Calculating can be subjective and also allow us to be removed from understanding the foundations of human rights, but it’s an interesting ponder. From an epistemological perspective, we consider the utility of a conceptual framework termed as the DMV model — Discipline, Motivation, Will, and Volition — which has the potential to decode and simplify the complex scenarios that responsibility often presents. Let’s see if our DMV model can find a definitive answer.
Aristotle (350 B.C.E.) in Nicomachean Ethics:
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that at which everything aims.”
This quote underscores the concept of ‘Motivation’ in the DMV framework. It suggests that our actions and decisions are motivated by some perceived good, which is a major determinant in the ethical calculus of this article. From Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics,” we derive the concept of a virtuous act — an action that lies between deficiency and excess. In our scenario, the act of stealing bread to feed the hungry could be seen as a virtuous one if we’re assuming that it is the middle ground between the excess of hoarding and the deficiency of hunger. It could be argued that the person stealing bread is embodying the virtue of generosity, albeit through unconventional means.
Immanuel Kant (1785) in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
This quote highlights the concept of ‘Will’ in the DMV framework. Kant is suggesting that one’s will to act should be based on principles that could be universally applied. This is in line with the perspective of deontological ethics, where the morality of an action is based on whether it conforms to rules and duties. Immanuel Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” provides us with the idea of duty and the categorical imperative, which suggests that one should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In our scenario, if the person stealing the bread genuinely believes that in a similar situation (widespread hunger and available resources), it would be universally acceptable for others to do the same, then according to Kantian ethics, they might be justified in their actions.
John Stuart Mill (1861) in Utilitarianism:
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
Mill’s quote resonates with the idea of ‘Impact’ within our proposed calculus of blame and praise. He argues that actions are morally right if they increase happiness (or utility) and wrong if they do otherwise. This is the essence of utilitarianism, which suggests that the morality of an action should be determined by its outcome or consequences. This line of thought can be applied to evaluate the ethical implications of stealing bread to feed the hungry. Drawing on John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” we can interpret the act of stealing bread to feed the hungry as a utilitarian act. This philosophy prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number. If the theft results in more overall happiness by satiating hunger (greater good), then it could be seen as justified under utilitarian ethics, despite the negative aspects of theft.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1943) in Being and Nothingness:
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
This quote echoes the concept of ‘Volition’ in the DMV framework and the responsibility component in the calculus of blame and praise. According to Sartre, human beings are fundamentally free, and this freedom carries with it a profound responsibility. We have the power to choose our actions and must bear the consequences of these choices. This idea supports the perspective that leaders’ volitional actions and their consequences are critical in the moral calculus of assigning praise or blame. In Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness,” we encounter the existentialist idea of freedom and responsibility. The person stealing the bread exercises their freedom to defy social norms (theft) for a cause they deem more important (feeding the hungry). However, they must also take full responsibility for the consequences of their actions, regardless of their good intentions.
Through the lens of these philosophical perspectives, the act of stealing bread to feed the hungry can be examined to shed light on the complexity of ethical decisions and the role of societal norms, personal motivations, and individual responsibilities.
Critical thinking, deeply rooted in Cartesian skepticism, is marked by logically consistent reasoning, contemplative thinking, and evidence-based evaluation. This closely aligns with the Discipline (D) element in our DMV model, outlining the structure and limitations of our knowledge domain. As Aristotle posited in his Nicomachean Ethics, this discipline is the linchpin, influenced but not swayed by external factors, providing a solid foundation for reasoned thought. In contrast, creative thinking, reflecting Nietzsche’s concept of the “dancing star,” fosters innovative ideas, a willingness to take risks, and challenges the existing norms. This aligns with Motivation (M) in our model, representing either a desire or aversion that drives change and exploration beyond established boundaries.
Weaving through the intricate dance between Will (W) and Volition (V) highlights the complexity of responsibility. Will, in our context, represents a kind of personal agency. It reflects Immanuel Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative from his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, underlining the influence of societal pressure, moral obligations, capabilities, or opportunities. Volition, on the other hand, represents a conscious choice or decision, echoing Sartre’s existential concept of “radical freedom” in his work Being and Nothingness, an active self-determination amidst ambiguity and uncertainty.
Integrating these philosophical foundations, we imagine a formula for ethical judgment, transposing it to our bread-stealing example. Let’s denote our Domain (D) as the act of bread-stealing, and our Meta Domain (mD) as the broader context of poverty and hunger. Motivation (M), a desire to feed the hungry, opposes a fear of punishment, thereby resulting in a negative motivation (-M). The Will (W) in this case represents the choice to steal bread despite the moral and legal implications. The Pressure (P) and Obligation (O) components align with societal norms and personal morals against theft. The Capability (C) reflects the thief’s ability to steal the bread and the Opportunity (T) represents the presence of accessible bread.
Applying this to our formula for Volition (V = W + (+M) + (-M) + P + O + C + T), we can attempt to analyze the action taken. By assigning values to each factor, we are able to gauge the overall motivation. Say, the Will to feed the hungry is a 7, the motivation to alleviate hunger is a 6, the negative motivation (fear of punishment) is -4, the social and moral pressure against theft is -5, the obligation to uphold legal standards is -6, the capability to steal the bread is a 3, and the opportunity to steal is a 5. These values yield a volition score of 6, indicating a leaning towards positive motivation for the act.
This exercise reflects a version of Utilitarianism, as propounded by John Stuart Mill, where the positive motivation to feed the hungry outweighs the negative connotations of theft, thus justifying the act. In essence, this model gives us a structured approach to determine the ethical merits and demerits of an act, anchoring it in a philosophical context. The extent of praise or blame assigned to the act is contingent on the sum total of these factors, providing a unique calculus of ethical responsibility. This method demonstrates the significance of the DMV framework in navigating the complexities of ethical decision-making.
Let’s attempt an example of calculation and adapt our bread stealing scenario:
Domain (D): Stealing bread
Meta Domain (mD): Alleviating hunger
Will (W): Stealing bread to feed the hungry
Positive Motivation (+M): Desire to feed the hungry and prevent starvation
Negative Motivation (-M): Fear of legal repercussions and moral guilt
Pressure (P): Social pressure against theft and for legal and moral norms
Obligation (O): Moral obligation to assist those in need
Capability (C): Physical ability to steal bread and deliver it
Opportunity (T): Availability of a bakery and hungry people nearby
The formula for this individual’s actions towards stealing bread to feed the hungry can be represented as:
V = W + [(+M) + (-M)] + P + O + C + T
Let’s assign some values to each factor for illustrative purposes:
Positive Motivation (+M): +10 (strong desire to feed the hungry)
Negative Motivation (-M): -5 (fear of getting caught or feeling guilty)
Pressure (P): -5 (strong societal norms against theft)
Obligation (O): +7 (moral duty to help those in need)
Capability (C): +5 (physical ability to commit the act and deliver the bread)
Opportunity (T): +8 (easy access to a bakery and presence of hungry people)
Will (W): To be determined using the formula.
Using the formula, we get:
W = ((10 * 1) + (-5 * 1) + (-5 * 1) + (7 * 1) + (5 * 1) + (8 * 1)) / (|1| + |1| + |1| + |1| + |1| + |1|)
W = (10–5–5 + 7 + 5 + 8) / 6
W = 20 / 6
W = 3.33
In this case, the output value is 3.33, indicating an overall positive will towards stealing bread to feed the hungry, despite the negative motivations and societal pressure against theft. Any value above 0 suggests positive will, a value of 0 shows neutrality, and a negative value indicates opposition to the act. Of course, these values are illustrative and could be adjusted according to individual’s personal feelings, societal factors, and other variables not captured in the model.
The use of the DMV framework with its grounding in philosophical thought does allow for a structured and nuanced exploration of the ethics of stealing bread to feed the hungry. The proposed model provides a method to evaluate the motivations, pressures, obligations, and opportunities involved, thereby allowing an individual to make a more informed judgement on the matter.
However, it’s important to note that all conclusions drawn using this model are contingent on the specific values assigned to each factor. These values are subjective and can vary greatly depending on the individual’s personal perspective, societal norms, cultural beliefs, or the specific circumstances of a situation. In the example provided, the calculation suggested a positive volition towards stealing the bread, given the higher value assigned to the motivation to alleviate hunger and the existence of the opportunity and capability to do so. In this specific case, there’s an indication that the act could be ethically justified based on the principles of utilitarianism, which values the greater good (feeding the hungry) over the violation of a rule (stealing).
This conclusion doesn’t necessarily apply universally. For instance, a deontologist, following Kant’s philosophy, might assign higher negative values to the pressures and obligations against theft, leading to a negative volition score and a conclusion that the act is unethical, regardless of the intent to alleviate hunger. Therefore, while the DMV model is a valuable tool for dissecting and understanding the complexities of ethical dilemmas, it does not offer definitive answers. It provides a calculated perspective based on specific factors and values, but the ultimate judgement on the ethics of an action like stealing bread to feed the hungry remains a deeply personal and context-dependent decision.
Our Resulting Arguments:
Premise 1
Actions and decisions are motivated by some perceived good (Aristotle).
Premise 2
The act of stealing bread to feed the hungry can be seen as a virtuous act embodying the virtue of generosity (Aristotle).
Premise 3
One’s will to act should be based on principles that could be universally applied (Kant).
Premise 4
If the person stealing the bread genuinely believes that in a similar situation it would be universally acceptable for others to do the same, then they might be justified in their actions (Kant).
Premise 5
Actions are morally right if they increase happiness (Mill).
Premise 6
The act of stealing bread to feed the hungry can be seen as justified under utilitarian ethics if it results in more overall happiness by satiating hunger (Mill).
Premise 7
Human beings are fundamentally free and responsible for their actions (Sartre).
Premise 8
The person stealing the bread exercises their freedom to defy social norms for a cause they deem more important, but they must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions (Sartre).
Conclusion
The act of stealing bread to feed the hungry can be ethically justified based on the concepts of virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and existentialism. Note: This argument is an amalgamation of various philosophical perspectives and does not necessarily represent a coherent or consistent ethical framework. It highlights different ethical considerations and does not present a single unified argument.
Take-away thoughts
These points can help incorporate the complexity of ethical decision-making into your everyday life, acknowledging the subjective nature of ethical calculations and the influence of different philosophical perspectives:
Reflect on Personal Beliefs
Consider your own ethical beliefs and how they might be influenced by different philosophical views. This could be related to personal choices, professional decisions, or broader societal issues.
Challenge Your Beliefs
Actively seek out philosophical perspectives that differ from your own. This can challenge your beliefs and help you understand the diversity and complexity of ethical thought.
Apply Ethical Calculations to Daily Life
Try to apply the DMV model or other ethical frameworks to decisions you make in your daily life. This could be anything from deciding to return extra change received at a store to handling conflicts at work or home.
Consider the Consequences
In your day-to-day decision-making, consider thinking about the potential consequences of your actions on others. This could be seen as applying a form of utilitarian thinking.
Evaluate Your Actions
Using principles from Kant’s philosophy, regularly evaluate your actions based on whether they adhere to your duties and responsibilities, and whether they could be universally applied.
Act Responsibly
Taking inspiration from Sartre, acknowledge the freedom and responsibility you have over your actions. Make conscious choices and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
Practice Empathy and Generosity
As highlighted by the Aristotelian virtue of generosity in the example, look for opportunities to practice empathy and generosity in your daily life. This could involve helping those in need or making sacrifices for the greater good.
Constantly Learn and Adapt
As you gain new experiences and insights, allow your understanding of ethics to evolve. This could involve revising the values you assign in ethical calculations or adopting new ethical principles.
References
Aristotle. (350 B.C.E.). Nicomachean Ethics. Athens: Aristotle.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
Sartre, J. P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Paris: Gallimard.
Author: Brian Foster, Written: May 2023
