A question of ethics...

The Coen Brother’s* cinematic classic ‘Miller’s Crossing’ starts off with a frank discussion of ethics. A mob boss is fixing fights, but every time he books a fight with a certain bookie, he gets screwed. “I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about--hell, Leo, I ain't embarassed to use the word--I'm talkin' about ethics… Out of town money comes pourin' in. The odds go straight to hell.” he says. It’s a great scene, made hilarious by the fact that he is basing his justification (whacking a shady bookie) on ethics, something that is normally associated with a moral justification. Should that be the case? Americans have been misled to believe that ethics are associated with morals, that which is Right or Wrong. The concept of ethical relativism is intertwined with the misinterpretation of the term ethics.

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics finds that ethical relativism is “the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.”

Scholars often dismiss this theory. They can cite a laundry list of some of the blatant, morally wrong situations where the ethics of one society will overwhelm the ethics of another. It makes sense, if you are looking at the problem from a functional level. No one would want values or morals expunged by those of a different culture. Of course, that is how wars normally start, especially in the modern arena. Arguments have been made as to Bin Laden’s motivation in 2001; whether or not it stemmed from hatred or fear of encroachment remains a topic of discussion.

Looking at ethical relativism solely as a theory lends one to more understanding. If the theory is true, then the mob boss’s reaction becomes clear. In his culture, fixing a fight concedes a certain amount of trust at the ‘fixing level’. He doesn’t want his pick to get out in the public or the “odds go straight to hell”. It is normal for him to expect a fixed fight to go off as planned. His trust is placed in a bookie, which appears to be getting the best of him. He has chosen to kill him… “for starters” as he puts it. That is where his dilemma lies.

*FYI, the Coen Brothers are my favorite directors. Check there stuff out in: Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?.