Building a more moral world

We have dozens of moral conflicts in the world today – same sex marriage, accepting refugees, gun control, capital punishment and health care in the United States, sexual abuse of children, abortion, euthanasia. We also have dozens of moral theories-well over 20-to decide how we resolve these issues. The reason why we have not resolved these issues is the sheer multitude of theories-all drawn from Western philosophy. The most notorious is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This rule enables you to claim that your view on conflicts is correct, and the opposing viewpoint is wrong. Other moral theories will also support whichever side you wish. We see these conflicts in the media every day. It is incredible that after over 2000 years of moral theorising, we are still not able to decide on the difference between right and wrong.

Some philosophers say that we cannot reach a decision on issues of morality. Alain de Botton, in his Religion for Atheists, states that there is no overriding moral rule; we can never decide on what is the right thing to do.

I disagree with Alain de Botton. There is indeed one overriding moral theory, one common to Western and Eastern moral philosophies.

The Eastern belief, based on the eastern religions-Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. -demonstrating the greatest commonality is Ahimsa: refraining from harming others. This moral concept is common to three of the Asian and four of the Western moral philosophies. Combined with the injunction to help others when they need help, it is applicable world-wide. It also answers a near-complete range of current moral questions.

The concept of Ahimsa: "Respect for All Living Things and Avoidance of Violence Towards Others", was quoted by the 14th Dalai Lama when he spoke on the terrorist attack in Nice: "Our prime purpose in life is to help others. And if you cannot help them, at least don't hurt them". Non-violence is also "at the core of Mahatma Gandhi's political thought".

Debrata Sen Sharma, writing on Hindu ethics, advocates that we should "abstain from violence in any form and refrain from causing injury to any one through deed, word or thought"

The Samyoga Institute tells us: "Although Ahimsa was originally translated as non-killing, it evolved over time to mean non-injurying-physically, mentally and/or verbally." This translation suggests that we not strike anyone, utter unkind words, or even think negative thoughts of anyone.

The concept of Ahimsa overlaps with four of the Western philosophies.

These are Tom Beauchamp's and James Childress', Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2009), William Frankena's Ethics (1973), Bernard Gert's Common Morality (2004), and possibly the most widely endorsed is John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (1863), which repeatedly condemns harming others. Each of these ethical theories sets out the moral rule that we should not harm others.

Each theory is examined below to determine (i) how well it defines harm; also (ii) if people are suffering from harm or some disability, then then the extent to which we should assist them and (iii) whether it incorporates the relieving of harm already incurred. i.e., a "Do good" as well as a "Do not do harm" injunction, and (iv) the extent to which we weigh one harm against another. e.g. inflict a small harm in order to prevent a larger one.

Beauchamp and Childress: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. This work is a bio-ethics text. It specifies four separate principles that structure this theory: respect for autonomy; non-maleficence; beneficence; and justice. Non-maleficence is the do-no-harm component

William Frankena: Ethics This 1973 book possibly covers much of the universal guideline that we are looking for. It has a four-part set of rules:

1. One ought not to inflict evil or harm

2. One ought to prevent evil or harm. Includes injuries, interferences and deceit

3. One ought to remove evil. Includes removing existing injuries and harms

4. One ought to do or promote good by making others happy; by improving their wellbeing

Bernard Gert's Common Morality sets out ten rules of morality:

1. Do not kill

2. Do not cause pain

3. Do not disable

4. Do not deprive of freedom

5. Do not deprive of pleasure

6. Do not deceive

7. Keep your promises

8. Do not cheat

9. Obey the law

10. Do your duty

And finally, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is clearly against harming others. He repeats this injunction several times:

•The moral rules which forbid mankind to hurt one another… are more vital to human well-being than any maxims, however important, which only point out the best mode of managing some department of human affairs..

Mill also uses the word "pain" in a very wide sense, although perhaps not always clearly. He includes "mental suffering" as one of the contributors to unhappiness. The Asian philosophies also support this definition.

"Do no harm, help others" as the universal guideline is supported by social developments over history. The abolition of slavery, the ending of duelling, the abolition of foot binding, the stopping of imprisonment or even the execution of homosexuals, the introduction of sickness, old age and unemployment social welfare programs have all been aimed at relieving a harm that was then being experienced. Each, incidentally, was also resisted by conservative thinking.

One final reason for proposing "Do no harm, help others" as an overriding theory is that the injunction is in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Parable of the Good Samaritan supports it completely, as, to a large extent, does the Sermon on the Mount.

Current ethical conflicts

"Do no harm, help others" is universally applicable to all moral problems.

Same sex marriage. Such marriages are morally acceptable on the basis that we are inflicting a harm if we discriminate against any group. Also, increasing acceptance of homosexuality has been a noticeable development in most modern democracies. It has not been that long since we sent homosexuals to prison, or even castrated them. Same sex marriage only continues a trend of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.

Children from same sex relationships: Research from more than 70 studies has found that these children are at no disadvantage.

Escalating gap between the rich and poor. The question here is whether this gap causes harm to those less well off. When we examine the gap between the third world and developed nations, the answer is clearly yes, and the gap is immoral. According to the United Nations, roughly 1.2 billion people are in "extreme poverty" -earning less than $1.25 a day. The answer in the industrial democracies, however, is not so clear. A 1993 study does show that income inequality and relative poverty have a negative impact on infant mortality. Since then, the gap between the rich and poor has widened. Some writers claim that this gap causes a high crime rate, social unrest, and political instability.

Gun control in the United States and to a lesser extent, in Australia, is currently a controversy. Application of the minimum harm rule will show that gun control is the desired moral response.

Racial discrimination is obviously a harm, and therefore a wrong.

Abortion. The argument at issue here is the right to life of the unborn foetus. I see the argument from a different angle, however, in that our reasons for holding that the killing of a human being is wrong is, according to Peter Singer, that we deprive him or her of the expectation that they have on their future lives. To take away this expectation is to do them harm. But an embryo has no mind, no expectations, so they cannot be harmed. We must also balance the pregnant woman's wishes against what for most right-to-lifers, is a religious belief. Expectant women themselves should individually make the choice of which is the lesser harm.

Cloning and designer babies. These are huge issues, including stem cell research. All are the result of currently available genetic engineering technologies. They allow the human race to manage its own evolution. The "Do no harm, help others" rule, however, provides a workable guideline. If the technology is beneficial, such as to remove the causes of genetically inherited diseases, then it is morally acceptable. If the technology is used to enhance our intelligence or physical prowess, then it must be equally available and affordable to all social classes and all levels of income. That day is a long way off. I do see a possible moral benefit in a technology that increases the general level of intelligence of the human race, or even in its physical fitness or its lifespans.

Universal Health Care Obamacare-or the Affordable Care Act-is a much-disputed policy in the United States. Those of us in Australia, beneficiaries of a highly regarded national health scheme, cannot understand the objections. These appear to be a right-wing US objection to big government: that Obamacare reduces the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices when obtaining medical services. This argument for dismantling Obamacare is not at all obvious to outsiders.

Asylum for refugees & global warming are two issues that can be treated together, as the moral guidelines are clear. The rule, minimize harm, should dictate our decisions on both: that we help refugees where ever we can, and that we take every step feasible to limit carbon emissions. Climate sceptics appear to oppose practices that reduce human emissions, on the belief that the world is only passing through a warmer cycle. Most scientific evidence is against this viewpoint.

The social obligations of business. Applying the "do no harm, help others" rule, we find that Milton Friedman is right when he says the primary objective of a corporation is profit-for without ongoing profit, the firm cannot survive. And a business that collapses throws people out of work. The dilemma arises when profits start to fall. One traditional answer has been to cut costs, but such cutting may cause harm. The cutting could include the firm's contributions to the welfare of the communities where it is located, to the numbers in its workforce, or to the expenditures on safety equipment and training. Again, the minimum harm option provides a strong guideline, in that the decision requires a balance between two competing harms, decided by the analyses and judgement of the firm's decision makers. In short, there is no easy answer to the social obligations of business. The decision hinges on which option does the least harm.

Education Albert Einstein once said, "Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of minds to think." These social issues make up an obligatory component of any educational program. Education should include issues such as prison reform, the imprisonment rate of mentally defective persons, the imprisonment of people born into dysfunctional families, the health of indigenous people, even the causes and prevention of war. Such learning is a step towards the broader social objective of producing graduates with a wide-ranging perspective on the concerns facing the world. We will all benefit.

Lecturers within philosophy departments might well include the Eastern philosophical topics as part of a standard ethics course. I hope that in their lecturing on the multitude of ethical theories on offer they will stop arguing about which theory they support, and offer "Do no harm - Do good" as the one universal theory.