Notes on Principled Living and Principled Dispute Settling

Recall again that ethics is a normative discipline.--
                    a systematic study of how to make value judgements

            [and, we might add, to  give reasons for the judgments and
              to revise those judgements in the light of further reflection
                                and in the light of further evidence].

Examples of normative judgments:

                X is better than Y. -- for these reasons.

                An action A or a policy P is the best option -- for these reasons.

                Action A or policy P OUGHT to be done or OUGHT NOT to be done --
                                                                                                        for these reasons.
*****************************************************************************************************
        Now wherever value judgments -- normative judgements -- are in play,
one can always ask for CRITERIA OR STANDARDS OR PRINCIPLES
by which the value judgment is measured.

So in the Olympic games there are criteria to judge the performance of athletes.
Consumer Reports evaluates products according to criteria.
Scientists evaluate theories according to certain criteria.
And on and on.
Ethics makes value judgements about matters that lie at the core of life.

Its criteria -- for example, our class mission or
                What is Good for the Whole and Fair to the Parts (or Fair to Persons)
deals with PERSONS-IN-COMMUNITIES --
                what is owed to persons and what is best for communities to flourish.

        Ethics comes into play as we condemn the Holocaust, Slavery and Apartheid.

Furthermore, the virtues we cultivate --
            the habits of mind and heart we seek to achieve --
                    are commitments chosen after deliberation.

Ethics teaches us to live principled lives.
*********************************************************************
            Depth psychologist, Ira Progoff, once wrote -- if you go far enough
down your own well, you will meet the common stream of humanity.

Let's recall Maynard Adams' Prime Responsibility of Persons:

        To define and live a life of my own

        one that is worthy of me (under rational scrutiny)

                as a human being ------------implies ------à center of worth in own right with
                                                                                        intellect and will or as Kant put it
                                                                                            as equal, rational, free
                                                                                        plus a being having material needs
                                                                                        and higher needs -- in short
                                                                                        what all this requires of me.
                                and

                as the particular individual [ / embeddual ] I am.

This ------implies ---------------à what is require of me by virtue
                                                  of my relational and institutional
                                                    roles, by virtue of the needs of
                                                    my time and place, the call on me
                                                    as a result of my my talents and
                                                    temperament, etc. -- in short
                                                    what all of my particular
                                                    situatedness requires of me. If we go down this well, we meet again the red of particular communities and my roles in them -- the whole web of relational bonds -- like the blood circulating through an organism.
********************************************************************************************

The objective criteria or standards or principles emerge when we consider persons-in-communities. For these criteria are longer in time and more fully grounded in the nature of things than just this decision or negotiation.

In GTY and more widely in ethics, we do start with the end in view.

We cultivate certain habits, virtues, commitments -- we seek to live a principled life --

to live on principles that we could accept whether on the "doer" or "done to" sides --

principles that we could willingly generalize without fear of bad consequences happening

to the social structures under which we live and the deeper webs of life that are given to

our care. Good of the Whole; Fairness to the Parts (Persons).
*************************************************************************
If we think of true partnership, we can situate some of the GTY features of a wise agreement in the new model.

Two Images:
 
       (A)
                        Roots and the branches, the Wonderful Tree
                       Think partnership first and then you and me.

               Three nests in the branches -- friendships,
                                                                 family relationships and
                                                                relationships in the wider world of institutions

                   Three sets of deep roots -- All humankind (The Human Family),
                                                              All lifeforms on the planet (The Great Family),
                                                              The Great Mystery
**************************************************************************************************

(B)                         Held by a oneness as vast as the sea,
                                Think partnership first and then you and me.

                    Think of a partnership as a bowl, a boat.

                    There is the relational field itself (bowl, boat)
                     And the two parties within it .

The boat rests on the ocean of deeper connections
  a) The bowl or boat is a particular kind of partnership with a nature all its own
 
 

b) The bowl or boat rests on deeper connectivities --

the human family over generations (ancestors to children)
the web of all life
the great mystery that has many names and no adequate name
Yehweh, God, Allah, the Tao, the Dharma, the Pattern that connects, the Ever-Present Origin
  c) The bowl or boat serves those beyond itself.
************************************************************************

GTY helps us look to objective criteria (fair standards and fair procedures):

The authors write (page 85):

                    At the minimum, objective criteria
                        need to be INDEPENDENT OF EACH SIDE'S WILL.
                    Ideally, to assure a wise agreement, objective criteria [should also be]
                            BOTH LEGITIMATE AND PRACTICAL.

Let's go back to the beginning:

            WAG EAR --     a wise agreement ---------- efficiently and amicably reached.
                                      Substantive concerns           Procedural concerns (adverbial?)

An agreement is a wise one if it meets the following four conditions(see p. 4) :

1) meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible

2) resolves conflicting interests fairly

3) is durable and

4) takes community interests into account
 

 
legit. Interests                         Fair resolution of
of parties                                 conflicting interests
 

legit. Interests                         An agreement
of community                         that is durable

 The authors then argued that principled negotiations (defined by the four GTY steps)

is superior to positional bargaining (whether soft or hard) because

arguing over positions (positional bargaining)

produces unwise agreements (see pp. 4-5),

is inefficient (see pp. 5-6),

endangers an ongoing relationship [not amicable] (pp. 6-7)

  and if there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse. *******************************************************************************************
Examples of objective criteria:
 

A) Fair Standards (notice some are explicitly ethical criteria
                                        while the rest, we can assume, are ethically acceptable ones):

  Market value                           What a court would decide

Precedent                               Moral standards -- e.g. our GW; FP

Scientific Judgment             Equal treatment

Professional Standards     Tradition

Efficiency                               Reciprocity

Costs                                     Etc.

 B) Fair Procedures (for example): one cuts, the other chooses

"veil of ignorance" scenarios -- e.g. parents agreeing on visiting
                                                            rights before deciding custody (if
                                                            joint custody is not possible)
taking turns

drawing lots

letting someone else decide, etc.

 Having identified some objective criteria and procedures, how do you go about discussing them with the other side?

            There are three basic points to remember:

                1)    Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria

                2)    Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are more
                                appropriate and how they should be applied.
 
                3)   Never yield to pressure, only to principle.
****************************************************************

                                        Return to Ethics Enrichment Page

                                        Return to Ethics Menu Page

                                        Return to John G. Sullivan Homepage