We often make decisions between right and wrong, questioning acts and situations on whether or not they coincide with our individual conscience. What is not usually considered is why we make decisions. It is easy for one to say they did something because it was the “right” thing to do; but what makes them feel it was “right”? Many factors are responsible for how we judge morality; religion, nature, virtue, ego, and other ideals are relative to what we feel is right or wrong. These factors are classified into ethical systems that are either deontological or teleological.
Deontological Ethical Systems
Deontological ethical systems base what is right on the means to the end. Even if there is a negative outcome to a deed, it is still considered good if the person who does the deed has done so with good intentions. According to deontological ethical systems, the means justifies the end. Deontologicalism’s most formidable example is ethical formalism: “What is good is that which conforms to the Categorical Imperative” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49).
Kant (1946:76) says the imperative is “the imperative of morality” (Pollock, 2004, p. 30). Say, for instance, I am walking down the street eating a cheeseburger. I look over and see a homeless woman sitting on the sidewalk looking hungry. I give my cheeseburger to the woman and she is happy. If I gave her the cheeseburger because she looked hungry, then my actions are moral. My actions would not be moral if I gave her the cheeseburger because it was gross. Many would view the action of giving a homeless woman a cheeseburger a moral act; but under ethical formalism, the act is only moral if done with good intentions.
Religion is the driving force behind the actions of people all over the world; people who put their deity’s demands over all other morals. Ethics of religion are based on the idea of “what is good is that which conforms to God’s will” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The Ten Commandments are religious imperatives of two major world religions; Judaism, and Christianity. Under the ethics of religion, as long as the believer is doing God’s will, then their actions are considered moral. To illustrate the differences of viewpoint I would like to point out the jihad going on in the Middle East. Jews and Muslims will always be at war because both sides are doing what they think is morally right to honor their God.
Relating to the ethics of religion, but without the deities is natural law. “What is good is that which is natural” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Natural law respects the social contract, the unwritten rules of nature and the universe. To defend one’s natural rights, like the right to be alive, is naturally moral; it is survival. It is also natural to embrace such qualities as generosity, caring, and kindness. Humans often rely on instincts of natural law to distinguish right from wrong; we do what “feels” right. Branching off the natural law is the ethics of care where “what is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). This form of ethics relates directly to women and their very own set of morals. It is in a woman’s nature to be nurturing; and women care in a way that men generally do not. It would be natural, and moral, to care for those who cannot care for themselves; and that stems from a mother’s instinct to care for her children.
Teleological Ethical Systems
The end justifies the means in teleological ethical systems. From this viewpoint, a deed is considered a good deed if the outcome is good. Take a look at taxes; the act of paying taxes does not bring happiness, but (we hope) our tax money goes to the government to make society better. Paying taxes is not enjoyable, but the outcome is beneficial; so paying taxes is morally good as determined by means of teleological ethics.
A perfect example of a teleological ethical system is utilitarianism, defined as “What is good is that which results in the greatest utility for the greatest number” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). Some sacrifices are considered moral if the end result brings a larger benefit. If there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and George Bush really was valiantly saving the U.S. from imminent future attacks, then his actions could be considered utilitarian.
Another commonly used form of ethics, in my opinion, is egoism; and it “is clearly [a] teleological” ethical system (Pollock, 2004, p. 35). “What is good is that which benefits me” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). On some level, every decision we make, and everything we do, we make and do for our own best interests. Whether it is on a deeply subconscious level, or an outright selfish level, the base of both extremes is ego. Egoism can be related to the natural law of survival and defense. But, it is also relevant to throwing someone in front of a train to save yourself; yeah, you survived, but it was not a very moral thing to do.
Ethics of virtue view morality as “what is good is that which conforms to the Golden Mean” (Pollock, 2004, p. 49). The principle of the golden mean “states that virtue is always the median between two extremes of character” (Pollock, 2004, p. 40). A person with good virtues does good things because that is the way they are; they do not have to think about doing good deeds, it is habit. The moral fiber of a person is what makes them a “good” person; therefore the actions they take are considered moral under the ethics of virtue. On the other side of the scale, a pathological liar operates under the ethics of virtue; they lie without thinking about it, it is a habit. The virtues of a pathological liar, however, are not universally regarded as moral.
My Ethics
I genuinely care about people, and my actions are often based on the ethics of care. I am a good person, virtuous, and generous by nature. I am an individual, with my own agenda that sometimes has to come before others. I have faith in God, and I strive to live my life in a way that pleases Him. There are many sides to me, and many reasons why I do what I do in different situations. My ethics stem from the deontological system of a naturally caring formalism fueled by the teleological system of religious virtues and egoism. Ha!
No comments:
Post a Comment