Is Right and Wrong Always Black and White? | Juan Enriquez | TEDxBeaconStreet
Summary
TLDRIn this thought-provoking talk, the speaker explores the complexities of ethics throughout history, using the example of slavery in Charleston, South Carolina. They question how society could have once accepted such atrocities and challenge the audience to consider current practices that might similarly shock future generations. Topics like end-of-life choices, cancer treatments, wealth inequality, animal rights, and environmental impact are discussed, prompting a reflection on our own ethical stances and the potential for societal change.
Takeaways
- π The lecture challenges the simplistic view of ethics as black and white, suggesting that ethical dilemmas are often more complex.
- ποΈ The history of a building in Charleston, South Carolina, is used as a metaphor for how societal norms can condone unethical practices like slavery.
- π Historical texts, including holy books, were sometimes interpreted to support slavery, indicating that ethics can be influenced by cultural context.
- π©βπ« The influence of various societal figures like mothers, teachers, preachers, and even university presidents, in shaping ethical beliefs is highlighted.
- π¨ββοΈ The medical profession's past practices, such as experimenting on slaves without anesthesia, are critiqued to show the evolution of medical ethics.
- π¦ The economic justification for slavery by some historical figures is discussed, raising questions about the intersection of ethics and economics.
- ποΈ The lecture points out that societal acceptance of slavery was not universal, and there were individuals who resisted despite social pressure.
- π The speaker prompts the audience to reflect on current practices that might be seen as unethical by future generations, such as end-of-life decisions and medical treatments.
- πΈ The lecture raises the issue of wealth distribution and questions whether current economic disparities will be viewed as ethically acceptable in the future.
- π The treatment of animals, our closest genetic relatives, is examined, suggesting that our actions towards them may be reevaluated ethically in the future.
- π The environmental and safety impacts of automobiles, particularly in terms of pollution and traffic fatalities, are considered as potential ethical concerns for the future.
- β’οΈ The normalization of nuclear weapons and the potential for their destructive power is critiqued, prompting a reevaluation of their ethical implications.
- π£οΈ The lecture concludes with a call for humility and open dialogue about ethics, acknowledging that everyone can make mistakes and that creating a safe space for discussion is crucial.
Q & A
What is the main subject of the lecture?
-The main subject of the lecture is ethics, focusing on how it is not just a futuristic concept but also deeply rooted in the past and present, and how it is often more complex than simply being black-and-white.
Why does the speaker believe most ethics lectures are boring?
-The speaker believes most ethics lectures are boring because they tend to present ethics as a clear-cut matter of right and wrong, which does not reflect the complex and nuanced issues that arise in real-world situations, particularly in fields like technology and life sciences.
What historical example does the speaker use to illustrate the complexity of ethics?
-The speaker uses the historical example of a building in Charleston, South Carolina, which was once a slave market, to illustrate the complexity of ethics. This example shows how something as morally reprehensible as slavery was once widely accepted and even flaunted.
How does the speaker suggest we learn ethics?
-The speaker suggests that we learn ethics from various sources including holy books, parents, preachers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and the government.
What role did religious texts play in the speaker's discussion of ethics?
-Religious texts are mentioned as one of the sources that taught people ethics, but the speaker points out the irony that some passages from these texts, like Ephesians 6:5, actually supported slavery, showing how ethics can be influenced and even distorted by such teachings.
How does the speaker connect the past acceptance of slavery to current ethical dilemmas?
-The speaker connects the past acceptance of slavery to current ethical dilemmas by asking the audience to reflect on whether we are doing things today that future generations might find as morally outrageous as we find slavery.
What current medical practice does the speaker question as potentially barbaric to future generations?
-The speaker questions current cancer treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, as potentially barbaric practices that future generations might look back on with disbelief, similar to how we view historical medical practices like bloodletting.
What statistic does the speaker provide about end-of-life choices in the United States?
-The speaker provides the statistic that only 1 out of 10 US states allows individuals to choose the time of their death, highlighting a current ethical debate around end-of-life autonomy.
How does the speaker feel about the current state of ethical discussions on campuses?
-The speaker expresses concern about the difficulty of having ethical discussions on campuses, noting that it has become very challenging to express any view that might be considered incorrect or offensive.
What does the speaker advocate for in terms of creating a space for ethical discussions?
-The speaker advocates for creating a safer space for ethical discussions where people can make mistakes and hold unpopular positions without fear of being 'crucified', allowing for a more balanced and humble approach to ethical debates.
What is the speaker's final message regarding the complexity of ethics and our understanding of it?
-The speaker's final message is a call for humility and balance in our approach to ethics, recognizing that our current understanding may not be perfect and that we should be open to questioning and discussing ethical issues without excessive judgment.
Outlines
π The Complexity of Ethics in History
The speaker begins by expressing a desire to discuss ethics, a subject that encompasses the past, present, and future. They critique the typical approach to ethics lectures, which often oversimplify moral issues into a binary right and wrong. Instead, the speaker advocates for a nuanced understanding of ethics by examining history. Using the example of a building in Charleston, South Carolina, once a site for the selling of slaves, the speaker questions how society could have countenanced such actions. They explore various sources of ethical teaching, including religious texts, family, education, and societal leaders, all of which, in the historical context provided, supported or failed to challenge the institution of slavery. The speaker uses specific examples, such as biblical passages, literature of the time, and the actions of prominent figures like university presidents and doctors, to illustrate how ethics can be influenced and shaped by the prevailing social norms and beliefs.
π The Ethical Dilemmas of Modern Society
In the second paragraph, the speaker extends the discussion of ethics to contemporary issues, questioning whether we are any 'smarter' now than in the past. They challenge the audience to consider current practices that might seem ethically questionable in the future, such as how we approach end-of-life decisions, with only a fraction of U.S. states allowing death with dignity. The speaker also addresses the suffering of the elderly and the discomforting reality that many doctors would not want the aggressive treatments they administer to their patients to be used on themselves. They touch on the harshness of current cancer treatments and suggest that future generations might view them as barbaric. The speaker also raises concerns about wealth inequality, the treatment of animals, and the dangers of automobile pollution and nuclear weapons, suggesting that these are areas where our ethics are currently being tested and may be viewed differently in the future.
π£οΈ Navigating the Grey Areas of Ethics
The final paragraph emphasizes the complexity and subjectivity of ethical judgments. The speaker warns against self-righteousness and the danger of being too critical of past actions without acknowledging the ethical challenges of the present. They call for humility and balance in our ethical considerations, recognizing that what is considered ethical can change over time. The speaker expresses concern over the current climate, particularly on college campuses, where there is a heightened sensitivity to language that could lead to ostracism or punishment for perceived ethical missteps. They advocate for creating a 'safe space' for ethical discussions, where people can make mistakes and engage in unpopular opinions without fear of severe repercussions. The speaker concludes by encouraging a dialogue that balances outrage at past and present injustices with an understanding of human fallibility.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Ethics
π‘Slavery
π‘Right and Wrong
π‘Historical Context
π‘Authority Figures
π‘Social Norms
π‘Moral Ambiguity
π‘Medical Ethics
π‘Economic Inequality
π‘Animal Rights
π‘Autonomous Cars
π‘Nuclear Weapons
Highlights
Ethics is a subject that encompasses past, present, and future, and is not just about black-and-white distinctions.
The history of ethics is explored through the example of a building in Charleston, South Carolina, which was once a slave market.
Old postcards from the building reveal a past where the selling of human beings was openly advertised.
The question of how society allowed slavery is raised, prompting a reflection on where ethics are learned.
Various sources of ethics education, including holy books, family, teachers, preachers, and government, are mentioned.
Biblical passages that seemingly condone slavery are cited as an example of conflicting ethical teachings.
The role of family in reinforcing societal norms, including those supporting slavery, is discussed.
The influence of education and religious institutions in perpetuating ethically questionable practices is highlighted.
The transformation of an abolitionist's views after moving to a pro-slavery environment is noted.
The founder of gynecology, Dr. J. Marion Sims, is criticized for his unethical practices on slaves.
The Constitution's stance on human rights is contrasted with societal practices of the time.
Historical figures, including presidents, are scrutinized for their views on race and equality.
The speaker challenges the audience to consider whether current ethical practices might be questioned by future generations.
The topic of how we end life is introduced, questioning the ethics of current end-of-life practices.
The speaker suggests that current cancer treatments may be seen as barbaric by future generations.
The issue of wealth inequality is raised, questioning the ethics of a small percentage of people owning a large portion of the world's wealth.
The treatment of animals, our closest genetic relatives, is critiqued in terms of ethics.
The speaker points out the high number of automobile-related deaths compared to war deaths, suggesting a potential ethical blind spot.
The normalization of nuclear weapons and the potential for their destructive power is discussed as an ethical concern.
The speaker calls for humility and balance when considering ethical issues, both past and present.
The importance of creating a safe space for ethical discussions and the acceptance of fallibility is emphasized.
Transcripts
Translator: Amanda Chu Reviewer: Peter van de Ven
I think what I'd like to do today
is to talk about a subject which isn't futurist.
It's past and present and future,
and that's ethics.
And most ethics lectures are incredibly boring
because most ethics lectures basically tell you
there's a right way of doing things and there's a wrong way of doing things
and things are black-and-white.
And that's not where ethics is interesting.
And that's not the kinds of things that we're wrestling with every day
in technology and life sciences and some of the other questions.
And to do that, you really have to look at history.
So if you look at history and you look at this wonderful building,
which is in Charleston, South Carolina,
it's a wonderful building,
but there's also a history of this building
because this is what they used to sell on the steps of this building.
[To be sold, a cargo of NEGROES.]
And they didn't hide this.
So, this is one of the old postcards,
and the title to this whole postcard on the bottom is "The old slave market."
So they used to send postcards to their friends,
saying this is where we sold human beings.
And we look at this today and we say, "How in the world did we allow this?
Did we permit it?
Didn't we question it?
Didn't we realize right from wrong?
And how is that feasible?
Why didn't people understand right from wrong?"
When you ask that question,
then you've got to ask yourself, Where do you learn ethics?
So I guess you learn ethics from the holy book,
you can learn it from mama,
you can learn it from the preacher,
you can learn it from the teacher,
you can learn it from a lawyer,
you can learn it from the doctor,
you can learn it from the government,
and a host of other people.
So if those are the people who are teaching you right from wrong,
what were they teaching?
How was it possible
that they were selling human beings on the steps of that building?
Well, let's start with the holy book.
Here's a couple of passages from one of the holy books.
[Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling - Ephesians 6:5]
Aren't those a little sobering?
[Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters
and to give satisfaction in every respect]
And then how about Mama?
Well, some mamas were telling their kids this was okay;
in fact, they were writing the book that countered Uncle Tom's Cabin.
[The Black Gauntlet]
And this is one of the passages from that book.
[God has placed a mark on the negro, as distinctive as that on Cain ... ]
So at home, kids were learning stuff that reinforced that behavior.
How about the teacher?
How about the preacher?
So this was what happened when you went to schools on Sunday,
and this was what they were preaching.
And by the way, you can, even today,
go back to South Carolina, to Furman Chapel
on Furman University,
where he preached.
How about the university president?
Well surely, this man looks smarter
because this was an oxford-educated chemist
who came to the US as an abolitionist,
but once he got into this environment,
this abolitionist, all of a sudden,
started writing pamphlets that look like this.
[Outlined his belief that slave labor was an economic necessity
and that the white race was superior.]
So he was taught as an adult
that abolition was the wrong thing in this environment.
The university library named after him in 1976.
How about the doctor?
[Doctor J. Marion Sims, Founder of Gynecology]
This is one of the founders of gynecology,
one of the greatest doctors practicing in the United States.
[No need for surgical anesthesia for blacks or Irish β¦]
White women needed anesthesia;
others didn't.
He also experimented on slaves.
If you'd like to see his statue, you can go see it in South Carolina.
But oh, by the way,
the next time you walk through or jog through Central Park,
his statue's there as well.
This is not just a southern phenomenon.
Constitution was pretty clear
on what a human being is and what rights a human being has.
The Washington Bar didn't quite understand that.
How about the presidents?
After Madison left the presidency,
he went on to become head of a league to try and send all Africans back home.
[American Colonization Society To Repatriate blacks]
Garfield wasn't particularly pleasant.
[I have a strong feeling of repugnance ... the negro being made our ... equal.]
And even Truman had some pretty strong opinions on the subject.
[I'm strongly of the opinion
Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia.]
So as you're looking at the general environment,
this does not justify, allow, permit slavery
in any way, shape, or form.
But if you were a kid
and you went to school or church or university,
or to see your doctor or to see anybody else,
how in the world did you learn right from wrong?
How did some people realize
and risk jail and risk ostracism and risk torture to stand up to a society
where everybody, almost everybody, was telling you this is okay?
Because after all, we named a city after a slave owner.
That leads to a question: How much smarter are we now?
I mean, now it's so clear in retrospect - okay, there's just no question -
but are we smarter on all these subjects today,
or are we too doing things that might outrage your kids?
And if so, what kinds of things might we be doing today
that would lead our kids to be outraged?
One topic might be how we end life.
You are only allowed to choose the time that you die
in 1 out of 10 US states.
And why is that an important topic?
Well, because about 1/3 of the elderly
suffer unnecessary pain in the last 24 hours,
2/3 suffer pain in the last month,
and patients typically spend eight days on a ventilator.
And how about the people who teach us about these things
or the people who know about such things?
Well, it turns out that about 88% of doctors
do not want the procedures they perform on their patients
done on themselves,
and they put in very explicit orders:
if I get to this stage, do not do it to me -
in 90% of doctors.
We wouldn't dare treat our dogs the way we treat some of our elderly.
Let's just prolong your pain a little longer.
Cancer.
We think current cancer treatments are reasonable, are okay;
our kids, our great-grandkids, hopefully are going to look at us and say,
"Hey, just explain this again to me, grandpa.
So when somebody got cancer,
what you used to do with them
is first you'd put radiation into their bodies,
then you'd hack off some of their body parts,
and then you'd poison them with chemo.
And why didn't you just use leeches?"
We are going to seem so savage in our medical treatments to our grandkids
just in the same way
as we think people who bled people or used leeches or used mercury
are savage.
How about 1% owning 48% of the dollars in the world?
Is that really reasonable
to have the equivalent of two Titanic lifeboats - 80 people -
own more than 50% of the world?
Is that something our grandkids are going say? -
"Hey, that was just fine. No need to worry about that one"?
Or how about the way we treat our closest cousins,
creatures that share 99.6% of our DNA?
Because in some places, we're still eating those creatures,
and in many places, we're still experimenting on them.
We keep them as pets, we keep them in the zoos,
and we perform medical experiments on them
that many people would say,
"You shouldn't have treated any human being that way."
Automobiles is a non-obvious one,
because there aren't that many options for automobiles today,
but there will be soon.
And when you compare automobile deaths from traffic accidents
to military conflicts,
it turns out that we had about 127 deaths in the United States in 2012
and about 33,561 deaths form automobiles.
Globally, it looks like that.
So the ratio of cars to wars in terms of deaths in the US
is about 260 to one.
When you get autonomous cars,
when cars are not emitting 1/3 of all pollutants in CO2,
our grandkids may look at us and say,
"What were you thinking
in those big SUV commutes with a single person?"
And lastly, perhaps nukes.
We take nukes for granted.
But believe me - one nuke can really ruin your whole day.
(Laughter)
And we somehow think it's okay for groups of people to have enough power
to destroy this entire world and to go out and wipe out civilizations.
So before we get too arrogant about what people were doing
and how people were acting and what they did or didn't do -
which is not to denigrate the heroism of those who oppose a system -
we also have to think through
we may be living in a system where ethics isn't black-and-white always,
sometimes it's a little gray,
and we can have a gut feeling in our hearts that this is just wrong
and a lot of people around you can be telling you this is right.
Now you've got to figure out what you're going to do with those things.
How you're going to pose those things
when Mama and the teacher and the preacher and the school
and the government and the laws and the media
are telling you that's okay?
Or it's not something you really need to fight or discuss?
And as you do this,
there's a certain amount of just fury at what people did in the past,
and there should be some just fury of what people are doing in the present.
Well, that should also be tempered
with a little bit of humility and a little bit of balance.
And what scares me today, and the reason why I gave this talk,
is because it's getting so damn hard on a campus
to utter the wrong single word or sentence.
And it's so hard when you talk to somebody of a different religion
and it's so hard when you talk to somebody of a different politics,
to find a middle ground
where in addition to your own outrage, there's a little bit of humility -
people make mistakes on ethics,
people make mistakes on words,
people make mistakes when they talk,
they sometimes make mistakes when they act.
And we need to create a little bit of a safer space
to understand that we, too, can be fallible,
as we rail against the past
and all the mistakes that all the people in the past made,
which doesn't justify them.
I'm not standing here and saying it was okay to do this stuff.
I don't want to not celebrate the heroes who stood up against this stuff,
but I do want to create a safe space
on campuses and in politics and in business and in our daily lives
so that people who make mistakes aren't crucified,
so people who take positions that are unpopular can take them
and we can listen.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Browse More Related Video
How Will We Know When AI is Conscious?
Will Epigenetics Change the Speed of Evolution? | Cheryl Walker, PhD | TEDxBaylorCollegeofMedicine
The biology of our best and worst selves | Robert Sapolsky
What I've Learned Reading These 7 Books about AI
The psychology of your future self | Dan Gilbert
Life Before And After The Computer
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)