Modern Philosophy: Barış Bayram Examining Ethics in a Trump World
In this piece, Barış Bayram answers questions about universal ethics, government corruption, and examination on Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
Q: How can one notice and challenge unethical behavior in their government?
BB: By seeking information, truths, knowledge, and cognition on such issues. Thinking and acting based on science and reliable reports. Plus, considering experts’s analysis, interpretation, criticism, and suggestions too. It’s a constant process about acting as an engaged citizen. In many aspect, it also requires self-development. Otherwise, one cannot be sufficiently capable to notice and challenge unethicalities in their government.
Q: How can one focus on personal/introspective ethics in hopes of making a broader impact of society/culture?
BB: First, I agree with you, in terms of autonomy, that one must focus on a sort of “personal” ethics. But, to me, such ethical reasoning and decision making possibilities must be also science-based. In this context, I can interpret personal/autonomous decision-making or conscience (con + science: with + knowledge) as such: For any decision on any (real-world) issue, knowing and considering all relevant info and scientific theories as much as possible, and deciding and acting based on such knowledge and ethical deliberation. So, yes to deciding, thinking, reasoning, acting, choosing independently from power relations, from social-dominance-orientation, from coercion, from authoritarian/cynical obedience/conformity, from following others’s opinions without reasons based on science. But also, we must add such a “with-knowledge” (interdisciplinary deliberation) to such independence while understanding “personal ethics” that you mentioned.
Q: What corruptions stemming from government are the most damaging on its people?
BB: This time, my answer is very short. Because Global Human Rights (for more information, please read the work/reports of @UNHumanRights on Twitter) are inalienable and indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and are (must be) valid for any government and any condition/time. Violating them, or not protecting them, and even not fulfilling them are highly problematic in account of government/State. But, in my view, for us to be able to defend any of Global Human Rights, “the right to freedom of expression and information” is paramount in a very unique sense.
Q: How has Trump challenged internationally recognized ethics by withdrawing from Paris agreement?
BB: Trump’s decision was, in fact, against “evidence-based policy-making, global cooperation, and pro-science governance”. Such a withdrawal means that Trump does not sufficiently care about the long-term well-being of the U.S. citizens too. But yet, it can become an opportunity for the internationalists/“globalists”/global citizens (like Angelia Jolie, Rihanna, or at least me, and of course, any activist and leader having a pro-global vision) to scientifically, ethically and strategically think about how to design/act for reducing such anti-science possibilities in the future. More precisely, we can develop more-ethical futures: In their conscience and autonomy, no one really wants such a withdrawal, or at least no one has the “power and incompetence” to decide in such a globally-destructive way.
Q: Do you believe there is a universal code of ethics?
Barış Bayram: In precise terms of ethics, against “ethical relativism/nihilism/subjectivism, I think that the only defensible and necessary source/basis for ethics (in any culture and any time biological systems with some rationality-capabilities try to survive) is one’s own long-term well-being considerations. Such well-being considerations can be based on one’s own “decision” to maintain his/her life. Unless one commits suicide, she “decides/prefers” to live more. For living more, she needs to design how to improve her well-being in a sense of probabilities. Then, she “must” try to find out, develop and implement workable ways for realizing such well-being conditions through very long-term considerations. So, all quality ethical deliberations/advancements can be based on such a decision (survival, and hence well-being). Likewise, any ethical investments in others and defending others’s rights can “possess” a sufficient justification and/or rationale based on this decision for one’s own well-being. In such a way, is-ought gap to can be resolved through what “is” more workable/actionable/effective for long-term well-being and for developing systems and rights meeting relevant objectives because of such a decision to maintain to live/survive. What “is” (relatively more) workable (found by sciences) is also what “ought” to be realized (by us because of one’s own survival-decision, and solely while there is such a decision until suicide or an ideology that is not well-being oriented). The point is that my meta-ethical argument is not naturalistic. It depends on one’s own decision toward her own survival. Thus, we can possibly move from “some” combinations of “is” (descriptive) statements to “some” combinations of “ought” (prescriptive) statements based on such a decision, and thanks to sciences. It’s my claiming resolution for the so-called “fact-value gap”. It does not imply that human beings have natural/permanent goals toward survival/well-being, or any other “inevitable decision”, and any teleological argument. Plus, thanks to its decision-dependency (e.g., some people commit suicide), it does not accept any version of natural law theory, divine command theory, and moral realism too. But it defends “ethical objective effects” approach as a main “ethical-reasoning ground” that must be constructed and developed in complexity by human beings based on a necessary condition that is a decision to be made to constantly aim any increase in one’s own long-term well-being. With a ground of such objectivity, it rejects both moral relativism, subjectivity, and nihilism too. In short, there is no any moral/ethical fact that is before human beings exist (universal, in itself, code of ethics/morality), but we can possibly, preferably, accurately, and effectively develop and many times are already developing “more-ethical” designs, approaches, systems, rights and conceptual/concrete tools/applications in globally-defensible ways. Finally, I have to add that ethical multiple dimensions of one’s own long-term well-being can be possibly understood solely in its complexity and interdependence with others’s well-being and also with some welfare/environment systems through quality interdisciplinary scientific knowledge on issues that have primary importance for one’s own long-term well-being.
Barış Bayram is an interdisciplinary theoretician, independent researcher, columnist at Impakter, philosophy graduate student at Yeditepe University, graduated from Anadolu University (major: economics) both located in Turkey. Barış’ main research interests include; human rights, ethics, secular thought, the United Nations SDGs, and academic impact.
Follow him on twitter @BarisBayram2045
