Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

ETHICS03

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

THE MEANING OF ETHICS

In his Pulitzer Price-winning book, THE BEST AND THE BRIGHT-

EST (1969), David Halberstam quotes a passage written by Chester

Boles, then Undersecretary of State with the newly organized

Kennedy administration. The passage was written by Mr. Boles one

month after the Bay of Pigs incident. Boles wrote in his private

diary the following.

The question which concerns me most about this new


administration is whether it lacks a genuine sense of con-
viction about what is right and what is wrong...

Anyone in public life who has strong convictions about


the right and wrong of public morality, both domestic and
international, have a very great advantage in times of
strain, since their instincts on what to do are clear and
immediate. Lacking such a framework of moral
conviction...he is forced to lean almost entirely upon his
mental processes; he adds up the pluses and minuses of any
question and comes up with a conclusion. Under normal
circumstances, when he is not tired or frustrated, this
pragmatic approach should successfully bring him out on the
right side of the question. What worries me are the conclu-
sions that such an individual may reach when he is tired,
angry, frustrated, or emotionally affected...

As Boles indicated, a study in ethics is very much a study

in decision making. Obviously, not all decisions that an indi-

vidual makes will be based upon ethical considerations, but every

human decision, consciously or unconsciously, is based upon some

type of value system.

For clarification, it should be stated that a human decision

is any decision that related directly to, or affects, the rela-

tionships one has with other human beings. Thus, the study of

ethics is the study of our value system and how we put it to work

or apply it in making decisions relative to other human beings.

One might think that the study of ethics would imply a

rather simple process. All we need to do is study values.


However, the process is a little more complicated. In fact, to

truly understand one's ethics is one of the most difficult tasks

confronting an individual today. It is difficult because the

basis for ethics is so much a part of the past as well as the

present. More importantly, any pragmatic approach we might have

to a logical evaluation of ethics as it relates to decision

making is oftentimes overshadowed by that force called emotion.

Yet each day every person is confronted with the difficult task

of evaluating those affairs that come their way, and rendering

judgments as to which are good or bad, right or wrong.

NATURE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Nearly everyone asked will indicate an interest in the

subject of ethics. It is hoped that you approach the subject

intrepidly--anxious to explore and curious about the meaning of

ethics. This study will not be taught from a theological per-

spective; although I must willfully admit my belief in a Supreme

Being and in the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

I acknowledge that I bring my prejudices, both those that I

have confessed and those I hide from myself, to my interpretation

and theory of ethics. However, this study in no way will require

you to pledge allegiance to any belief as a prerequisite to

completing the course. On the contrary, the study is intended to

be a revelation, a mind awakening to the reality of your right

and responsibility to be free--not so much a physical freedom,

but a mental freedom, a freedom to choose.

People often construct their own tyrants. Custom, tradi-

tion, and social norms--concepts dictating what is often called

"proper"--can be as coercive as any tyrant. Only thinking man

who chooses to control his own thoughts and chooses his own
values has a change again such mind tyrants.

This study will not be a simple review of the various ethi-

cal theories. Of course, you will be expected to becomes famil-

iar with the theories of relativism, normativism, teleological,

and deontological theories as propagated by such individuals as

Kant, Fletcher, Epicurus, Bentson, etc. However, it is likely

that you will find all of these theories limited. Most of them

attempt to tell us how to have better ethics while, in reality,

we do not understand the ethics which we now possess. Simply

put, most of us do not know what it is we believe, much less why.

Before the theories for making ethical choices can be truly

meaningful, we must first understand the basis from which we

start. What do I believe, and why do I believe what I believe

must be addressed before I have any chance of thinking anew.

VOICES FROM THE MIND

Within each person are many mind voices, and the voices all

sing but they do not sing in unison. Each time a person is

confronted with an ethical decision the voices sing from his/her

subconscious in an effort to direct a conclusion. some of the

voices are rooted in the past. Others come from those we love,

or associates. All sing, but they do not sing in unison. Man,

being a giver of labels, has entitled the composition of these

voices "beliefs" and beliefs are the basis of one's actions.

However, the basis of beliefs and values must be discovered

within the hidden shadows of the mind.

This study, then, is intended to assist each of us toward a

better understanding of our values. We will try to isolate the

many voices, and to weight the value of each voice to see if some
come from sources that might be labeled more logical or more

important than others. We will look for the root value of those

voices. Where the journey takes us is not as important as the

fact that we will, perhaps for the first time in our life, study

the question of our own ethics. It may not be a totally enjoy-

able trip. For as Dag Hammerskjold (second Secretary General of

the United Nations and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) said,

"The longest journey is the journey inward..."

WHAT IS ETHICS?

Before attempting to give a specific definition to the term

ethics, let me share two stories. The first story will reveal a

scholar who spent his life pondering the meaning of right and

wrong. The second story will be that of a man who was so sure he

knew what was right or wrong that he died for his belief.

The first story:

An ancient question was put to Socrates by Mento: "Can


you tell me Socrates whether virtue is acquired by teaching
or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor practice, then
whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?"

Socrates answered, "You must think I am very fortunate


to know how virtue is acquired. The fact is far from
knowing whether it is taught, I have no idea what virtue
is."

Socrates' response to Mento's inquiry was designed to force

his inquisitor to confront an issue that remains the starting

point for any consideration of values, "What is the ethical or

the moral?" How this question is answered has profound

implications for every aspect of one's conception and

investigation of moral thought and behavior. It is the essence

of the beginning of one's ethical view.

While Socrates' statement suggests that values are relative,


the second story reveals that values may be made of "sterner

stuff."

In a book entitled, THE MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, the reader


is made aware of the individual known as Sir Thomas More,
the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sir Thomas More is the
friend to the King during the time that Henry the VIII
decided to rid himself of his wife by having the Roman
Catholic Church authorize a divorce. History records that
Rome refused to issue the divorce papers; as a result, the
King separated England from Catholic control and established
the Church of England in order that he could rule as both
King and head of the church.

With the King's decision to become the head of the


church, he demanded that all priests disavow their
allegiance to Rome and to pledge their allegiance to him.
The story continues that all of importance and influence
agreed to the King's demands except Sir Thomas More.

Although Thomas had been a friend of the King, the


friendship soon waned and the King threw More into prison
because of his continuous refusal to take the oath of
allegiance. Later, when it became obvious that even prison
could not force Thomas More, the King set a date for his
execution should he continue to refuse to comply. Just
prior to the date set for the execution, two characters
confront the condemned man.

First, the Duke of Norfolk tried to persuade More to


sign the King's oath. He assured More that everyone in
England was aware of his position and would understand he
signed only under duress. However, More continued to
refuse. As the Duke of Norfolk became frustrated with
More's persistent refusal, he suggested that More was
refusing only out of pride. Thomas More replied, "I will
not give in because I oppose it...I do...not my pride, not
my spleen, nor any other part of my appendage, but I, I,
Thomas More.

A few minutes later, More's daughter, Meg, entered the


prison room to plead with her father. She tells her father
that he is all that she has left since her mother had died,
and regardless as to how he personally feels about the
King's oath, he should sign for her sake. She pleads her
point by suggesting that he owes her, as his only daughter,
certain responsibilities that mandate he sign the oath. In
response, Thomas More said, "When a man takes an oath, he
holds himself in his own hand, like water. If he opens his
fingers, then he needn't hope to find himself again." More
refused his daughter's request and he was executed.

Thomas More's story shows that a sense of self can be a

basic source of consistency in moral conduct. When a sense of


self is strong and clear, one identifies with one's own actions,

and each action is the self extended. This concept will be

discussed in greater depth later.

A DEFINITION OF ETHICS

Having set the stage, it is now appropriate for us to define

the word "ethics." The dictionary defines ethics as the study of

the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be

made by the individual in his/her relationships with others.

Obviously, this definition leaves us with two serious ques-

tions. First, what are morals? The dictionary says that morals

are concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of

human actions and character. Such being the case, we may now

expand our definition by saying that ethics is the study of the

general nature of goodness or badness as it relates to specific

choices as made by the individual in his relationship with oth-

ers.

However, we are now faced with a second question. Is the

question of ethics relative only in our dealings with other

people? In other words, are we only concerned with the goodness

or badness of our judgment in our relationship with others, or is

it possible that an individual on a desert island, never to be

confronted by another individual, could still possess an ethics?

The question is, "Can one by unethical in private?" We might

carry the question even further and ask, "If one were isolated on

an island all their life, could that person be without ethics, or

nonethical?"

Ultimately, we are begging the question, "If one can have an

ethics, then can one not have an ethics?"


CAN ONE BE NON-ETHICAL?

Most prominent anthropologists/sociologists who have studied

the history of man and his civilization conclude that each and

every civilization studied provided some type of a value system.

It may very well have been that their value system would not

conform to our value system of today. Perhaps previous societies

or civilizations believed that when a volcano erupted, human

sacrifice was demanded. To us, such a thought would be horrible.

However, to them, it was the right thing to do.

Historic records clearly indicate that it is impossible for

reasoning man to be totally void of some type of value system.

We must, therefore, conclude, based upon historical evidence,

that man cannot be non-ethical. He is not without some type of

value system regardless as to whether or not we would concur with

the value system presented.

While we might conclude that all humans capable of thinking

have some type of a value system, an ethics, history also shows

that one can be disloyal to those values held. In essence, while

we are not without ethics, we can be unethical. Being unethical

means that we make decisions or choices that do not agree with

those values we report that we believe. Of course, we are now

confronted with the question, "Why might we do this?" The answer

lies before us. This course is entitled "Ethics for Decision

Making." It recognizes that as we make decisions we will bring

to bear our ethics. In this process we will, at times, be un-

faithful to what we report what we believe. More importantly, we

will find that we are not always logical, nor do we always ap-

proach ethical questions logically. In addition to what values

we may report, emotions enter into the decision making process


and often distort any logical process we might seek to use in

making ethical decisions.

As we begin this study, the best definition that we can

subscribe to is this: ETHICS IS THE STUDY OF THE GENERAL NATURE

OF GOODNESS OR BADNESS AS IT RELATES TO SPECIFIC CHOICES MADE BY

THE INDIVIDUAL IN RELATIONSHIP TO SELF AND OTHERS.

You might also like