Expediency - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Expediency, a term seemingly straightforward, dances on the edge of definition, a siren song promising efficiency while concealing potential moral compromise. Is it merely the art of the practical, or a slippery slope where ethics are sacrificed at the altar of immediate gain?
References to expediency, or rather, the principles that underpin it, can be traced back to ancient Greece. Thucydides, in his "History of the Peloponnesian War" (circa 460-400 BC), frequently illustrates how considerations of expediency shaped Athenian political and military decisions. The Melian Dialogue, in particular, showcases a stark example of Athenian leaders prioritizing their state's immediate strategic interests over abstract notions of justice. Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince advocated for expediency in governance, causing ongoing debate of the role of morality in political philosophy. Throughout history, icons such as Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War made choices of expediency that are examined today for their ethical consequences, proving the concept has been relevant to humanity's most crucial moments. These early historical examples set a stage for subsequent debates about whether the ends justify the means, particularly in times of crisis, and prompt one to consider how historical context impacts moral obligation.
The interpretation of expediency has dramatically evolved, often becoming intertwined with utilitarianism and consequentialism during the Enlightenment. Figures like Jeremy Bentham and, later, Peter Singer grappled with the implications of maximizing overall happiness, leading to complex philosophical arguments about permissible actions. Expediency features prominently in many thought experiment ethics scenarios such as the trolley problem, which forces one to weigh different outcomes and evaluate moral choices under pressure. However, the concept also attracts considerable criticism from proponents of deontology, like followers of Immanuel Kant, who advocate for adherence to absolute moral principles, regardless of consequences. This tension between what is valid vs invalid within ethical systems continues to prompt intense debate, raising unsettling questions about the subjective nature of objective morality. Is expediency a tool to navigate complex situations, or a justification for moral failings, and when does it intersect with moral relativism?
Expediency remains a potent force in modern ethical considerations, from political negotiations to corporate strategies, its shadow looms. Contemporary discussions address the ethical implications of algorithms and AI, with concerns that biases and cognitive biases could lead to expedient decisions that reinforce societal inequalities. Even in personal life, the allure of the expedient choice competes with values of integrity and long-term well-being. As technology presents new and complex moral dilemmas, and as society grapples with questions of fairness, power, and freedom, the implications of expediency continue to echo. To what extent does our perception of expediency shape the very fabric of our ethical landscape?