Morals and Ethics - Essay Example

Discussions on morals and ethics abound. All around us we hear talk of professional ethics, universal morals and, increasingly, the decline in both. We, ourselves, are constantly engaged in the making ethical decisions and the passing of moral judgments. The passing of moral judgments, however, often tends towards the controversial. This is because even though there are clear-cut ethical principles to which all should adhere, irrespective of religion, nationality and culture, ethics are relative. Consequently, even though moral principles identify the doctor, as opposed to the colonial police officer's actions as the more ethical of the two, this argument only holds true if one were to ignore the relevant professional ethical guidelines. Understanding the ways in which ethics and morals may conflict and converge and, how actions may be judged as moral but not ethical, and vice-versa, it is important to define these two concepts. According to the Webster dictionary, the term ethics refers to a set of moral principles whose application allow for the differentiation between right and wrong. On the basis of this definition, it would seem that ethics and morals are inseparable, whereby that which is ethical is, by definition, also moral. This is not true. Once again referring to the Webster dictionary, one finds that moral systems tend to be universal while ethical principles tend to be specific. That is, while morals refer to universal understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, ethics refer to particular understandings, which derive from professional or cultural codes of conduct, among others. Therefore, even though the concepts of ethics and morals are interrelated, they are ultimately distinct. On the basis of the definitions resented, it is evident that the colonial officer's actions were ethical but they were not moral. Within the bounds of his professional duties and his responsibility to protect the Burmese, his shooting of the elephant was an ethical act. The elephant, who suffered an "attack of must" (Orwell, para. 6), had wreaked havoc upon the market and the hut dwellers, not to mention the fact that it had stomped upon an old man and killed him by partially burying him, head down, in the mud. The elephant had proved himself dangerous and his owner, the only person who could control him, was not in the vicinity. Given the officer's profession and its associate responsibilities and duties, shooting and killing the elephant was ethical insofar as it meant terminating the danger which this beast represented to the defenseless. While it may have been an ethical act, the shooting of the elephant was not a moral one. There are several reasons why his action was immoral. In the first place, the officer did not shoot the beast because he represented a danger at that time but, because the crowd expected him to. In the second place, the shooting was not inspired by a sense of professional responsibility towards the safety and the welfare of the villagers but by the desire not to be laughed at. In the third place, the officer shot the elephant even though his moral instincts told him that this was wrong. Consequently, in acting as he did, Orwell's colonial officer did not just disregard his own moral judgment but his actions were not motivated by any sense of professional ethics or notion of responsibility towards the villagers. Indeed, he even expressed happiness/satisfaction that the elephant had killed a coolie so that his shooting of the elephant may be morally and ethically justifiable. It is on this basis that his actions must ultimately be judged as immoral even though they are seemingly consistent with his professional ethics. The doctor, or medical resident's actions are a complete reversal of those of Orwell's officer as they comply with morality but not with professional ethics. The doctor was, to all intents and purposes, trapped in a situation wherein morals and ethics collided. On the one hand, he was confronted with an injured man who, if he did not try to save, could very well die. As he was obviously the only one in the immediate area who had any medical knowledge and stood a reasonable chance of saving the truck driver, not doing anything would have been an act of blatant immorality. Indeed, insofar as inaction could very well have led to the man's death, especially given that he was evidently suffocating and unable to breath, it could be compared to participation in the killing of the truck driver. In other words, to the extent that waiting for the ambulance effectively translated into standing by as the man died, morality imposed action upon the doctor. The fact is, however, that the doctor's actions were, within the bunds of is profession, unethical. They were unethical because he knew that his action could have resulted in the complete paralysis of the truck driver, on the one hand and because he did not have the necessary equipment with him, on the other. Added to that, he was still in his final year of residency with the implication being that he was not licensed to act as he did. As a matter of fact, the only thing that saved him from being prohibited from practicing the profession ever again was that he did save the man's life. The implication here is, and as the doctor was later informed by his supervisor, that his actions directly contradicted his professional ethical guidelines. This, however makes his actions all the more moral as they indicate that even though he was aware of the risk to himself, he acted to save another man's life regardless. On the basis of the argument presented in the above, it is evident that despite some areas of overlap, ethics and morals are ultimately distinct whereby that which is ethical may not be moral and vice versa. It is, thus, that the actions of the doctor emerge as moral but unethical and those of the police officers as ethical but immoral. The mentioned judgments, as indicated in the essay, are based on the ethical codes of conduct particular to each of the professions referred to. It is through the lens of these codes of conduct that the actions of the one emerge as unethical but moral, while those of the other as ethical but immoral. Read More