3.3 Material versus formal ethics

The question "What should I do?" can be answered with varying degrees of concrete content. If, for example, certain commandments or prohibitions are formulated in specified terms, then we speak of material ethics. In a figurative sense, such ethics provide material instructions on what one should and should not do. Take, for example, the ten commandments of Christian ethics. Sentences such as "Thou shalt not lie!" or "Thou shalt not kill!" are material, i.e. content-filled prohibitions; they say exactly what is not to be done. This ethical requirement applies without any ifs or buts. In contrast, however, there is also a type of ethics that is less concrete in terms of content, but nevertheless just as binding. This type sets out its demands in formulae. In everyday language, most people are probably familiar with the so-called "golden rule".

<loop_area type="definition">
'''Golden rule'''
In its general form, it is a saying that goes like this:

''"Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself!"''

This commandment also provides an answer to the question "What should I do?". Although no formulated instructions are given, actions are fundamentally guided and arbitrariness is ruled out. This is because my actions should be determined in response to others, in reference to my fellow human beings. Instead of a generally valid formulated instruction, such as "Thou shalt not lie!" is replaced by a formula, which does, however, have a binding character. However, the formulaic nature of the golden rule leaves us a certain amount of room for manoeuvre. After all, if we ourselves thought it was appropriate to lie in a certain situation, we could use the golden rule in a similar situation to justify the fact that we could or even should lie to someone else.
</loop_area>

<loop_area type="example">
In the above example of the sustainability officer who has discovered a serious breach of waste disposal guidelines by a colleague friend, possibly even in collusion with the management, the application of material ethics or formal ethics may well lead to different results. If, for example, the specific material ethical requirement “Thou shalt not lie!” is applied, then the sustainability officer would have to accuse her colleague in any case. Be it that she would be asked whether she knew about the breach of rules and whether she knew who was involved. Or whether she would be asked without being asked in an extended understanding of “Thou shalt not lie!” (“...and therefore bring the truth to light!”) and therefore proactively reported their discovery.
</loop_area>

However, applying the golden rule would at least enable the sustainability officer in this situation to think independently about what she should do in the given situation. This would give her more room for thought and action. Applying the golden rule, the sustainability officer could come to the conclusion that she is covering for her colleague. After all, she herself would probably not want him to betray her if he caught her breaking the rules in her area. However, she could also come to the opposite conclusion, namely that she would deserve nothing less than to be reported to compliance if her colleague caught her breaking the rules herself. After all, a breach of the rules by a sustainability officer in her field is no trivial offense.

With regard to the golden rule, there are therefore degrees of freedom that would allow different actions, as long as they are also valid and considered necessary in relation to oneself. However, with this freedom also comes the responsibility to justify one's own actions and to take responsibility for their consequences. Last but not least, it can be assumed that a corrective is needed in order to apply the golden rule in the sense of formal ethics. A criterion for ethically appropriate or prohibited actions that goes beyond individual inclinations also appears to be necessary for formal ethics in order to prevent general arbitrariness and the justification of anything-goes. For example, the self-reflective reference that it is ethically justified to inflict pain on other people because one is "into it oneself" is unlikely to be a tenable answer to the fundamental ethical question "What should I do?". With the golden rule, we may get a little further in everyday life than with fixed, predefined commandments or prohibitions of material ethics. But the reference to oneself and thus also to one's own preferences or values as a standard for good ethical behaviour is not yet entirely convincing. Other points of reference beyond the individual seem to be necessary for ethical behaviour.

<loop_area type="exercise">
<loop_task title="Golden rule (reflection exercise)"" copyright="" show_copyright="false" index="true" id="67601cfa07875">
Think of an example from the mining sector where, in your opinion, applying the golden rule leads to ethically sound or unethical behaviour. Give reasons for your view.

<small>Time to complete approx. 20 min.</small>
</loop_task>
</loop_area>

<loop_area type="exercise">
<loop_task title="Sustainability officer discovers breach of rules (reflection task)"" copyright="" show_copyright="false" index="true" id="67601cfa0787a">

    a) Consider various options for action that the sustainability officer described in the text<br> could take after discovering her colleague's breach of company rules.
    b) What (ethical) problems could arise from each option?
    c) What would you do in the place of this sustainability officer?

<small>Time to complete approx. 20 min.</small>
</loop_task>
</loop_area>