Role Ethics as a Starting Point for Normative Arguments
Roles make moral obligations highly legible. Instead of having to subsume individual conduct under highly abstract principles (utilitarianism, contractualism), we analyze moral conflicts at the intermediate layer of abstraction of the various roles we find ourselves in: son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, nephew, colleague, friend, school teacher, cop, soldier, doctor, attorney, etc. Compared to abstract moral principles, these roles are loaded with specific duties and expectations. Spelling out a role conflict (e.g., time spent with spouse vs. time caring for a sick parent; exciting job opportunity but in the service of a corrupt government administration, etc.) is tangible: What do I owe my parent vs my wife and daughter? Does my role as a citizen demand that I do what I can to improve a corrupt government or that I refuse to actively support it with my talents? The focus on roles locates the problems at a very useful level of specificity: not too abstract (utility, universal duty) and not too specific (my personal history with my parents, for example). “This is what’s expected of a good son” provides a set of prima facie legitimate moral demands; legitimate, because the moral state of progress of a society is stored in its roles; roles crystallize moral learning at the societal level. Prima facie, because we can, and do, question role expectations in light of other norms. Not only does this provide a framework for assessing moral demands if one agrees (more or less) with what the role demands, it also provides the starting point against which exceptions to role expectations can be articulated and justified. One can disagree with a role demand based on abstract principles: “Limiting married women to caring for children, maintaining domestic life, and transmitting faith is not compatible with fundamental human equality,” is a clear articulation of the demand for role change and a legible reason for breaking with role demands, for example. It is also possible to justify exceptions to role demands based on specific personal history: “My brother has abused me for years. My duties to him are therefore more limited.” Irrespective of the exact outcomes of these struggles with role conflicts or role demands, using the roles in which we find ourselves as the starting points for a normative argument is often highly productive. Roles are normative expectations at a medium level of abstraction: not entirely personal (and thus not easy to dismiss by others as “this is just what you think/want”) and not so abstract (treat everyone as an end-in-themselves; maximize aggregate utility for all sentient beings) that there are too many solutions that can reasonably be deduced for any given problem.