Ethics: principles, applications, and philosophical foundations

Ethics and Morality

The four men on Lithia needed to determine the fate of the planet. Each one approached the issue differently from an ethical standpoint. Cleaver viewed this issue as something akin to the greatest good for the greatest number, wherein the Lithians essentially would be sacrificed so that humans could secure their empire against unknown future attacks. Such a view came with a considerable amount of ethical dilemma, given that the Lithians are sentient beings. They would inevitable lose from their interactions with the humans, a function of their own lack of defense. Essentially, that they were completely unprepared for what humans would be bring to their existence was acknowledged as fact but taken as irrelevant by Cleaver, under the guidance of Occam's razor.

The other two men had various pragmatic points of their own. Michelis took a similar perspective to that of Cleaver. However, by not cleaving away with Occam's razor the outcomes to the Lithians, he arrived at an entirely different conclusion. The view of both men took on a form of capitalism, Cleaver the imperialist and Michelis a more collaborative perspective built on the mutual benefits of exchange. Both humans and Lithians would thereby benefit from the exchange of information, should the rights of the Lithians be respected.

The view of Agronski is minimal, as he shows vague pragmatism in weighing the arguments of Michelis and Cleaver. Yet ultimately, the most interesting thing with respect to Agronski is that his vote counts every bit as much as the votes of the three men who gave the issue substantial in-depth thought. This speaks to the ethics of equality and democracy. Unlike the consequentialist views we see from the other men -- both of whom have considered the matter on the basis of the outcomes their recommendation would generate -- Agronski's vote counting equally speaks to the fact that this system is rules-based, not outcomes-based. In the absence of clear rules, people such as these men turn to outcomes-based doctrines.

Ruiz-Sanchez provides the counterpoint to Agronski. Ruiz-Sanchez makes complex observations, but ultimately distills them down to a rudimentary theological conclusion. His approach is antithetical to that of Agronski in that he has studied the Lithians intently, but his output reflects equally simple interpretations. Earlier in the story it is mentioned that Ruiz-Sanchez understands all knowledge to go through stages, from noise into fact and back into noise, the residuum being faith (p. 8). This is precisely the process he has engaged in. Thus, while his opinion was far more considered than that of Agronski, his vote was equally superficial, because after processing all of the knowledge he acquired, it become noise and his faith presided over all. The author at first hints at placing Ruiz-Sanchez against Cleaver, as apt to vote to isolate Lithia out of respect for the Lithians when indeed no such conclusion was reached, pointing to the irrationality of Ruiz-Sanchez' decision. Thus, he becomes the counterpart to Agronski's dull-witted rationality, both view equally irrelevant but given the same value of the views of the other two men because that is what the rules prescribe.