Although my father is a professor of philosophy and although many of his colleagues have visited my home over the years, I had yet to meet anyone who has billed himself as an ethicist - let alone as "The Ethicist" - until last Thursday when I interviewed Randy Cohen of The New York Times Magazine.
Since Cohen began writing his column in 1999, every week his loyal readers pose their ethical dilemmas for him to solve. His past experiences as an entertainment TV show writer for the Rosie O'Donnell and David Letterman shows wittily shine through.
I called up Cohen thinking that we could have an interesting discussion about ethical theory and the underlying principles he uses to advise his readers as to what is ethical, the principles upon which he presumably bases his life.
But the conversation did not go very far.
I began by asking him about his "moral philosophy," a question I thought he must have been asked a thousand times, but he declined to answer, saying that he couldn't give a response succinct enough for me to write up in an 800-word column.
After I posed one more theoretical question, Cohen - ever so modestly - explained that "it is not fear; I think it is more humility" that causes him to reserve judgment on ethical theory. He suggested that we talk about practical issues.
But it didn't stop there. I proceeded to ask him why he shies away from the difficult questions. After all, Cohen is an ethicist who offers readers his judgment on issues of everyday life. But to the best of my knowledge, he has chosen to ignore the difficult issues of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and war to focus on the means of settling office disputes, sibling quarrels, etc. And when I asked him about this, he decided to not answer this question either.
Yet his political leanings suggest his answers to these difficult questions. He initially stated, in our phone conversation, that Republicans are mostly unethical, but reneged this statement in a follow up e-mail: "Of course there are ethical Republicans. There are policy matters about which honorable people can differ. But I wouldn't want to have to make a moral defense for the actions of the [Republican] party's leaders over the past six years."
The notion that ethics follow party lines is repugnant. Yet Cohen, although pleading to be taken seriously, remains caught up in partisan politics, obscuring his ability to examine the ethical picture at large. Cohen ignores the general principles that philosophers have traditionally advanced to settle ethical issues. These principles and ethics generally transcend political parties. Ethics is not a game or a slogan, but the principles underpinning the lives we live. Instead, ethics recognize the fundamental truths applicable to all humans and dictate the very actions and ideas that lead one's life.
Cohen believes that since the Reagan administration, there has been "an attempt to reverse the values of the New Deal." As he said to me, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal was accepted by "most Americans." Most Americans support government intervention in the name of social justice, that is. From what I can gather from his stance, it then must be ethical. Although he did not explicitly put it this way, Cohen seems to take the majority opinion as the basis of his moral compass. As long as most people find something permissible and it is in the name of social justice, then it must be okay.
Cohen is concerned with what is the right thing to do in some situations. Instead of seeking what may be virtuous for people, Cohen merely considers what may be right - or passable.
Sadly, there are too many cases where a majority has gone astray. I believe that the most profound consequences of the New Deal are still with us. One particularly alarming consequence is that many now see the government as a crutch - Social Security, in particular. Nonetheless, I believe that two reasonable individuals can disagree on an array of ideas though there is certainly only one right answer.
Cohen's academic background is in music composition, not in philosophy, as I initially supposed. "I am not a philosopher," he said. Perhaps his unphilosophical approach to ethics has found its place in modern America.
Author's Note: Cohen will be speaking at Tufts on Thursday, Mar. 8 at 7:30 P.M. in Pearson 104.
Daniel Halper is a sophomore majoring in political science and philosophy. He can be reached at Daniel.Halper@tufts.edu.
