On Ethics

From Premarital Sex in America by Mark Regenerus and Jeremy Uecker.

I should not judge anyone's sexual conduct except my own... 83%

While religious and  conservative organizations in this country may attempt to construct systematic barriers to sexual involvement, very few young Americans seem interested in expressing categorical barriers for others or for themselves.  To do so would violate the code of toleration and would just look prudish.  Emerging adults desperately wish to avoid both.  As a result, sexual choices become almost entirely privatized, subject to little oversight outside the self.  (pp. 113-14)

 Ethics is supposed to refer to a system of right and wrong - a system of morals and ideals that govern what people should and should not do.  That ethics is a worked-out system implies, of course, that it is supposed to be normative or prescriptive; that is, it is supposed to tell other people what to do just as much as it tells you what to do.  If it did not do this, then there would simply be no need for such a system in the first place: just as you do not need a factory in order to produce just one item, you don't need a system to govern the actions of just one person - your person.   For that, you only need your own preferences and opinions (which you, conveniently, already have).

So what is to become of ethics, as a field, if the coming generation no longer believes in it?  Regenerus and Eucker document that 83% of young people (university aged) do not think they have any right or standing to evaluate the sexual conduct of others.  To do so would violate the code of toleration.  Remember, R & E are not simply right-wing pundits off on another screed; they are sociologists and they are simply summarizing the results of primary research.  In other words, this is not a case of some grumpy old men complaining that young people these days don't care any more, this is a case of 83% of young people themselves stepping up and saying that they do not care any more.  Granted, R & E are discussing only sexual practices, but do we really think this trend is isolated to sexuality?  Do we really think that people, while not willing to judge others' sexuality, would be perfectly willing to judge, say, their spending habits?  Or their drinking habits? Or any other area of traditional ethics?  I'm sure there are still some areas in which people are willing to cast some judgment, but on the whole I think what R&E have documented is simply part of a greater trend to avoid the evaluation and judgment of the behaviour of others.  In other words, ethics.

And what a loss that is too, since, as R&E further document, your evaluation is precisely what so many others are looking for:

Emerging adults really are just looking around trying to figure out from each other what they ought to want and do, and when.  They can convince each other of all sorts of things. (p. 240)

 Why is it that they are looking to others for normative cues?  R&E offer a theory about socially constructed "scripts" that we instinctively look to follow.  I like that, but I think there's more to it.  I think it might also involve an instinctive desire for justice.

The desire for justice and fairness is, I think, built into us.  Margaret Atwood famously said that we can see this just by watching the line at the bank: watch someone try to bypass the line and cut to the front, and you can see the stiffening reaction of every person in the line - "something unfair is happening!"  These days, with ATMs, we don't see many bank lineups, so instead just go to the grocery store and watch the dirty looks everyone gives the one jerk who shows up at the 1-10 items express counter with 17 things in their cart!
What is the heart of fairness though?  It's the idea that your actions should not negatively affect an innocent other.  And that's how the sense of justice drives a system of ethics: we need ethics to regulate people's behaviour so that their behaviour will not negatively affect innocent others.  Phrased individually, we don't want others' behaviour to negatively affect us, so we instinctively want a system of ethics imposed upon everyone.

But, the argument goes, not all behaviour can affect others.  Personal behaviour - particularly sexual behaviour - affects no one but myself (and my consenting partner), so why should anyone else have a stake in it?  That argument sounds great in theory, but again R&E show it is contradicted by the evidence.  We may think of ourselves as individuals, but we do not live in a individuity, we live in a community, and our actions cannot help but affect the others around us.  Even if we do not see that effect, even if it is small and cumulative and takes a long time to make any difference, that effect is always there:

Other people's sexual choices matter.  Collectively they function as a powerful constraint on our own behaviour.  As the norm of sexual monogamy becomes a more robust characteristic of the wider sexual market, the mantra of letting everyone choose what they want to do becomes moot.  This is because free choice disappears when the majority of men and women become constrained by the structured expectations of fairly prompt sex within romantic relationships, fewer expectations for commitment and permanence, etc.  In other words, if a critical mass of men and women enjoy an extended series of sexual relationships and expect sex fairly promptly within them, it becomes quite difficult for a minority to do otherwise. (p. 245)