Rosa\'s Ethics Ever Since December

Rosa's Ethics

Ever since December 1, 1955 there has been considerable discussion regarding precisely what prompted Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus and what the lasting impact upon society has been. Overall, the only context within which such a debate carries any weight is in ethics. Historically, there is little point to claiming that she was "planted" by the NAACP or that she possessed some disability that required her to remain seated; this is because subsequent events unfolded as they did regardless of her ethical status. Yet if we are attempting to discern whether Parks was justified or not, then we are routinely forced to consider the roles of her motivations and the consequences. It is upon these competing criteria that the notions of consequentialism and nonconsequentialism teeter. In other words, it is possible to analyze Parks' actions based upon why she behaved as she did and it is possible to analyze her actions based upon the end results. Still, it is further possible to rank her actions on an ethical scale based upon precisely who benefited, or even upon her individual purpose for refusing to move. In short, there are many differing points-of-view from which Rosa Parks' act of defiance can be considered.

If a consequentialist were attempting to decide the morality of Parks' actions, they would centrally be concerned with the ultimate outcome. Basically, this is a goal-oriented approach to the topic of ethics; yet a division occurs among consequentialists based upon who should be considered when the resultant "good" is calculated. It is possible to take a wholly egoist stance, and decide that an action is ethical if it increases the consequent happiness -- or pleasure -- of the individual who acted. However, an act utilitarian would claim that the only proper way to evaluate the resultant good is to add up the total happiness that a particular act brought about for human society. So, although both individuals would agree that the result, rather than the motivations, of the action is what should be measured, they would disagree over the manner by which the result should be measured.

An act utilitarian must be concerned with what the overall social implications of Rosa Parks' action were. To begin with, "Her arrest was the answer to prayers for the Women's Political Council, which was set up in 1946 in response to the mistreatment of black bus riders, and for E.D. Nixon, a leading advocate of equality for blacks in Montgomery." (Reader 2005). Since Rosa Parks was a respected and non-threatening member of the Montgomery community, she became an easily identifiable icon for honor and courage in the face of mass injustice. The immediate result of her defiance and arrest was a bus boycott that took effect only three days after her action: "The boycott lasted 381 days, and in that period many blacks were harassed and arrested on flimsy excuses. Churches and houses, including those of Dr. King and Mr. Nixon, were dynamited." (Reader 2005). Eventually, segregation on buses was outlawed by the Supreme Court on Nov. 13, 1956.Yet, this came at the cost of many unjust arrests, harassments and beatings; additionally, many homes and churches were bombed or burned.

Obviously, the initial question must be whether or not the benefit to society -- the outlawing of segregation on buses -- outweighed the cost -- beatings, bombings, and increased hostilities. Furthermore, it is worth taking into consideration precisely what the lasting effects dealt to the Civil Rights Movement and Western society might have been. These are far less straightforwardly calculated than the undeniably direct outcomes; like the boycott and the Supreme Court decision. Act utilitarians should wonder whether people have been happier since December 1, 1955 than they would have been had Rosa Parks given up her seat.

Precisely what hinders the act utilitarian is that calculating the universal good is realistically impossible. Even if we are willing to concede that Rosa Parks' action, the boycott, and the Supreme Court decision generated happiness, we cannot reasonably say that the Civil Rights movement would not have made the same positive strides with less cost had she not acted. Since we are not afforded the opportunity to see alternative histories, the act utilitarian is stuck. He must infer three things: first, that the Civil Rights Movement was good relative to its absence; second, that Rosa Parks aided the movement by either amplifying its positive consequences or reducing its negative costs; and third, that the upcoming future will continue to be better than the alternative. All these positions seem to be congruous with most mainstream interpretations; so, it is probably safe to say that most act utilitarians would contend that Rosa Parks behaved ethically.

The universal egoist, on the other hand, would be less likely to land upon a majority consensus. Their position must be primarily concerned with whether Rosa Parks' action benefited her personally. This is somewhat more difficult to contend because Parks' life after December 1, 1955 was not necessarily more pleasurable than it might have been otherwise. Despite the fact that Parks subsequently gained international fame and became an immediate icon, it cannot be easily argued that these changes brought her more happiness than continuing her less public life may have been. It is not clear, in fact, that fame truly brought her any pleasure.

Additionally, her notoriety failed to bring her much economic or social stability: "Mrs. Parks worked as a seamstress until 1965, when Representative John Conyers Jr. hired her as an aide for his Congressional office in Detroit." (Reader 2005). Furthermore, up until her death she still had difficulties paying the rent and suffered from dementia; Parks was also somewhat unsettled by the amount of admiration other blacks bestowed upon her. She merely wanted to inspire others, but it may be possible that the publicized adaptation of her irreconcilably changed her image into something she never desired: a watered-down textbook version of herself. All of these considerations could lead a universal egoist to argue that her action was unethical.

Nevertheless, a universal egoist would also have to take into account the benefits that the Civil Rights Movement at large allowed for Rosa Parks. It is permissible that her life was happier because of the achievements of the movement. After all, she may have been harmed or even killed in other racial uprisings. So once again, the universal egoist is plagued by the same problem all consequentialists must address: how can one history be measured against an alternative that never happened? Since it is possible to imagine an infinite number of dreadful courses that Parks' life could have taken, other universal egoists could assert that her action was ethical.

One way to avoid comparing two competing sequences of events -- one of which can never be known -- is to simply define a criteria upon which an individual and their actions can be evaluated. This has been the preferred method of many moral philosophers since ancient times. Aristotle and Confucius, for example, each organized systems by which a person can be considered to act virtuously or not; theirs is the nonconsequentialist approach. In other words, these philosophers are concerned with the actor's intensions, since the outcomes may be impossible to divine.

Aristotle pairs the notion of happiness with the possession of virtue. This virtue is not explicitly connected to the physical human being, but instead, resides within the individual soul: "By human virtue we mean not that of the body, but that of the soul; and happiness also we call an activity of the soul." (Ross, 25). With this statement Aristotle officially wrenches the notion that physical pleasure holds any spiritual relationship to virtue and the ultimate good. To Aristotle, one feature of the soul is irrational and is responsible for the powering of life, while the other feature opposes these irrational drives and seeks to take the best actions. Consequently, virtue is similarly divided along the lines of rationality and irrationality: virtue is guided by both intellectual and moral convictions. So, this implies that man possesses notions and ethics that can pull him in opposing directions and although he may not physically enjoy the happiest life, his soul will be rewarded by adhering to virtuous action. Rationality steers the virtuous human towards the path of spiritual happiness -- this is the definitive endpoint of all human action.

As a result, if Aristotle were to judge Rosa Parks' character, he would be most centrally concerned with whether, and to what extent, she employed her intellect and rationality to the decisions of her life. So, from his perspective, although she must be very concerned with the consequences of refusing to leave her seat, she is not bound by results that she cannot possibly compute. However, she is bound by her motivations. If her goal was to incite race riots, cause beatings, shootings, and bombings, then it would be difficult to judge her a virtuous individual. Still, if her goal was racial harmony, equality, and justice, then she must be absolved of the troubles that ensued. The most convincing interpretation might be that, as she contended, she did not foresee the consequences. Parks stated that "it was not a time for me to be planning to get arrested." (Reader 2005). So, if she was not considering the consequences, then she was not thinking rationally; if she was not thinking rationally, according to Aristotle, then she was not behaving virtuously. Since we should probably use Parks' own words as the best evidence, we should conclude that Aristotle would not consider her a particularly virtuous individual.