Philosophy

Ethical rules and principles, defining right behavior, regulate how doctors, civil servants, legislators, attorneys, scientists and many others conduct themselves professionally. Infringement of these rules can lead to disciplinary action, including loss of professional status. Research proposals at most universities are required to discuss ethical issues. Law is based on the assumption that certain acts are wrong, immoral or ethically unacceptable. Indeed, the rule of law itself is based on the idea that life should be lived according to shared ethic norms. After discussing some possible understandings about the origin of ethics, I describe a set of ethical principles that guide my life, why I chose these and what meaning they possess within my framework of thinking.

Surprisingly, although philosophers have discussed ethics and ethical standards from the beginning of philosophical discourse, there is still debate about the origin and nature of ethical principles. Why are some acts considered wrong and others right, some moral and others immoral, some ethical and others unethical Are ethical norms the by-product of a social contract that separates people from the state of nature, in which life has no rules at all If so, rules could be changed so that what is wrong today becomes right tomorrow. Or, are ethical principles, as Socrates and Plato believed, eternal, immutable ideals that exist independently of our thoughts If so, how are we to understand the origin of such principles apart from belief in some type of supra-human reality, whether that is named God or something else Philosophy can only remain agnostic on the issue of Gods existence and cannot depend on the God-concept to explain why some acts are considered ethical, others unethical.

People often speak about their conscience and how they have an inner awareness of right and wrong. People speak about how their conscience compels them to confess when they have acted unethically. Yet is this conscience itself the product of our upbringing, of nurture or is it natural Are ideas about right and wrong wired into out brains from birth, or do we acquire such ideas as we grow up Does an hour old baby possess ideals about ethical conduct If not, and such ideas develop as we grow older, the made-up, social-contract explanation of their origin gains credence. On the other hand, when many people contemplate what they regard as right and wrong, very similar notions are expressed. This is true across different cultures and also across history. We know that for thousands of years, certainly since such codes as the Ten Commandments were first written down, not stealing, not murdering, not lying, not committing adultery have been among the moral rights that countless generations accepted. It may be that some type of social evolution has occurred, whereby these ideals became part of our psychological conditioning. They may or may not be transmitted biologically but they do appear to be consistently affirmed by people as moral rights, while their opposites are affirmed as immoral, even as punishable under the rule of law.

Post-modernism warns that norms and standards may be the product of elites who use them to police and discipline society. Those who deviate from standards are labeled insane, criminal or immoral. Certainly, some claims to standards as absolute clash, such as supporters of pro-life and pro-choice ethics. Both believe that their position is absolutely right, that abortion is always wrong and that women have an absolute right to choose. Both cannot be right. Both appeal to absolutes to justify their stances. Pro-life tend to point to the principle that all life is sacred. Pro-choice tend to use the discourse of universal human rights. Yet are human rights true because have some independent existence, like Platonic ideals and were intuited or discovered by women and men Or, do global notions of human rights represent the mature, shared opinion of humanity If the latter, presumably they could change It is also easy to think of situations, not always absurd, when telling a lie might be moral (to save a life) for example.

If ethics are socially constructed, their function is to police society. If life in the state of nature were wild and brutish, with each individual taking anything they wanted, without a social contract, life would revert to this immoral, selfish, law-less reality. Few of us would wish for such a reversal yet many films about life after a global disaster depict something rather similar. It does seem that without the threat of penalty or censure, many people choose immorality. Many people live selfish lives within the rule of law. They find ways of breaking rules without getting caught. This suggests that people are not naturally good. Yet some people choose to live moral lives, to live unselfishly, even altruistically, always putting others needs first. It could be the case that although we are not naturally inclined to act morally, we are also capable of making moral choices. Individuals have to decide whether they choose morality or immorality as the rubric by which they live their life. The existence of systems of punishment may actually detract from the quality of moral choice, since if we act morally to avoid punishment we may not really be acting morally at all.

The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you is an attractive basic principle. Few of us want others to harm us, so sounds like a good rule. It could stem from a biological and psychological desire to avoid pain, to prolong our own life. In fact, I am not so convinced that life in the state of nature was totally brutish, since the desire to protect family, spouses, offspring may also be biological. Of course, the desire to protect other peoples family may not be biologically rooted, so perhaps life in the state of nature allowed hurting Others (them) but not us. I am not sure how we get from the desire to avoid pain personally and to protect our own, to the idea that no body should be hurt. Possibly, the us was extended from immediate family to a clan or tribe, then to a confederacy of clans, over time to a nation and eventually to a global community. Yet xenophobia and racism can still deny others humanity, resulting in Nazi gas chambers and Rwandan genocides. It does seem that personal choice is involved. We either choose to love all people, or to love some but not others.
Do unto others as you wish them to do to you works as a first principle, provided we recognize the humanity and rights of all people. If I decide that a Jew or a person of a different skin color or sexual orientation or tribe is less than fully human, I can act toward them as if they were objects, not humans. I think, then, that a better first principle is all people are equal. As an ethical principle, this would impact on how I live my life. I would treat everyone with equal respect. I would not discriminate against someone due to gender, skin color, sexual orientation, creed, class or race. Yet it seems that without adding something like the golden rule, I would be free to harm people as long as I spread harm equally. An ethic such as the golden rule, or maybe do not harm anybody is needed to supplement all people are equal. Causing no harm, of course, depends on what a person thinks causes harms and does not harm. I think that intent is what makes acts moral and that the intent to avoid punishment, in this life or in a possible future life, negates an acts morality. We act morally when our intent is to perform a positive good, thus a better principle is try to help others which reverse the negative cause no harm. We could go through life causing no harm yet at the same time doing nothing that really helps anyone else. Not stealing will harm no one. Never giving to charity, never offering assistance of help to anyone else, might breach no ethical principle either. Try to help others would lead to moral action.

I also believe in freedom. We ought to be free to do what we want to do, to be who we want to be provided that this does not harm others. We may have the right to harm ourselves but we do not have the right to harm others and this may limit our freedom. I want to play my music loudly but this annoys and therefore harmd others. Do no harm, otherwise do what you want works as an affirmation of the principles of doing positive good and of personal liberty within certain limits. Controlling what I say, too, prevents hurting others. Freedom of speech may be a right but always saying what we want to can also hurt people. Three principles emerge, then, treat all people equally, supplemented by try to help others supplemented by otherwise, do as you wish to form an inter-linked ethic that guide my life. The not harm can be extended to animals and to the planet as well. I sometimes think, what if there is no such thing as morality What if those who care only for themselves, who succeed at the cost of others, are actually not immoral at all Some people live like this without actually breaking any or many laws Despite what I have said about ethics as probably human constructs, my gut dislikes the idea that selfish living is not really immoral. I agree with Gandhi, there is enough food in the world for everyones need but not for everyones greed. Taking more than my fair share harms other. The choice to try to make the world better place for all is a personal choice. The three principles identified express that choice.