gay men and lesbians constantly referred to as "values voters" that forced me to take on this project.

    by SteveG on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:24:44 AM PDT

    •  Many thanks for that :>) nt

      by CanadianBill on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:35:31 AM PDT

•  Citizenship

  isn't exactly a moral issue, but I do miss the notion of raising children to be good citizens.

  When I was in public grade school, each student received marks for various subjects and "Citizenship." It basically served as a category for scoring a kid's classroom behavior, her contributions to the overall school community, that sort of thing.

  I know it was a little goofy, but having the category title on every report card reminded us to think about what makes a "good" American citizen.

  It reminded us that how we lived our days was as important as our technical skills in math or reading.

  The same sort of thing popped up in "Highlights for Children" magazine, through the "Goofus and Gallant" feature. Simple stuff, as minor as handing a pair of scissors to someone else with the blades toward the giver, handles toward the receiver; and complex stuff like honesty, fairness, consideration, compassion.

  Yes, I sound like an old cornball codger by posting this, but the whole "Citizenship" thing gave me a sense of the why behind right and wrong. Don't litter? Because a good citizen would never dirty up her environment. Don't hit others? Because a good citizen would calmly discuss a solution. Don't get stuck sitting in the trash can to make other students laugh while the teacher steps out for a minute? Because it matters how you behave even when authorities aren't watching.

  The citizenship grading made me feel like I belonged to something bigger than myself, to my country and to my world. Rather than making me feel owned, it made me feel responsible for myself and for the future of my country, my town, my school, the whole enchilada.

  Some people get the same thing via religion, a god who will torch your ass for transgressions. Some get it through Scouts or 4-H or other sources. I prefer the sources that encourage a kid to want that great feeling inside from doing what she knows is the right thing, rather than the punishment route.

  by Coolwateroverstones on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:57:18 AM PDT

•  human survival, justice & human rights

  First, the survival of the species: countering global warming and nuclear proliferation;

  Second, global justice and human rights: sustainable economic sufficiency for the world's poor; equal access to basic security and individual liberty, education, health care and economic opportunity;

  Third, globally-representative, transparent and democratically-accountable governing institutions; a free press; and a free global civil society to enforce these things.

  by berith on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:09:52 AM PDT

•  Moral or Political Issues?

  Trying to find the moral component of what are otherwise political issues, I come up with this:

  Living by practicing your values (not just advocating them or voting for them)

  Understanding people as individuals and not viewing them through stereotyping (politics of racism and other forms of discrimination)

  Resisting the dumbing-down of public discourse (mainstream media, political advertising, even schools) which can undermine democracy

  Responsible use of wealth (for a few, this means not taking excessive compensation; for most it means making wise choices about charitable giving; for everyone it means controlling rampant consumerism)

  A big dinnertable moral topic in our house is whether and how to respond to strangers who ask for money or who don't but who obviously need help (panhandlers, homeless people, street entertainers all come up for discussion)

  by word is bond on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:51 AM PDT

•  Destroying our natural heritage..

  Each ecosystem destroyed or diminished is like burning the greatest works of art.

  by java4every1 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

•  Sex & Violence

  In my opinion, the most pressing moral issue today is the commonly held belief that sex is sinful and violence is glorious.  The truth is the reverse.

  Time to end the drug war.

  by Sam from Ithaca on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:17:03 AM PDT

•  I suggest we put back the morals

  in morality. No more faux values. Watch an episode of any "reality show" and one can clearly see how the Public has been led to abandon traditional American values, and replace them with attributes  we use to consider uncivilized.  Attributes such as manipulation, collusion, and disregard are being propagated as part of our collective morality, all coming under the heading of competition, while traditional values like compassion and empathy are portrayed as a useless waste of time. Now ask how did we get from there to here? Has globalization had more than just economic effects? Are we adopting the values of other countries? And if so, at what cost? Our traditional American values have allowed us to create and maintain the most successful and dynamic Democracy ever. Our values have allowed us to provide for the masses while creating opportunity for wealth and prosperity for the working and willing, thus propagating our Great American Work Ethic. I think it is very important to our societal, economical and politcal health to maintain our American values, and we should really be asking just who benefits from redefining our values?  

  by fiona2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:24:08 AM PDT

•  Sustainability

  It's more than just global warming and alternative fuels. Forgive me for re-capping the situation at a macro level:

  • Global population at 6 billion, heading for 9 billion by mid-century
  • Critical resources (oil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, farmland... ) already strained at present population/consumption levels
  • Critical waste absorption capability (CO2, chemicals, nuclear, sewage, garbage... ) already strained at present population/consumption levels

  Clearly, humanity as a whole needs to reduce total production/consumption. We need to reduce total population. What ethical posture will help us do that?

  Civilization in general, and capitalism in particular, have always been about expansion. Now we need to contract. Which of our most cherished values can or should we retain in this process? Which do we need to relinquish?

  For example: would we be willing to scale back our commitment to property rights in order to avoid genocide or its functional equivalent?

  Would we rather risk death, as individuals, a nation, or a species, than adapt to a sustainable way of living?

  by DBunn on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:42:40 AM PDT

•  Torture and processless detentions

  We're still commiting these wrongs. These are not difficult moral issues, but clear ones. What we are doing is absolutely wrong. Correcting these abuses ought to be on the top of the list.

  by elmo on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

•  Negative campaigning and pandering

  As someone who has been involved in a great many campaigns, I think the ethics of negative campaigning need to be explored.  Is it always wrong to engage in negative campaigning?  If not, when is negative campaigning morally and ethically acceptable?  Are there certain kinds of negative campaigns that are more acceptable than others?

  Something else that might be worth looking into would be the ethics of "pandering."  If you are a candidate or an elected official, is it ethically acceptable to "pander" to the public or your electorate by taking positions that you have grave doubts about?  Or, if you're an elected official, is it ethical to disregard public opinion and take a stand on an issue that is in opposition to a majority of your constituents?  If it is okay to pander on some issues, but not others, what guidelines should be used in determining when it is, or is not, okay?

  The pandering issue may have been addressed elsewhere (I seem to recall that the late Senator Paul Simon wrote a book on pandering, though I have never read it), but I still think it's an issue I would be interested in hearing your views on.

  by WayneNight on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:52:48 PM PDT

•  Something else you may consider...

  ...that is especially relevant for this day and age is the ethical considerations of blogging on political sites like DailyKos.

  Bloggers have increasing influence in candidate recruitment, financial support for candidates, and in engaging in a form of "investigative reporting."

  All of those things, certainly, must raise ethical and moral concerns about the role of the anonymous blogger in politics.

  by WayneNight on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:58:22 PM PDT

•  Yet another possible subject...

  ...would be the ethics of legislative pay increases.

  The 2005 legislative pay increase in PA sparked an outrage that eventually forced its repeal.  The ability of elected officials to raise their own salaries would, I suspect, open up a number of moral and ethical questions about when, if ever, it is acceptable for them to do so.  At the same time, I suppose it might be possible to look into the ethics of protesting a legislative pay increase.

  The 2005 mess could provide a handy, in state example for you to use.

  by WayneNight on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:26:54 PM PDT