Religion and its analogues can certainly give us moral and philosophical guidelines which are of value, but there is no guarantee that they will. Neither does science, for that matter. Psychology, as a medical discipline, still has great influence in our culture. Psychiatrically justified testimony is accepted as evidence in our courts, can be used to condemn people to medical confinement, prescribe or even mandate psychoactive drug therapy and even maintains an influence on our literature and popular culture. Couched in its legitimizing pseudoscientific jargon, its methods can be used to profile potential criminals and terrorists, sometimes even before a crime has been committed. And all this based on a science which has shown itself vulnerable to fads and wildly conflicting schools, which cannot show unanimity among its practitioners, and which is not based on any form of rigorous testing or experimental control.

In human affairs, it is rarely possible to rely on guidelines which are as dependable and verifiable as those which we depend on in engineering. Sometimes we have to wing it, fly by the seat of our pants, or just trust our intuition and common sense and trial and error. Inevitably, we won’t get it right every time. But if we must do this, let us be sure we are aware that is exactly what we are doing: muddling through as best we can. There is no rule book or noble ancestor we can rely on for guidance.

Once we delude ourselves into thinking our rules and regulations are inviolable, that they must be right because they are justified by science, religion, principle, philosophy or ideology, that they are legitimized by severe logic, university courses and degrees and wise men shielded by diplomas, then we are on a slippery slope indeed.

Morality comes from the human heart, and ethics is merely morality a majority of us can agree on today.

Then again, should the scientist go the other way, the ethicist now has the moral duty to blow his/her moral whistle, no matter how minor the issue may be. It might be best to simply use one’s own judgment.

Of course the ethicist might still be required, depending upon the load of the issue, for instance where one person or committee might be forced to decide the health-sickness, life-death, freedom-prison fate of another person.

Slippery slopes all ’round.

Ethical issues and questions are certainly valid, but they have no easy or straightforward resolutions. I also submit that all of us are equally qualified to deal with them.

Where does ethical truth reside? Is it religious or cultural, legal, or historical? Do we take a vote?

In some societies, stoning adulterers and circumsizing young girls is considered ethical. In others, secretly donating to political campaigns, gerrymandering of legislative districts or devising technicalities for denying the vote to whole categories of people is OK. In some cultures, having commercial death panels deny medical care to the poor is fine. Others would restrict legal representation, or education to those who can afford it. In our own country, chattel slavery and massive expulsion (and genocide) of native populations was articulately defended by some of our most respected statesmen, not all that long ago.

Many people believe it is perfectly legitimate to murder convicted criminals, or even completely innocent strangers simply if they wear a different uniform.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t ask these questions, just that we be very suspicious of the answers.