It does not seem to follow that once we have successfully separated the concept of religious morality from that of social morality, as we have attempted to do last week, that we will automatically arrive at a fundamentally uniform ethics to re engineer and reconstruct society. This is because there are many different kinds of yardsticks for determining the right social conduct. In academic ethics proper, from which the various ethical systems are enunciated, there are schools and sub-schools, with each one insisting that its prescription for the right moral behaviour is overarching and the best. Under the circumstances, it may be necessary, by way of digression, to strive to identify and characterise the different schools or sub schools of ethics; to guide selection for inclusion in the school curriculum.
Some ethical doctrines endorse, as morally right, those actions or set of actions that promote the wellbeing of the doer, regardless of whether or not they make others happy or sad. An action is morally right, the ethical egoist would say, if it advances the wellbeing and happiness of the agent; if it makes the doer of the act happy. The ethical egoist does not concern himself with the happiness of the other, in carrying out his actions. He considers largely or solely how his acts or conduct will promote his welfare. Is this the sort of ethics we want to teach our children?
Certainly not, for it will merely breed a society of do or die people a dog eat dog society. But isn't that what we find around us in our society? Are the people in power those in positions of authority acting to advance the wellbeing of Nigerians? Why is it that the persons who rule our country are unable to provide regular, uninterrupted, electricity for the people? Why is it that they have not been able to deliver road and rail infrastructure to the people? Why is it that captains of industry set up banks and corporations to defraud the people? Why is it that government and its agencies in the electricity service industry have failed to provide prepayment meters for users of electricity? Why should the persons in government look the other way when the PHCN is extorting money from members of the public through crazy and estimated bills? The simple answer on the lips of everyone is likely to be the usual one word culprit corruption! But corruption is the visible manifestation of a fundamental moral disorder in our character as a people crude self-interest eternally blind to the wellbeing of the other; utter disregard for collective prosperity, nurtured and constantly re-implanted by leadership in every stratum of society. Ethical egoism is the moral theory that captures this pernicious way of life. Consequently, it should not be allowed to rear up its ugly head, unmodified, in our school curriculum.
But is it possible for an ethics that truly works not to flow from the self ? Can we teach an ethics that de-centres the self and not turn our children into monks, weirdoes and recluses? How can we resolve the tension between the self and the other or the conflict between the self and community, in our choice of ethics to be taught in schools? Indeed, the extreme reaction in academic ethics has been to counter poise altruism to ethical egoism. Since the utter selfishness incidental to egoistic thinking in the realm of moral action has become harmful to society, to the Nigerian society, some people think that it might be worth the while to enjoin and inculcate the doctrine of selflessness. To be selfless means to consider others first in our actions. Altruism is the moral orientation that one ought to always consider others first in one's actions; that the conduct of an agent is morally right if it is premised on the desire to promote the wellbeing of others, the wellbeing of the collectivity. This is because it is only when others are happy that our own happiness can be guaranteed, as the person who would not allow his neighbour to have nine, could not even have one in peace. You need the happiness of others to enjoy your own happiness. But were children to go about seeking the happiness of others, how would they ever pursue and accomplish their own goals, their personal projects, which are also conducive to collective social prosperity?
Luckily, the masters of ethics have not said that altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive. They have not said that self interest must be programmed to be in conflict with collective interest. A person can pursue a private act and achieve collective wellbeing for members of society. Altruism is not averse to private, personal, happiness, any more than personal projects are necessarily antagonistic to community wellbeing and happiness.
The way out, therefore, is to teach a set of self-interest conducts that are in congruence with ethos of collective survival and happiness. That takes us to the doctrine of enlightened self interest, ethical egoism and utilitarianism; which in conjunction with situation ethics and the ethics of character shall constitute the outline for a programme of ethics in our schools.
National Mirror