Lack of Moral Dialogue and Conflicting Moral Sense in Legal Doctrines

     Philosopher Alasdair Macintyre suggests that our modern moral landscape is like that of a dystonian future where the remnants of a civilization in a post-apocalyptic world are trying to recover lost sciences of the past. Their lead scientists are trying to piece together the technical advancements of the past, but they cannot pull together workable doctrines. That is because they cannot find all the necessary pieces of the puzzle. For example, when they try to piece together a formula for a vaccine, they find that they do not have a knowledge of microbiology. These scientists think that they are getting somewhere, but they have not a clue what they are doing.

     Like so, our modern moral landscape is like trying to reasons morally with severely flawed moral doctrines. In Mactintyre's eyes, those flawed doctrines are utilitarianism, deontology, and noncognitivism. These moral doctrines are held sound by the moderns, and cannot see the nuanced and irreconcilable differences between these doctrines. In fact, they do not even know to distinguish the difference. To Macintyre, these flawed doctrines are trying to get at what the past civilizations used to determine right and wrong: virtue ethics, a system of ethics that was utilized by almost all major civilizations: Classical West, Abrahamic West, Confucian East, and Hindu India. Moderns think that they are getting somewhere in moral reasoning with these newer doctrines, but they do not realize that they do not know the moral doctrine that is truly missing.

     As I am learning legal doctrines, I find myself at a loss as to how a particular doctrine can bring about a just decision. In criminal law, for example, the aim of strict liability is to deter undesirable results. In other words, to decrease unhappiness, a utilitarian aim. Strict liability is an exception to the intent requirement needed to convict someone of charges. Examining a specific intent of an individual to find a moral worth in an act is one of the central elements of virtue ethics. In order for the criminal legal system to excuse intent, one must assume the principles of utilitarianism. The majority of the law maintains principles from virtue ethics that Christian West used. And yet, at the same time, it allows utilitarian reasoning. One ethical system cannot be reconciled with another for they are by principle incompatible. But our law strangely allows this uneasy marriage. What is stranger is that many legal minds are quite content with this uneasy marriage. In fact, they barely notice the nuances of it.

     Criminal law is a doctrinal representation of a society's moral sense. Perhaps we can see what Macintyre is talking about through modern law. We have conflicting moral doctrines making up the law, and yet people barely notice it or bothered by it.

     Perhaps history will come around in fixing this problem. No western philosopher talked of virtue ethics except Catholics up until the 50s. Now, people seem to be seeing the flaws of newer ethical systems. Perhaps we will see a civilization centered around virtue ethics once more.