Ethics in the Public Square

I am not sure that it is possible to have a coherent exchange of ideas with regards to ethical matters in a pluralistic setting. I suppose it is possible to express one’s owns viewpoint, however I think that even such a proposal is more difficult than believers realize. There is an assumption that people can through rational reflection consider the merits of a matter and then form a conclusion. Unfortunately too often there is little if any discussion of what constitutes the merits. As an undergraduate I took a course on environmental decision making. We considered several different complex formulas for evaluating policy decisions. These models attempted to capture the complexity of different policy decisions. The different potential impacts of some decision on a particular ecosystem. Such models do serve to illustrate the various impacts that one might not immediately recognize, however they ultimately do not help to build a consensus. The evaluators must ascribe different levels of significance to concerns. In one particular model the evaluators were asked to place a numerical value between 1 and 10 of the importance of separate impacts. These would then be placed in a complex equation to determine the best decision. The obvious limitation of the equation rested on the subjectivity of the measurements. What might be a ten for one person might be a one for someone else. Our political discussion of stem cell research seems to take a similar approach. Depending on what the values one places on the various “factors” shape the outcome of one’s position. Ethical debates simply become political maneuvering to ensure that one’s own point system is in place.