PDF file - Ipce

Part_5_2
greatest happiness for the greatest number. Only the very broadest of all principles, such as the
so-called Golden Rule - "Do to others as you would want them to do to you" - or the Wiccan
principle, "Do what you like as you like as long as it is harmless", may be said to escape this
weakness.
Is this weakness a serious one in the case of Ipce's Four Principles? Yes it is, I believe, and I'll say
why. First, though, it is necessary to draw attention to an absolutely fundamental question the
Four Principles do not address. Going back to my first concept, what is it that the Four Principles
do not explicitly tackle at all? There is no explicit statement of what social good, what desirable
end, the principles are designed to promote. There is no stated goal that the principles are
designed to bring about a generally happier state of affairs. No concern is expressed for the
state of society nor is there any acknowledgement that anything is of any importance other
than the possibility (admittedly an important possibility, but not the only one) of negative
consequences of an adult-child relationship. The principles are all about bad things to avoid rather
than good things to achieve.
It may be felt there is no need to be explicit in this context about what we want to achieve. We
can do that in conference papers and website position statements. Why go into all that in a set
of ethical principles wisely designed simply to avoid relationships that end in tears?
Well, let's look in detail at the principles, where I think we will find that
(a) the lack of a positive goal-statement and
(b) the weakness of rule-based ethics together give considerable problems.
Paul M's argument freedom
Actually these problems have already been exposed to a considerable extent in two excellent
IMO postings. Part of Principle 3 states "Love and dedication must be unconditional. Sex is
never allowed to be a bargaining tool." About this Paul M said: "What is this to do with
'freedom'? And what is wrong with bargaining anyway? And doesn't all this then conflict with
#1 and #2? I.e. if the younger partner has the self-determination and initiative then that person
is also who decides whether conditions and bargaining are allowed or not. (I have known
young hustlers who did very well out of me, God bless them.)
What Paul has exposed here is
(a) an inconsistency arising from failure to make the desired goals of the ethical system
explicit and
(b) the fact that the rules (in common with all rules) fail to allow for the richness of
particular circumstances.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/newsletters/nl_e_12/part_5_2.htm (5 of 13) [10/16/2002 5:35:14 PM]