Examining Ethical Controversies - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION In the present world of ours, ethical controversies abound. Right from Stem cell research to Euthanasia to the debate over bailing outWall Street, there are any numbers of controversies that evoke strong reactions from both sides of the divide. I look at what I have learnt from these ethical controversies in this paper. The emphasis is not so much as taking sides but more like what I have gone through when I examine each of these controversies.LEARNINGS The conventional wisdom goes that in a debate, both sides have good points and the “truth lies somewhere in between”.

This has shaped our attitudes towards an ethical or moral problem and we usually assume that the arbiter of the dispute, be it the judiciary or the government or any other dispute resolution mechanism would look at both sides of the issue and come out with a balanced verdict. However, there is another school of thought that states that “one side can be totally wrong” in an ethical dilemma. If one takes this statement at face value, we would be giving in to one side of the debate. However, ignoring it would mean that we may unwittingly play into the hands of one side that is obstructionist and fundamentalist.

If we can apply this to the debate over intelligent design vs. creationism, we would find that the advocates of intelligent design may have got it wrong. Thus, one side can be totally wrong in their assessment of the situation. This is the first learning that I have made when it comes to evaluating ethical controversies. The next point relates to the so-called “moral hazard”. This is a term that has been applied to the recent bailout of banks and wall street operators by the government.

Thus, the line of argument goes that one cannot let the perpetrators of the unethical lending practices walk away without paying the price. The other side of the debate is that the whole financial system is at risk. Thus, this question over the morals of punishing the few or saving the many would let us think about the whole issue of whether the oversight that is required was missing in the first place. Thus, the second learning is that regulators and the government officials in charge of overseeing fair practices have a lot to do and in this case, answer for.

When we consider the right to die or the argument for Euthanasia, we charter into territories where the person who is administering the drug that would kill the terminally ill patient is “playing god”. This was particularly evident in the debate over Terry Schivaio. My take on this would be that a brain dead person can be allowed to die since there is no question of recovery to normal life. Or, let us consider the laws that govern death sentence for criminals. Thus, the question of whether one should take another’s life because he or she was responsible for killing others would lead us to an ethical quagmire where there are no easy answers.

This is the next learning for me.CONCLUSION It is evident from the above that taking sides in a heated debate over ethics or moral actions is indeed fraught with intense soul searching and an examination of the “mixed morals” that make up our psyche. There are no clear answers here and the only recourse available, which is the laws themselves are subject to interpretation. Thus, in conclusion, my biggest learning from these controversies is that one needs to take responsibility for one’s actions and if everyone did their job well, the world would be a much better place.