|
|
Simple View Of Ethics And Morals This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please see this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page for voting and discussion on the matter. Please do not remove or deface this notice or blank, merge, or move this article while the discussion is in progress. However, you are welcome to edit this article and improve it. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion. Ethics is often called the science of morality. It attempts to make consistent descriptions of complex situations and difficult decisions. It is considered to be important because, to those who practice the ethical tradition in which the descriptions are applied, it answers the big question, "How should we live?" The very questions presupposes that we can define 'how' (method), 'should' (ambition), 'we' (a group seeking consensus), 'live' (beings with bodies). Without this context, ethics is generally just talk implying moral judgement- this is usually called normative ethics. A simple, practical view, as advanced by Rushworth Kidder, is that ethics balances "right versus right": if there's a dispute we care to hear, then each side must have some right on it. However, this presupposes some instinctive moral core of the individual that must recognize right and wrong, else we do not have two individuals asserting "right" and requiring ethical help: if either in fact secretly believes themselves "wrong" then they are engaging in tactics to reduce the chance of getting caught or alerting others to it, neither of which is studied by ethics. Ethics can thus be viewed as a lever but one that rests on a moral fulcrum of pre-existing assumptions, like the bodies of the beings in conflict, placed there by circumstances, environments, situations, mostly out of their control - only the choice of resolution is under their own control. Taking such a simple view requires everyone involved to see ethics as a process outside the body, and morality as something instinctive and within. This view thus completely reverses the classical Greek view that ethos, or "character" was internal, and mores, or "custom", came from the society. But then, the ancient Greeks viewed religion and the responsibilties of a tutor in a different way that most moderns do. The classical Greek view leads, in the view of some more modern Christian philosophers such as Margaret Visser, to fatalism and revenge, and to retributive justice in the law. Those who find these measures desirable thus have an alternative simple view. Thare a few widely-accepted moral principles that cross all cultural boundaries. There is a tendency in many societies to support belief and safety over doubt and risk, to support fairness, consent and duty over dissent, to support knowledge instead of ignorance, to support trust, and honesty over lying and to be against what the culture considers evil. It is actually not possible to use any of those words without moral judgements It is useful to distinguish "good from bad" in our actions just as we might distinguish "good from evil" morally in our thoughts. It's also useful to recognize that we use the word "right" to assert what we are due and to judge what is correct. To anything that's alive, it's "right" for it to live, that too is built into the body. If a creature is physically fit and capable of thriving in its environment, it takes a lot to overcome a preference to live: Ethics begins when we try to use "right", "wrong", "good", "bad" and "evil" as labels in a sharable, predictable, way. Else it is just a moral judgement and not a basis for cooperation with other people in any due process or law. Most surviving societies recognize certain acts that are usually bad for the society, such as lying, stealing, murder of people, adultery, and impiety (to God or Nature which in early societies was often the same). Mature societies recognize ecological and personal obligations that may contradict the social: This highlights the differences between individual and social responsibility - very often people rely on society or labor specialization to do things that they simply would not do for themselves.
|
 |