And here I'd thought I'd never read another philosophy article. While I admit that I don't remember much from my undergrad ethics class, I did minor in philosophy, so this week's reading was a pleasant surprise.
I began this reading skeptical of the possibility of applying a theoretical ethical system like virtue ethics to a real-life problem like reference service. I mean, that's what you're supposed to do with ethical systems, but I'm not sure it usually works out well. As I read the article, my skepticism was confirmed. Assuming that Lenker's definition of virtue ethics matches what is commonly accepted, the application of it doesn't actually simplify or clarify the moral ambiguity of "dangerous" reference questions.
For one thing, it seems to me that a judgment of what kind of a person the librarian would be if s/he does x or y is already an implicit factor in that librarian's decisions. It is my experience that people put a lot of thought into how their actions reflect on them. But if we set that aside and assume that the librarian is considering virtues for the first time, we are still left with what is basically an ad hoc application of positive and negative adjectives. Lenker calls unquestioningly providing potentially dangerous information "mindless." Someone else may call it "dutiful" or "good-willed." How do you decide what word fits?
It comes down to intuition. Almost every decision can be characterized in multiple ways. We choose the word that seems to fit the best, right? We choose the word that feels right. That's why a librarian who unquestioningly provides information on how to build an explosive is acting mindlessly, while a librarian who without question gives a young girl information on how to obtain an abortion without her abusive father finding out is acting dutifully or professionally. (To my mind, anyway. But isn't that the point?)
Every individual librarian has to make these decisions for him/herself, often on the fly, often without any preparation. We can talk about ethical systems all we want, but in the moment when someone really does ask for information on suicide, we go with what feels right. Ethicists argue that such ill-considered decisions will be poorly made, but I don't think that attempting to formalize them helps. It's all intuition, even if we're just talking about choosing an ethical system to begin with. Me, I'm a Utilitarian.
- K
I like that you point out that a list of positive and negative adjectives is not quite the same as applying virtue ethics to a problem. But even if librarians do use virtue ethics, or rely upon the ALA Code of Ethics, is enough to diffuse "dangerous questions?" I agree with you that a lot of the interactions we have in a library boil down to intuition, but for me, it is slightly reassuring that I can at least quote the ALA code if I get a tricky question. Even if it's only to divert responsibility from myself or my institution from an uncomfortable situation. But before it ever comes to that, you are right, I do rely upon my intuition to negotiate the interactions I have with patrons.
ReplyDelete