Ethical Rape?

I’m musing, and I often like to muse about the conflicts that arise between sets of ethics. So, prompted by a recent class discussion, I’m musing if rape could ever be considered ethical.

It needs to be immediately noted that morals, ethics and legal systems are not the same thing. Rape is illegal. Rape is immoral. And in my opinion rape is always (get that always?) wrong.

So let me set up a scenario that might be familiar to frequent viewers of “Law & Order: SVU.” A woman police officer goes undercover in a female prison to expose a corrupt prison guard and drug ring. She is heavily briefed on how dangerous the mission is, and yet everyone realizes that this route is basically the only way to “catch the bad guy.” Long story short, she is sexually assaulted/raped by the evil prison guard. He is caught and put in prison on a litany of charges. Let it be noted that she was NOT looking to be sexually assaulted to catch the bad man. It just kinda happened that way.

Utilitarianism tells us simply that it is “the greatest good for the greatest majority.” Going off of this simplification of Jeremy Bentham’s brain child* it becomes clear that getting the bad guy is best for society, or the majority. He won’t have the chance to rape any more women and his other illicit activities will stop. In this case, the female police officer’s rape was the reason he was caught. So, in this line of reason, we could say her rape benefited the majority. Thus, the rape is ethical.

Again, it’s important to note that what is ethical isn’t always what is right. And vice versa. Ain’t ethics a bitch?

So let’s stray to the other side of the ethical fence to the deontological point of view. Because this is my blog, and my favorite ethical philosopher (yes, I have one, don’t you?) is Immanuel Kant, we’ll use his strict guidelines as our ethical road map.

Kant suggests that we create axioms to live by- or something that never contradicts humanity and is so rational that humanity must accept it.* This is basically his first Categorical Imperative. His second stems from the first and says that humans can never be a means to an end.

Well right there we’re stopped and it’s obvious the rape situation isn’t ethical. A person was used to obtain an end (the arrest of a very bad guy). But let’s look at it a bit further- sexual assault on a male or female, insults the rational of humanity. Again, I can’t see a way to allow for rape in accordance to this first Categorical Imperative.

So do a little tap dance and rejoice for the deontological approach that says rape is bad. At least I will.

*Bentham is credited for Utilitarianism, while John Stewart Mill is known for it. Mill took the concept and ran a bit. For this blog I’m going off of Bentham’s approach, which is a more stringent view of utilitarianism.
*Please refer to my earlier blog post about Kant and his approach to creating axioms.

For the love of Kant!

Let’s go ahead and address the mastodon in the room- I adore Immanuel Kant. So much so that I have a cute finger puppet of him that stays on my fridge thanks to the magnet in his oversized head. The problem with him and school is that teachers always latch onto ONE thing he said, in passing mind you, and so he’s cast aside like the idealistic reject he kinda is.

I imagine the conversation that pigeon-holed him so went something like this:

Uppity college student: “So, what you’re saying Mr. Kant is that if I say that lying is a universal rule thing…”

Super Smart Professor: “Maxim.” ::cough, stupid student, cough::

Uppity college student: “Sure, so if lying is a universal maxim, and it is destructive to society, we can never lie?”

Super Smart Professor: “Right, but it’s deeper than that. We deem “lying for personal benefit” to create a contradiction in society so we would have to consider “no lying” as a universal maxim, or law…”

Uppity college student: “Whatever, so like, if a bad-killer man came into your house and asked where your wife was so he could like, murder her, you wouldn’t lie.”

Super Smart Professor: “Right, but remember that we haven’t yet deemed this a “universal maxim” and we’re only talking in simple terms so your little head will understand it.”

Uppity college student: “AHHH! Professor Kant wants to kill his wife! I heard him say so!”

End scene

Kant was correct in that if “lying” became a universal maxim that we adhere to not do, then we should never do it, under any circumstances. But we are never under any rule to make such a maxim. In fact I would suggest that such a rule would at some point contradict itself and be detrimental to society and thus couldn’t ever be a maxim. But I digress.

What I find truly favorable in Kant is his second categorical imperative which states that we are never able to treat humanity as a means to an end, as it is only an end. To do so would be a contradiction to self and to the good will that is intrinsic to humans.

In the media industry this should be posted in bold letters with a yellow accent across every door. Even if the person signs a waver they are still being exploited for being a terrible mom, or an orange alien from New Jersey. There are levels of exploitation that the industry needs consider. At what point does ethics get in the way with a profitable business practice few complain about? But, how is it not exploitation when people are being filmed for entertainment purposes that lead to advertising money? “The Real World,” has long strayed from a relevant anthropological discourse of rambling 20-somethings.

Also, when will public relations, marketing and advertising step up and recognize that exploiting the ignorance of publics is just as bad? When disclosure has loopholes and fine print we begin to manipulate knowledge that the public has a right to know. We are treating their ignorance as a mean to our end goal of whatever corporate objective being focused on.

This is not right.

"Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it." Immanuel Kant in Perpetual Peace, 1795.

The Nerd in Me

In high school I was a debate nerd: debate camp, ethics lectures, state UIL meet. I did L.D. style which is a value-based resolution in which the debaters debate one on one. I enjoyed the conjecture and how I was forced to think quickly. My arguments often took on a blurry tone where I would try to “get” what the opponent was offering and still give you more.

“Oh, he’s giving you justice? That’s great. I love justice. I love it so much I’m also going to get you justice, happiness and safety. How’s that for a win?”

I can say that I’ve made many men (ahem, high school boys) cry and forfeit. It was a feeling of triumph.

Thanks to this background, I feel my merger with public relations was a logical one. Rhetoric and quick thinking are vital. I’ve taken, hopefully, what I enjoyed then and related it again to my life. But, I’m actually more confused with where this should lead. Who really wants to debate over Maslow anymore? I kinda do.

In class Wednesday a small part of me got excited when Maslow was mentioned. A mathematician who was hired to create a philosophy. He created something so simple yet he only thought three people had ever actually assumed the “self-actualization” he developed: himself, Christ and Ghandi.

When Maslow is taken to other publics and in the other manners public relations can allow, this simple philosophy takes on a new viewpoint. How can we help our publics reach their pinnacle through what we are offering? How can this company help a person be the best they can?

Naturally, different companies can fill different voids. An electrical company assists in the fundamentals of housing and safety, while a clothing store can help with the sense of belonging (so important to a middle-schooler) and esteem needs. When a company can look at itself and figure out where they assist people, they can then use other ethical methods to assure the rest of their actions are, for lack of a better word, good.

A good public relations practitioner is there in the middle making sure a company is acting in an appropriate manner for appropriate goals. The goals and objectives can take on a larger meaning when confronted and assuaged with an ethical philosophy.
Anyone who assumes ethics aren’t that important in general is bound to fail. Or become a governor.

As for me, I’ll continue to mentor debaters and try to help them realize the possibilities philosophy creates.