I’ve been
thinking a lot recently about the possibility of living an ethical life. It is
a question that occurs to me every so often, but over the break I decided to
read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, specifically One
Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, August 1914, The First Circle, and The Gulag Archipelago. (I read Ivan Denisovich in high school and I was
only able to read the first volume of Gulag.)
I had a few reasons to read Solzhenitsyn. One, my knowledge of Russian
literature and history is truly abysmal (although, maybe if Russian literature
was shorter, I would read more). Two, one of my classes this semester is on
Socialism and Gender until 1949, so reading about the U.S.S.R. is not the worst
idea I’ve ever had. Three, in the United States, socialism and communism are
generally misunderstood and the picture of Soviet Russia is flat and shallow
and a better understanding of the past leads to a better understanding of the
present. This is all rather tangential to the question at hand.
So, how do I get
to thinking about living an ethical life?
First, what does
ethical mean? Ethics are defined as “moral principles that govern a person’s or
group’s behavior.” So what, then, are morals? Morals are “concerned with the
principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human
character.” What, then, is the difference? On the show NCIS, the difference is explained thusly: “The ethical man knows it
is wrong to cheat on his wife, whereas the moral man actually wouldn’t.” The
ethical life seems to be different from the moral life. Ethics are determined
based on morals and morals are dependent on the individual. Ethics, at least in
the general sense, are dependent on the situation (situational ethics) or, at
least, ethics take the situation into account.
What happens
when one’s morals do not match the ethics of the society within which they
live? Is a moral life different from an ethical life? How do the ethics of a
society influence ideology? Are they the same?
(I realize I am
asking a lot of questions. And they do not necessarily have answers. They only
complicate my thinking more.)
Prior to my
Solzhenitsyn marathon, my thinking around these questions was based in two
different topics: pacifism and capitalism. I’m going to start with pacifism,
because I believe it is the easier of the two.
As a historian,
I have thought about war and violence a lot, especially because of my focus on
the First World War. During high school, I think, I learned about the Just War
Doctrine in the Catholic Church. This Doctrine details the conditions for
“legitimate defense by military force.” Defense. That means that there is no
situation in which military force is justified as an aggressive action. The
four conditions are: 1. “The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;” 2. “All other means
of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;”
3. “There must be serious prospects of success;” 4 “The use of arms must not
produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of
modern means of destructions weights very heavily in evaluating this
condition).” (This information came from the Wikipedia page, which site the
1992 Catechism.)
Now, there are
plenty of things I dislike about the Catechism. This is not one of them.
Essentially, these conditions, especially the fourth, mean that no modern
military defense is just. Historically, the argument can be made that military
defense has been justified. (The argument can be made that the First World War
was a just war—although seriously mismanaged.) There are many other examples of
refusing violence in the Abrahamic religions (and really all religions). We are
all taught some version of “Thou shalt not kill.” Given all of this, there is
no situation in which violence is acceptable.
Here I make two
points. One relates to self-defense, because I have never been in the position
in which I would need to violently defend myself or some one else, I cannot completely
rule out the need for violent action in this case. Two, pacifism relates only
to violence, not anger. Anger can be justified and righteous: remember, there
is Biblical precedence for flipping tables (Matthew 21:12). Non-violent action
does not necessarily mean peaceful.
Pacifism is
therefore a moral stance and it guides my life, which, I think, makes pacifism
part of my ethical life. Decision-making based on pacifism is easy in my life.
I do not have to make the decisions that would force me to think about
compromising my morals.
My thoughts on
capitalism and the society in which I live are more complicated. (I know, that
shouldn’t be possible given how mixed up I feel about this all at this point.)
In a capitalist consumerist culture, almost every decision is an ethical
decision.
As a consumer,
where I shop includes ethical decisions. I refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby
because of their stance on having their employees claim insurance benefits for
contraception. It is morally wrong to prevent individuals from choosing how
best to live their lives. Acting on that moral belief, I make the ethical
decision not to shop there. I won’t eat at Chick-fil-A for many of the same
reasons.
Those are easy
ethical decisions for me to make—there are other stores at which to buy craft
supplies and fast food. There are harder decisions: I dislike the way the
government structures subsidies for farms—heavily favoring corn production that
make buying heavily processed foods with high amounts of corn syrup cheap and other
produce expensive. But I have to eat and I am living on a part-time,
barely-above-minimum wage job while paying tuition and rent (even with a
government student loan). I would like to support small local farms, to eat in
a way that is, at least, not as harmful to the environment as single-crop
farming can be. So, while my morals tell me one thing, when I am confronted
with specific situations, I must make ethical compromises.
It seems, then,
that sometimes, one’s morals and ethics do not match the society in which one
lives. How does one act in that situation? I find that depends on the society
in which one lives. I can live my version of an ethical life, or at least try
to, when the society in which I live allows me to act contrarily to the prevailing
ethical code. But, when society does not, is it still possible?
I would like to
say yes. But, perhaps not. Or at least, maybe it is possible if only one posses
a strength of mind and conviction that I am unable to fathom.
And that brings
us to Solzhenitsyn. I really started thinking about the problem of trying to
live an ethical life shortly after starting The
Gulag Archipelago. Clearly the U.S.S.R. was an authoritarian dictatorship.
The concept of “law and order” had nothing to do with justice. One could be
arrested for not speaking against someone even though the second person had
done nothing wrong. Standing too long at a street corner with the wrong person,
whether you talked to them or not—or even knew them—could land you in the
Gulag. With millions being imprisoned or just disappearing, how can one live an
ethical life? Is not every choice not to protest or resist complicity?
Admittedly, there were those who did speak out. But, like in Nazi Germany, they
were silenced. So, then, is not merely surviving enough? Is it acceptable to
compromise one’s ethics or morals in order to stay alive?
And, again, I am
left with more questions.
The best answer
I have to all my questions is that it is impossible to know. Despite how it
seems, this is not a Yes/No question and accepting a simple answer is
unsatisfying. But there is value in trying to live ethically. There is
greatness in questioning one’s actions and choices and trying to make the
decisions that benefit society as a whole. There is beauty in the struggle.
And in the end,
it’s the journey that matters.
