The failure of morality

So what is the answer?

The answer is given to us in an overriding moral obligation set out for us over the centuries. The obligation was first documented by King Solomon but probably the wording most known to us is that of the Dalai Lama: "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them". This basic moral obligation was set out by King Solomon about 1000 BC in the Book of Proverbs in Proverb 3.27and Proverb 3.29, repeated by Jesus Christ in the Parable of the Good Samaritanand to a large extent, in The Sermon on the Mount.

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote similar thoughts about 60 BC in On Living and Dying Well,

This moral guideline is also echoed in the work of a number of modern-day moral philosophers: John Stuart Mill,Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress, Bernard Gert, William Frankena The wording may differ, as it does in the earlier writings, but it is essentially not to harm people, and to help them when they need it,

Finally the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions in the concept of Ahimsa: respect for all living things and avoidance of violence toward others is the non western endorsement of this guideline.

Proof that this guideline is practical

The fact that this guideline has been endorsed over the centuries by many of the world's greatest thinkers is a substantial endorsement of its validity But we can go even further.

Major advances in the human condition, over the centuries, has adhered to this guideline: the abolition of serfdom; of slavery, the abolition of foot binding, stopping the imprisonment or even the execution of homosexuals, the ending of dueling, are examples. Together with the introduction of social welfare programs – sickness, old age and unemployment benefits, all aimed at relieving a harm, this guideline gives demonstratable benefits.

But we can go even yet further. Applying it to the current controversies, we find that this guideline will still give us answers , This writer has previously argued that abortion is morally justified, also managing lockdowns in the Covid 19 pandemicis a current issue, often addressed under the heading Lives versus Livelihoods.Voluntary euthanasia is another issue that generates differences of opinion, but this guideline clearly comes down on the side of minimizing suffering. It therefore provides answers in these current controversies

The guideline will not, however, give us an answer for all moral questions. Sometimes we need to inflict a smaller harm to offset a larger harm. Examples are:

• Some budget allocations. Funds taken out of one program to increase another will mitigate the effectiveness of the first program,
• Refugee decisions. Denying access to a wealthier country harms those left behind,
• Many freedom of religion issues. Some ultra conservative religionists will continue to argue against abortion, or gay marriage, or permitting homosexuality,
• The many conflicts in the worldwide on Covid 19 lockdowns will continue, using arguments such as the right to free speech, or freedom of association.
• Pre-emptive strikes. They cause a military confrontation, with ensuing damage. Whether or not they are justified depends on a valid assessment of whether they prevented a larger war,
• Torture of a terrorist to locate the ticking bomb.

There are other issues where the "help others" component is an insufficient guideline. How much do we help, when such helping costs us time or funds?

There are several ways in which we can resolve these issues: (i) Philosophers can continue to argue, hopefully in terminology comprehensible to all, (ii) we can hold a plebiscite (as in gay marriage in Australia or in some of the states in the United States), or (iii) we can leave the issue to our legislatures or the highest court in the land. Or on international issues, to the United Nations.

In Conclusion.

This opinion piece has presented an overall moral guideline, hopefully with sufficient supporting evidence to persuade others to take it up, put it into practice, and teach it. Will it be successful? The answer depends on the extent of adoption, particularly by moral philosophers and in their teaching of this guideline. Several moral philosophers for example, including John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, have condemned Utilitarianism. This despite Utilitarianism clearly objecting to harming others and promoting a beneficial life for all. But even if the adoption by academic philosophers is limited, the ability of the guideline to lead us to a decision on the multitude of false news and conflicting opinions that we see near daily in the media, will be of major benefit.