The nature of Promethean ethics.

Promethean ethics is that emphasizes the a proto-theory approach one should take toward ethics, rather than the exact formulation of a mete ethics or normative theory. It is based upon Greek mythology and the differences between the brothers Prometheus and Epimetheus. It asks that we be actively concerned about the welfare of humanity as a whole through acts of sympathetic imagination and beneficence. It reminds us that fear, whether it be of the gods or physical nature, ultimately gives rise to a self-defeating conservatism. Most importantly, it insists that we cannot be forbidden to bestow value on the ground that the nonhuman world does not value it. Nor can we be compelled to admire anything because it is "ordained by nature" Philosophers often express this in technical terms when they say that "ethics is logically in dependent of nature or metaphysics"

Promethean means forethought and commitment to a future world that is considerably better than the one we presently have. Prometheans do not accept preventable misfortune or suffering. When necessary, they defy nature or the gods in order to improve the human condition. They understand that, in the absence of knowledge, unexpected harm may be done by a new departure from nature. But they also understand the need for risk taking. For example, I do not think even the most ardent apostle of nature would want Prometheus to return the technology for fire making simply because it needs to be supplemented by another unnatural institution--namely, the practice of fire safety.

What about the notion of providence? What about the belief that there is a transcendent benevolent god standing outside the world who guarantees that things will always work out for the best? Or the belief that nature itself is kindly, that there is a depersonalized, benevolent immanence in things which guarantees that beneficence will prevail? The Promethean rejects both of these views and maintains that there is little evidence that "nature" is benevolent and overwhelming evidence that it is not--or at least that it is neutral. The Promethean believes that the concept of providence is an illusion, a palliative device. That, aside from the illusions which seem necessary for mental health, humankind has the best chance for attaining enduring happiness by living within the scaffolding of a theory of truth dominated by reliable evidence.

It is true that Prometheus represents the desire for a better world: the will to aspire to the power of the gods and to stand against unnecessary suffering and the evils of the status quo. It is also true that Prometheanism en courages bold innovation. But it is one thing to be bold and another to be foolish. Prometheanism rejects the claim that "if it is feasible, it is desirable" or that "science discovers, industry applies, and man conforms." Instead, it substitutes the injunction that "whether it be audacious or not, if there is clear and reliable evidence of benefit, then it is desirable to try it." Similarly, Prometheanism does not believe that "guilty until proven innocent" is a safe guide to action. It maintains that our task is to understand that innovation involves risk, and that great change involves great risk. For example, how many of us would want to deny the value of antibiotics because they are "unnatural" or because they cause the death of those who have severe allergies? Again, how many would be inclined to argue that subway transportation systems are more artificial than buses or automobiles and, therefore, should be done away with? Or that we should avoid this technology because terrorists have come to realize that it is easier to kill more people with sarin gas in crowded areas than in less crowded environments? Answering these questions in the negative may indicate that we understand the difference between cowardice and prudent vigilance, between the fear of making mistakes and the need for more aggressive forms of watchfulness, including governmental and consumer safeguards.

Nevertheless, when it comes to radical change, there is something to be said in favor of a more cautious stance. Great vigilance is necessary for two reasons: first, there always are unforeseen negative consequences to what initially appear to be the friendliest of goods; second, some harms may prove to be irreversible and simply cannot be remedied by the introduction of a new artificiality. Artificialities may remedy some technological mistakes, but they do not necessarily have the power to bring back extinct species or to reverse other forms of irreparable ecological damage--like loading the atmosphere with gaseous pollutants and the earth and water with long lived radionuclides.

Because he stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans, Prometheus is held up as the archetypal technologist--the father not only of "progress" but also of "meliorism;" the belief that we should respect but not revere nature and that when circumstances permit we can and should change things for the better. There is, however, another important dimension to his legacy. What fundamentally motivates this great Titan is his overriding love of humanity. Aeschylus writes that, after Zeus has him chained to the side of a mountain, Prometheus cries out:

Regard me in chains, the suffering

god.

The foe of Him who Reigns, foe

foredestined

Of all by whom the floor of Zeus is

trod:

So greatly have I loved mankind.

Similarly, Byron writes:

Thy Godlike crime was to be

kind,

To render with thy precepts less

The sum of human wretchedness.

According to this interpretation, Prometheus was motivated by loving kindness, by the desire to do good for humankind. He so ardently desired this end that it became necessary to intervene and to do battle with Zeus on behalf of his beloved.

This, in large part, explains why Prometheanism is such a formidable moral stance. It combines audacity with the virtues of disinterested sympathy, benevolence, and beneficence. It tells us that, without power and praxis, love and knowledge are not enough. Ex pressed differently, it tells us that impersonal self-enlargement, benevolent love for humankind, and the courage to change what can be changed are all proper ends of morality and politics

Marvin Kohl is a professor of philosophy at the State University of New York College at Fredonia and a recent Fulbright Scholar at the Hong Kong Baptist University. This column is reprinted with per mission from the Newsletter of the Centre of Applied Ethics (Hong Kong).