‘Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are

as well-supported as those provided in mathematics.’ To what extent would you agree?

Mathematics and ethics are two different subjects that don’t have any common linkage or
source. If we try to find what mathematics means in general, the following definition of
Oxford Dictionary suffices it: It is the abstract science of number, quantity, and space
(Oxford dictionary).

However ethics is a complicated topic as the so called set of rules and definitions that mark
the boundaries of ethics are blurred and vary from people to people. Not only the perceptions
of ethics vary in between two peoples, it varies in groups, societies, states and countries. For
example it is unethical to hack into anyone’s computer without his or her knowledge but big
software companies hire hackers to find out the extent of damage and nature of hacking did
by hostile hackers into other computers. Although hacking is unethical there is a term used to
make it ethical for specific purposes which is called ethical hacking. It is used mainly for
protection against harmful hackers by the use of specialised professionals who themselves are
expert hackers. So even though the definition of mathematics is quite clear it is not so easy to
define ethics.

The definition of ethics can be something like this: A system of moral values, as well as a set
of principles of right conduct. Now both moral values and right conduct are themselves a
controversial topic. Ethics can be divided into two major groups: Ethic absolutism & Ethic
relativism. Ethic absolutism tries to explain right and wrong on a universal scale: for example
crimes like rape, murder, are unethical over the entire world. Ethic relativism is a micro point
of ethics in which the definition of a particular correct or incorrect things hold true only for a
particular group of individuals, societies or nations. However it is seen that in ethics the word
wrong is not defined properly as the questions in ethics mainly deal with questions that
pertain to doing the things in a right way and manner: “What is the right thing to do?. One
can easily understand that a wrong means anything that is simply not the right or just or good
thing. Another definition of wrong going by society and social traditions is of something that
is either undesirable or unacceptable. Another definition of wrong is that which has a legal
parlance to it: like invading someone’s rights or doing damage to his/her rights.
“Well supported” is a word that is also as ambiguous as the definition of ethics. A well
supported claim is one in which many or all criteria of justifications are met. Justification has
several ways and methods to accomplish it’s definitions: for example, observation, reasoning,
memory, reliable source, revelation and emotion. If many ways of justification support a
knowledge claim then it is assumed to be a justified one.

A knowledge issue arose to my mind thinking on the two subjects: ethics and mathematics.
For example how does one know that it is ethically justified if knowledge is not shared with
other individuals? Another question is that whether the human rights which we found in
constitutions of nations have any ethical justification at the universal level? According to
some people a more reasonable approach is in taking ethic absolutism. By going with the
absolutism theory of ethics it can be seen that in some certain conditions, the conclusions can
be well-supported with those which are given in mathematics. This can be accomplished by
the help of several methods used in justification like observation, memory and reasoning. But
on the other side we will also see that due to the other form of ethics – ethic relativism, the
conclusions of this kind may be accepted only by a small and particular group of individuals
or societies. This in turn makes them less well-supported in comparison to the other subject
mathematics, which has a more universal acceptance than ethics.

For example I believe that if by revealing, divulging or sharing some knowledge the effects
and consequences of such knowledge are going to be bad, then going by ethics it should be
ethically justifiable in not sharing the said knowledge to others. In my opinion by using the
theory of ethical absolutism, it is not ethically justified to divulge or share any knowledge
which may prove to be bad for the population at large. If we take the example of the H1N1
flu which was quite a threat to people just a few years ago, we find that the situation was not
handled properly and information was not released at proper time. It would have been better
if the exact cause and effects of the disease were first studied ascertained by scientists &
doctors. By releasing information on the disease, there was an unnecessary panic in the public
and governments were alarmed at the global school. The effects of the panic and chaos were
quite unnecessary and could have been avoided if the behaviour of the virus was well
understood prior to release. It was evident afterwards that the hysteria was unwarranted as
H1N1 wasn’t such a grave threat to humans after all as it had been thought of initially. If
scientists and researchers would have studied it a bit more and desisted from sharing their
incomplete knowledge of the disease with the general public right away then there would had
been a lesser commotion and chaos in people. The closure of my school for consecutive days
is a direct result of such information.
Another impact of the knowledge was that governments were forced into purchasing
expensive vaccinations which are rarely used by anyone nowadays. Emotions & reason are
the two bases of justifications that are used to support the claim. Therefore it can be
concluded that simply by not sharing the knowledge of the disease, more harm was
unintentionally caused than causing good to the people.
However, if ethic relativism is to be considered, then the definition of “wrong” takes a totally
different outlook to it. It can be counter claimed that sharing of knowledge and information
can be ethically justified within the public, provided it is focused to a particular group of
individuals or societies. Not informing the people would have been morally bad for doctors
as they consider it their duty to think better for the public’s health. For them it would had
been ethically wrong to hold such information that may had been catastrophic in the long run.
If the doctors psyche and mentality is taken view of then for them it was totally right on their
part to inform the group outside their group.

By going through the above passage it may seem that both the ways of ethics – absolutism
and relativism seem to be just & reasonable. However in my views & opinion I still feel that
of the two theories of ethics the first theory appears to be more justified for the simple reason
that it was for the majority of the population and not limited to a small group of individuals
alone. In mathematics, the proof as well as the nature of proof is examined. In case of the
swine flu, the same ought to be had done. If it was clear & acceptable then it would had been
justifiable to let it be shared with the general population. In the above example it was seen
that there was oversight in researchers and doctors as more research should had been done as
it was not good enough to be shared with all however it was perfectly ethical and justifiable
for the small group of scientists and researchers.

In mathematics, the entire process of theory and calculations is justified by the end result. It is
irrelevant in mathematics of the methods and ways of obtaining the answer. If the process is
explained and justified along with a right result free of any mistakes, it is acceptable and
justified. The same way and approach is taken with ethical topics for example murder. As
long as the motive, cause and intentions of the murder are not justified, the end result – the
murder is also unjustified and is wrong ethically.
On the contrary, some small groups of people like terrorists consider it ethically justifiable to
kill and maim people no matter how innocent they may be. For them, the action is justified by
emotion, observation and reason. As in the case of mathematics, the justifications of terrorists
in mass murder of innocent people can only be well-supported in its own limited area and not
from outside. Therefore I agree with the claim that some of the values are bad no matter how
much justification can be given for it as the ethical justification forbids it to be accepted
widely.

In conclusion it is seen that both the forms of ethics - absolutism & relativism seem to be
correct to some extent in all cases and it is dependent on the point of view. But in the broader
sense ethic absolutism is slightly better as it is better justified through many ways. The
conclusions reached by the absolutism theory are mostly well-supported as it is in the case of
mathematics. As in mathematics, absolutism examines the proof as well as the nature of the
proof. The end result is well-supported as it is justified by observation, emotion and
reasoning. Similarly it is seen that the end result of an action justifies the total outcome of the
process. In conclusion, the justifications provided by both mathematics and ethics in the form
of ethic absolutism are equally well-supported.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Georgios Anagnostopoulos, Aristotle on the Goals and Exactness of Ethics,
University of California Press, 1994
 http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/
 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

WORD COUNT: 1584