I've just been doing a bit of, very light, research on different schools of ethics in philosophy.
There is a bewildering array of approaches to this subject.
What is your approach to this topic?
I recently devised an ethics pledge for a board of directors I sit on. Ethics is a rather broad subject so you need to view it in the particular context with which you wish to apply it. Generally, it's about honesty, acting honorably, and appropriately, treating others as you would expect to be treated.
For example, when you take the oath to uphold and protect the constitution, one would expect you not to violate that oath by signing legislation for that which you haven't been granted power to address.
Here is an example of an ethical controversy in Philosophy of Ethics:
You are a member of the organization you just referred to.
You are employed by them, so you have, in effect, promised to act according to their wishes, while within your work role.
If they ask you to do something you think is unethical, you are in fact nevertheless being unethical by NOT doing it, because you have broken the contract or promise you made by signing on to be part of that organization (this is a common question when dealing with Kant's ethics... for him, duty always must come first)
I suppose technically you would be unethical, however any ethics pledge or contract should never be constructed in a way that would present you with a choice. There should always be a disclaimer. You can't sign an agreement where you are expected to lie to advance the goals of the organization or otherwise violate the law, it would be unethical to sign such an agreement.
I find that pretty unconvincing.
Organizations consciously present an image of themselves to those they employ. When you agree to work with an organization you agree to work with them toward certain goals by certain means. If they want you to step outside that agreement and pursue other goals or to pursue their goals by other means you haven't agreed to do so and shouldn't feel any obligation.
Unless you initially agreed to unethical behavior you're not violating any sort of duty or promise by refusing to engage in unethical behavior.
hmm then you have to come to the conclusion that you can be grandly ethical by being a tiny bit unethical, and in doing so, cancel out being a tiny bit unethical. i mean, say you were a Nazi guy but you decided to not only refrain from shooting any Jewish people, you would also work with them to free them, thereby saving countless lives. ethics and moralty come in many shades of gray.
Kant is criticized mainly for saying also that your ethical precepts have to apply at all times. In contrast to this you have, for example, 'virtue ethics', that says that to be virtuous is to take each situation on its merits, and decide case-by-case, so to speak.
The problem is that, in a way, both are important.
If you have a defence lawyer that throws a case every time he suspects his client is guilty, then the principle that all people have the right to a full and proper defence (because they could be innocent, after all) is out the window.
In other words, sometimes we are just instruments of the organization we belong to, and sometimes we are free actors.
Of course, being an instrument like that is something that we Westerners usually have a problem with (or claim to). But, on the other hand, sometimes it is simply true... and necessary
I agree with your assessment of ethics except for your example. I think that by the very nature of government if a piece of legislation comes up you have a most definite obligation to address it.
Ethics are different codes used by different organizations.
For example, Doctors can't talk about patients illnesses without their consent, and a director's personal secretary can't talk against her employee, even if she knows he's doing something wrong.
In some Brazilian Amazon tribes, You have to sleep with the chief's daughter, if you're a visitant, if not it's seen like an offense.
so I think ethic has to do with codes, more than anything else.
There are ethics among gangsters as well. And there are ethics of war, military ethics, religious ethics, etc.
Here's another question.
In the philosophy of ethics there is a movement called "consequentialism."
This means, in effect, that the ends justify the means. (To determine whether an act was ethical, you must look at its result, and not the act itself. Therefore homosexual acts, presumably, are not wrong, because there is (presumably) no negative outcome, that harms anyone)
Do the ends justify the means? Or , could they, ever?
Are acts neutral, until we see their outcome?
There's are certain ideals that a lot of people claim to hold, the sorts of things that are the moral lesson delivered at the end of a saturday morning cartoons, that I don't think they really do. That violence is always wrong and that the ends never justify the means are among them.
It seems to me everyone who claims the ends never justify the means instead believes the means justify the end. They seem to think even if you can see the end destination of that famous, metaphorical road to Hell you should walk it anyway because it's such a nice road.
Drawing a distinction between ends and means doesn't really make a lot of sense. Actions have consequences, both immediate and far-reaching. All consequences should be weighed, and all are equally important.
But taking what is considered an "ends justify the means" approach has the dangers that far-reaching consequences might not be accurately predicted. No matter how reasonable it seems to think the long term-consequences are important enough to outweigh the short term ones, it's important to remember you don't know what they are with nearly as much certainty.
Here's what I think: whether the ends justify the means is entirely dependent on how comprehensive the ends are and how they balance up against the means
For example: Helping a poor person keep their house warm in the winter is a good end, and would justify incoveniencing someone else who has far fewer problems, but burning live babies on a big bonfire would be going too far.
Generally I think that all ethics must ultimately have an abstract ideal, or coherent det of ideals, which they seek to implement in the actions of the person following those ethical codes. Ethical dilemas come about because their is are very few universally accepted and all encompassing ideals, so most ethical systems are based on a limited ideal which can come into conflict with other ideals. In that case the only solution is personal choice as to which abstract ideal you value more. Which is why different people come up with different answers.
Yes but who then decides what "advances" means or even what is "common good"?
I believe both are achieved when individuals decide those things for themselves.
but still we live in a society so common good is still a collection of individual goods hehe, HI POPPA
Yes I agree that's how a common good is achieved, when a majority of individuals act in a way that achieves their goals.
How are you my pretty friend?
good and i know youre good and alive as usual???
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
Oftentimes, many people often "have to do what they got to do" in order to succeed in the workplace. The picture is not pretty at all. These people do not care who they hurt psychologically...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
I just had one of those personal flashes of insight. Probably because someone was speaking about defending the USA and all I've been trying to do is look at the ethics of various policies. Then when those policies have...
by mpchekuri7 years ago
I just want to know if there is any university to teach ethics to be followed by human beings. I would be surprised if one exists.
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
Ayn Rand was a Russian immigrant, a proclaimed American, adamantly Atheistic, a devote Capitalist, an accomplished writer and, in my estimation, one of the more astute observers of the human character and too, the human...
by Peter Freeman7 years ago
I keep hearing and reading this phrase and I must confess it doesn't make sense to me. I know what "Believe" means and I know what "in" means. It's when the two words are put together I don't...
by TheGlassSpider7 years ago
What if, as in LeGuin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, we could have utopia, but in order to maintain it each generation would have to choose one innocent child to imprison, neglect, and torture? Would it be worth...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.