Which Direction is Ethical? Should We Simply "Count the Cars"?
My question for this thread is who should set ethics? Who
should establish "what is ethical and what is not"? Should it always
be society as a whole to establish which direction is the right ethical
direction with the decision based on observation of which direction the
majority of society is moving? Or is
"what is ethical and what is not" really not a matter of statistics
but should be decided upon independent criteria and beyond simply observing the
direction set by the general public?
If so then should the decision be based on what philosophers or other "thinkers" have set in the
past and then carried on to the present and the future? In other words do
ethical actions and behavior really change over the years? Or if they can and
do change should what is ethical be based on how current philosophers look at
current issues? What should be the role of religions to establish what is moral
and what isn't? Are the religions and their members really the ones to define
what is or is not ethical? Finally, should we disregard society, philosophers
and religions and say that what is "good" and what is "bad"
be defined only by those who are directly involved as actors or recipients in
any activity or behavior? Should it be only the participants who set the ethical standards.
Who do you want to tell you
what is ethical and what isn't? ..Maurice.
Graphic: Photograph taken by me today of the 405 Freeway in Southern California
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 8:24:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Ethics is a code of values which guide our choices and
activities and determines the purpose and commitment
of our lives.But, you can count on stupid people to screw
it up every time.
PT
PT, you didn't answer the question of this thread: who are the ones to set up the "code of values which guide our choices and activities and determines the purpose and commitment of our lives" and the values which "stupid people" can "screw up..every time"? Should the code be set up by philosophers, politicians, religions or the general public? ..Maurice.
Wow Maurice, this is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. For instance I believe intensive animal farming is immoral and unethical...but the person who's livelihood depends on it would vehemently disagree with me. Who is right?
To start to muddle out an answer...perhaps ethics committees, with a panel of varied experts in the particular field, sets the pace. Then see what the general consensus is with broader society.
Difficult one. I'm curious about your view Maurice?
MC, currently ethical issues appear to be defined by the politicians and the courts with philosophers and clergy adding their "two cents" but I am not sure that that composition is fair for the very public who will be directly affected themselves by those issues. A suggested analogy: Folks who are actually swimming in the ocean should be the ones who decide their strength and capacity to continue the swim rather than have those sunning themselves on the beach make the swimmers' decisions. Of course, some swimmers will personally make the wrong decision but the error will be born by them and not the sunbathers. Remember, ethics decisions of what is good and what is bad are not based on empiric scientific or mathematical evidence but on many other, less rigid and more personal, factors and which for those making decisions they may have not, as yet, been experienced or have had some experience but not in the same context. Take for example those male legislators in the state of Mississippi who have not and never will experienced the emotional and physical conflicts associated with an unwanted pregnancy and yet they are the ones setting the laws to absolutely prevent abortion, even if legal in the United States, within the state of Mississippi. I would consider them the sunbathers in my analogy. ..Maurice.
Ok, I see what you're saying.....but if the swimmers in the water choose to swim outside of the flags, and have to be rescued by lifeguards if they get into difficulty, then they pass on the error to the lifeguards. So, even though it doesn't affect the sunbathers, does that mean we shouldn't have flags and lifeguards? Is it every man for himself?
We have flags and lifeguards because of the laws about swimming in public places. Then, you might wonder whether the laws actually conflict with the ethics allowing individual responsibility and the rights of an autonomous personhood. That may lead to the question as to what is the difference between ethics and law since both seem in various ways tied together. In 2000, I posted an essay describing this issue written by a philosopher CD Herrera title "How are Law and Ethics Related" on my now inactive "Bioethics Discussion Pages".
There is still a long way to go to separate the two, if, indeed, they should be separated. ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home