HOW TWO OPPOSING DECISIONS CAN BOTH BE THE RIGHT DECISION

Aristotle offered a slightly different take on the moral compass. He believed in virtue theory, which is about turning yourself into a virtuous person so that the “right” decisions come naturally. Aristotle believed that the human function was to be virtuous and that there were about 18 virtues that humans must do well to be a “well-functioning human”.

Unlike Kant, Aristotle did not believe in the absoluteness of morality. Rather, it was all about striking the golden mean for each of the 18 virtues. For example, regarding truthfulness, being a liar is bad but being brutally honest is not a good trait either. Rather, striking the golden mean of telling the truth but telling white lies when necessary is the virtuous thing to do. Aristotle did not just focus on the intent nor the impact, but rather how everything was affected holistically.

So, how does one learn how to be virtuous? Aristotle says it must be learned and practiced, like any other skill. By observing others being virtuous and by practicing acts of virtue, one learns to become a virtuous person who will instinctively know the right thing to do at all times. As a result, it’s difficult to tell what Aristotle would have done had he been the engineer. That would depend on many factors, such as his parents and his environment. To illustrate this, let us imagine how two identical humans raised in different environments would ultimately make different decisions in the engineer’s dilemma, according to virtue theory.

In 1982, Frank was born to two loving parents in a small town in Minnesota. In this small-town, everyone knew everyone. There was a strong sense of community and trust. Growing up, Frank was taught the values of community. His parents were active members in the town and frequently participated in town hall meetings. In fact, Frank’s father had an opportunity to get a better paying job but turned it down because the extra obligations would mean that he could no longer be a leader of the community. However, Frank’s family was by no means wealthy- in fact, they just had enough to get by. But what goes around came around and when times got really tough for Frank and his family, the community would pitch in and help them out. Frank watched his parents value a strong community over personal gains. When Frank turned 18, he went to college and at 22, he graduated with a major in civil engineering and a minor in environmental engineering. There, he learned of the potentially adverse environmental consequences of human activities. After graduating, he moved to Los Angeles and got a job at an engineering firm designing bridges. Within the next 5 years, he got married and had a child. However, in 2009, Frank and his family felt the effects of the housing bubble burst, and Frank got laid off. He was unemployed for nearly a year when another engineering firm offered him a very well-paying job building coal-based power plants. Frank quickly realized that harmful smog will travel away from the power plants and into residential communities.

Now let’s pause for a second and look at a parallel universe where Frank may have been born in different conditions.

In 1982, Frank was born to two loving parents in Brooklyn, New York. His parents were both blue-collar workers, putting in hours overtime to make ends meet. His parents both stressed Frank’s education, hoping that that would be his ticket to a better life. In a city like New York, no one was looking out for Frank and his family. Frank realized this when his father got fired from his job and they lived in near-poverty conditions for a few months until his father got re-employed. It was an awful job but it beat not knowing if they could eat dinner. Growing up, Frank was taught the value of hard work. When he turned 18, he went to college and at 22, he graduated with a major in civil engineering and a minor in economics. There, he learned how to be smart and responsible financially. After graduating, he moved to Los Angeles and got a job at an engineering firm designing bridges. Within the next 5 years, he got married and had a child. However, in 2009, Frank and his family felt the effects of the housing bubble burst, and Frank got laid off. He was unemployed for nearly a year when another engineering firm offered him a very well-paying job building coal-based power plants. Frank quickly realized that harmful smog will travel away from the power plants and into residential communities.

Both Franks have very different backgrounds, but their paths converged in 2004- they both were laid off from the same job and was also offered the same job. However, Minnesota Frank was repeatedly taught the values of community by watching his parents and observing the community help out his family. In college, his minor taught him to be a conscientious engineer. So, when caught in this moral dilemma, Minnesota Frank believes that doing what is best for the community supersedes his personal struggle. After all, Frank has experienced tough times in the past but always prevailed, so is confident that despite his financial struggle he will get by. Therefore, he turns down the job.

Now consider New York Frank. NY Frank watched his parents have to fend for themselves growing up. He learned that if he works hard, he can have a better life. In college, his degree in economics taught him to be a realist financially. NY Frank realizes that if he doesn’t find an alternative job soon, he and his family might lose everything. Furthermore, NY Frank has experienced what it’s like to live in poverty-like conditions, and can’t imagine his infant child going through that. To NY Frank, accepting the job brings him no joy, but he sees it as foolish to turn it down. He knows he has to do what he has to do to survive because no one is looking out for him.

Therefore, we can see how both NY Frank and Minnesota Frank believe they are making the right decision, even though they are making different decisions. This is why it is difficult to discern what Aristotle would have done in this situation without analyzing his background and biography in depth.

Out of Kantianism, utilitarianism, contractarianism, and virtue theory, I believe that humans make moral decisions closest in accordance with virtue theory. Rather than viewing things black and white like Kantianism, utilitarianism, or contractarianism, where decision-making is absolute or merely a matter of weighing pros and cons, virtue theory takes a much more holistic approach. Virtue theory specifically focuses on the gray areas and is all about calibrating the golden mean instead of taking one extreme.

However, the other moral philosophies proposed by Kant, Bentham, Mill, and Hobbes are also important, because they all shed light on key factors when it comes to decision-making. For example, Kantians would ask” “Is my intent moral? Is this something others would view as moral?” Utilitarians would ask: “How will my actions affect others? Do the positives outweigh the negatives?” And finally, contractarians would ask: “How will I benefit from this decision? How will this affect my social standing among my peers?” All philosophers raise insightful questions that we should be asking ourselves.

Philosophy, especially moral philosophy’s place is not just in a classroom but in the real-world as well. Moral philosophy strives to teach humans how to be a good person. Learning how various philosophers sought to define morality only strengthens one’s own ability to make moral decisions when faced with a moral dilemma of any kind of any magnitude.