While the projects of ideal moral communities usually turn out to be utopias more or less unachievable in practice, there are still reasons why people keep designing them. A project of an ideal moral community, even if never realized in practice, is a manifestation of a person’s ethical beliefs and convictions and, as such, promotes inquisitive contemplation of ethical matters. An ideal community of mine would be based on the importance of suffering principle (ISP) and anthropologist, applying them to the residents, media, technology use, and organizations with only some exceptions.
The centerpiece of the ethical code for the residents of the community is the ISP. The essence of this principle, first outlined by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is simple: a creature’s capacity to experience suffering suffices to count this creature as a member of a moral community (Fordyce, 2017). This assumption does not mean that all kinds of suffering experienced by all creatures are equal – rather, it means that any creature capable of experiencing pain, fear, and other forms of suffering deserves moral consideration. The primary duty of the residents of the ideal moral community is, therefore, to prevent suffering in those capable of experiencing it and never disregard them in their considerations. In this respect, the importance of suffering principle necessarily extends the boundaries of the moral community to animals. The identification of suffering for animals should not be based on anthropomorphic criteria of dissatisfaction or pleasure but on the scientific assessment of what actually matters to the animals (Fordyce, 2017). Thus, the code for the residents of the moral community would revolve around the prevention of suffering for anyone capable of experiencing it, human or not.
The ideal moral community would also partially base its code for technology on the importance of the suffering principle. The community would recognize that technology has immense potential to improve the lives of all sentient creatures. The advances in healthcare improve the lots of countless humans, and improvements in transportation and agriculture made the exploitation of animals for this purpose largely unnecessary. Considering this, the community would endorse technological solutions that reduce suffering in its members. However, its residents should also be aware of the importance of the environment to the well-being of its members. However, unchecked use of technology may make humans abusive to the environment they inhabit (Bassey, 2020). Consequently, the community would adhere to the principle of anthropologist, which, as opposed to anthropocentrism, maintains that the environment has an inherent value and humans have an obligation to be its caretakers (Bassey, 2020). This notion would be an addition to the ISP because the environment is not a sentient being able to suffer, but it is still necessary to protect it from the adverse effects of technology.
The code for businesses and other organizations would be based on the application of the two principles outlined above. First of all, organizations active in the community would have the obligation not to increase suffering and alleviate it when possible. Secondly, they would also have an obligation not to harm the environment in their business pursuits or other activities they might be up to. In business-specific terms, these two principles logically lead to the ideas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder theory (Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017). CSR maintains that private entities, such as business enterprises, have a moral duty to benefit the society they operate in by acting as responsible and accountable actors. The stakeholder theory, as opposed to the stockholder theory, insists that companies should think about everybody affected by their activity rather than merely those who hold their shares. These two would form the foundation of the code for businesses and organizations.
In terms of media and journalism, the community would adhere to the freedom of speech. Since free exchange and discussion of ideas, also known as discourse democracy, is central to the productive development of society, freedom of speech would have few limitations. The only materials censored would be those the production of which involved physical or mental suffering, such as child pornography, torture, etc. The community would have anti-monopoly legislation in place to prevent corporatocracy, where a handful of large media outlets would control the flow of information. The moral code for journalists and media would stress the importance of providing as many diverse perspectives as possible for the promotion of discourse democracy (Johnson, 2017). Some of these perspectives can be unpleasant to some members of the community, which would admittedly be at odds with the ISP. However, one can interpret virtually any statement as offensive or injurious, and implementing censorship on these grounds would be logically absurd. Instead, the community would rely on the solid judgment of the journalists, who would abstain from publishing material they reasonably assume to be injurious when it serves no productive purpose.
To summarize, the ideal moral community code would be based on the ISP and anthropologist, with certain exceptions. Residents would have a moral obligation to consider any creature capable of suffering in their ethical decision-making. The use of technology would be limited by anthropologists, stating that humans should be the environment’s caretakers. Both would apply to businesses and organizations, and media and journalists would have a high degree of freedom of speech while also expected to make ethical considerations when publishing their materials.
References
Bassey, S. A. (2020). Technology, environmental sustainability and the ethics of anthropoholism. Proceedings of the International Symposium for Environmental Science and Engineering Research (ISESER2020), p. 162. ISESER. Web.
Fordyce, P. (2017). Suffering in non-human animals: Perspectives from animal welfare science and animal welfare law. Global Journal of Animal Law, 5(1), 12-53.
Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (2017) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya: Emerging Issues in Management, 17(1). Web.
Johnson, B. G. (2017). Speech, harm, and the duties of digital intermediaries: Conceptualizing platform ethics. Journal of Media Ethics, 32(1), 16-27.