Rosa Parks' Refusal: A Multi-Framework Ethics Analysis

Introduction: Ethics as the Framework for Judgment

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 ethics. Historically, there is little point in claiming that she was "planted" by the NAACP or that she possessed some disability that required her to remain seated; subsequent events unfolded as they did regardless of her ethical status. Yet if we are attempting to discern whether Parks was justified, 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 equally possible to analyze them based upon the end results. 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.

Consequentialism and the Question of Outcomes

If a consequentialist were attempting to decide the morality of Parks' actions, they would be centrally concerned with the ultimate outcome. Basically, this is a goal-oriented approach to 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 positions agree that the result, rather than the motivations, of an action is what should be measured, they disagree over the manner by which the result should be measured.

Act Utilitarianism: The Social Calculus

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 November 13, 1956 — yet this came at the cost of many unjust arrests, harassments, and beatings, and many homes and churches were bombed or burned.

Obviously, the initial question must be whether the benefit to society — the outlawing of segregation on buses — outweighed the cost in beatings, bombings, and increased hostilities. Furthermore, it is worth considering precisely what the lasting effects on the Civil Rights Movement and Western society might have been. These effects are far less straightforwardly calculated than the undeniably direct outcomes, such as 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 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 congruous with most mainstream interpretations, so it is probably safe to say that most act utilitarians would contend that Rosa Parks behaved ethically.

Universal Egoism: Did Parks Benefit Personally?

The universal egoist, on the other hand, would be less likely to reach a majority consensus. Their position must be primarily concerned with whether Rosa Parks' action benefited her personally. This is somewhat more difficult to assess 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 might have. 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 rent and suffered from dementia. Parks was also somewhat unsettled by the amount of admiration other black Americans bestowed upon her. She merely wanted to inspire others, but it may be possible that the publicized adaptation of her story 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 afforded Rosa Parks. It is permissible to argue 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, in fact, ethical.

Works Cited

Confucius. The Analects. Reader 2005.

Ross, David. Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford, 1998.

Unknown. "Rosa Parks, 92, Founding Symbol of Civil Rights Movement, Dies." Reader 2005.