Najmuddin Hossaini (he/him/his), Low Entropy Volunteer Writer
We live in a world where the realms of objective and ethical matters are profoundly complex and intertwined; living with dignity and maintaining a normative stance are crucial challenges. Philosopher and theorist Hannah Arendt believed that the greatest danger arose when people stopped thinking about ethics. In The Life of the Mind, she articulated that “[t]he sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” In Arendt’s view, thinking about ethical issues is first an “ought to” that is expected to eventually open a way into action, so that at least the initial individual step against becoming evil is taken. All philosophical traditions have, to some extent, tried to explain how one can remain both ethical and pragmatic in a complex world.
Deontological Ethics
Deontological ethics, developed and expanded by Immanuel Kant into his categorical imperative, draws a strict boundary between ethics and expediency. Kant believed that morality must be independent of consequences and utility. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he expressed that the criterion of moral action is duty, not benefit: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, if an action produces a good consequence but violates a moral principle, it is still unethical.
Adolf Eichmann, one of the Nazi regime’s executive officials, was tried in Jerusalem, Israel, in 1961. The central point of his defense was that, as the individual who organized transports, he never gave a direct order to kill a Jew. As he stated during his interrogation, “I obeyed my orders without thinking, I just did as I was told.” Arendt interpreted Eichmann’s view in a moral context: Eichmann was working in a system that issued formal commands and expected strict obedience, and disobedience could bring personal consequences. Therefore, Eichmann claimed that he was simply doing his duty.
According to the categorical imperative, duty ought to be grounded in practical reason, be universalizable and involve a moral motive. Accordingly, a human being, as a rational and moral agent, decides whether to perform or refrain from an action. However, based on Eichmann’s statements, whenever authority issues an order, it must be followed without question: as a result, individual moral responsibility disappears and any injustice can be justified. This view reduces human beings to instruments of political goals. Therefore, such a rule cannot be a universal law.
Kant emphasizes that the human being is an “end-in-itself,” not a means. That is, a person must always be the final end, not a means to an external end. In this ethical framework, a person becomes a means when they are used solely as an instrument to achieve a goal. Hence, participation in such a system, even under the guise of doing one’s duty, directly violates the categorical imperative. According to this principle, not every duty is necessarily moral; blind obedience to an order is unjustified, and respect for human dignity is a moral duty of the individual.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham first introduced utilitarian ethical theory and John Stuart Mill later developed it. Its central idea focuses on consequences: the rightness of actions is determined not by motive or prior rules, but by their outcomes. What produces the greatest utility for the greatest number is morally right. Accordingly, an action is moral if it increases happiness, reduces suffering, avoids partiality, accounts for real conditions and produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people.
Let’s imagine a situation in which a government is about to release information that may lead to widespread instability and public violence, while hiding it may also weaken public trust. In such a situation, from a utilitarian perspective, moral decision-making is based on the greatest overall positive outcome for the greatest number, meaning a choice between the immediate reduction of harm and the long-term preservation of public trust, rather than on an absolute principle.
Virtue Ethics: How to Live a Dignified Life
Another ethical approach, attributed to Aristotle as its founder, is virtue ethics. Rather than focusing solely on duty or consequence, this tradition places central importance on virtues. It emphasizes that a human being must possess virtues such as courage, justice, moderation and practical wisdom. Therefore, a virtuous person must uphold ethical principles, make realistic decisions in difficult situations and ultimately put virtue into action.
In 1978, Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s former president, signed the Camp David Accords, a peace agreement with Menachem Begin, Israel’s former prime minister. While the agreement had positive outcomes, including ending the state of war between the two countries and regaining the Sinai Peninsula, it exacted a heavy toll on Sadat and Egypt. Egypt’s membership in the Arab League was suspended and Sadat was assassinated in 1981. From a pragmatic perspective, Sadat argued that continuing the war would only lead to further human and economic exhaustion for Egypt. This example shows that, in the context of virtue ethics, decision-making cannot always be reduced to absolute rules or pure consequences, but requires practical judgment.
In conclusion, what can be learned is an understanding of the diverse dimensions of ethical living in a complex world, one in which phenomena are dynamic, transformations occur rapidly and tension-filled situations arise. It seems that the distinction between pragmatism and ethics cannot be achieved solely through calculations of utility and loss, adherence to duty, or the mere accumulation of virtues. Rather, individuals ought to adopt an ethical stance in various situations by recognizing the conditions at hand and drawing on a combination of ethical principles and personal virtues. It is within such a stance that practical reason serves ethical decision-making.
—
Najmuddin Hossaini studied philosophy, journalism and public relations. He writes about philosophical, social and ethical issues, with a focus on women’s issues, peace, culture, human rights, ethics and violence. He has also translated works on COVID-19’s social and personal effects, moral responsibility, vegetarianism and health, and the history and roots of extremism.