Personal Code of Ethics - Research Paper Example

? Personal of Ethics Every individual on this planet, whether or not he realizes, has a personal code of ethics. At times, that personal code of ethics is not technically personal but the same code of ethics is being shared by many people due to their association to a group, community, society, religion or other that requires them to uphold a specific code. There are occasions when this code of ethics or parts of it is available in hard copy to those people and at most occasions, these remains with the unconscious minds of the people. However, as mentioned earlier, it is highly likely that people would have some sort of code of ethics since the decision of what is right and what is a wrong stand there at all stages of life (Darwall, pp. 220-221). This paper is an attempt to summarize my code of ethics for dealing with decisions concerning the individuals around me, the society, and myself. This paper would construct a brief code of ethics in light of my thoughts and experiences and would highlight that where these ethical norms appear to be in line or are inspired by the words, ideas, and theories of ethical theorists and philosophers. Beliefs and obligations to the society When it comes to my beliefs and obligations to the society, I believe that they are greatly in line with the utilitarian principle greatest good for the greatest number of people. The idea of greatest good for greatest number of people is the cornerstone of the ethical theory known as utilitarianism (Copp, pp. 41-47). Founded by Jeremy Bentham and nourished by John Stuart Mill (Copp, pp. 41-47), this school of thought comes under the umbrella of teleological ethical theories or consequentialism which believes that the consequences are and should be the prime criteria for determining the moral worth and status of actions (Copp, pp. 41-47). Advocates of utilitarianism (Copp, 41-47) believe, “moral actions are the ones, which create the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. People should aim at maximizing the utility (pleasures) and decreasing the disutility (pains) for the entire society or the greatest number of people (Pojman & Tramel, pp. 125-126). If your actions create suffering for the majority, they are unethical. Important here to note is that utilitarianism believes in creating benefits that could be valid for the maximum number of people and not for only one’s own self (Rosen, pp. 63-64). I do not prefer to use horns while driving. I refrain myself from using non-recyclable products. I try to look for organic products and the ones, which have their origins in environmental friendly, green, and sustainable practices. I avoid using my car for short distances and instead use public transport. I will never throw garbage on the street or anywhere else in the dustbin, in fat, if I see garbage on the street, I will take out time and save it. I support animal rights and ethical treatment of animals. Quite clearly, all these actions may be hurting me to some extent but towards the end of the day, they appear to be creating the greatest benefit for the entire society and planet (Pojman & Tramel, pp. 125-126). However, important here is to note that, there is some contradiction between my ethical principles and other principles of utilitarianism. One of the most important is the Millian arrangement of two principles of utilitarianism, according to which the principle of liberty comes first after the principle of utility (Sofroniou, pp. 36-39). Discussion regarding the same takes place later in the paper. Beliefs and obligations to other individuals As mentioned earlier in the paper that I beg to defer from the John Stuart Mill’s arrangement of the two important principles of liberty and utility. If we accept Mill’s arrangement, according to which utility should be the obvious selection if there is a clash between utility and liberty (Pojman, & Fieser, pp. 52-54). This would lead to a society where it would be ethical and moral to steal and divide the hard earned and legitimate property. In addition, ethical to steal other assets of rich people amongst many poor and middle class people since it maximizes their utility regardless of the fact that there is great and immoral infringement of one’s personal freedom and liberty (Copp, pp. 41-47). In this regard, I believe that John Rawls, who was also the State philosopher of the United States, has rightly said, “Liberty can only be restricted for liberty itself”. Therefore, I am a liberal ethicist just like John Rawls who believes that the personal freedom and liberty of people deserves protection under all circumstances and people have all the right in the world to live their own lives until and unless by doing so they are taking the same right from someone else (Rosen, pp. 63-64; Kagan, pp. 89-91). Therefore, I believe that one of my biggest responsibilities to other people is that they should be given space and authority to live their lives in their own way. This explains why I am against woman suffrage, human slavery, surveillance of citizens in private places and others. Furthermore, I am also against deceptive advertising practices, excessive media power, big governments and others because by increasing their liberties, towards the end of the day, my liberty and the liberty of the entire society would be in jeopardy (Kagan, pp. 89-91). Beliefs and obligations to myself For centuries, experts, ethical theorists, and philosophers have engaged themselves in the debate that what makes an action ethical, whether it is the action itself or the consequences of the action (Sofroniou, pp. 36-39). For example, the question of breaking a signal when you have someone in your car that needs to the reach to the hospital and whether or not it is morally correct. Teleological ethical theorists would argue that with breaking the signal if the person does not harm anybody at the road and it saves the life of person by rushing him to the hospital then this is an ethical action (Pojman, & Fieser, pp. 52-54). On the other hand, deontological ethicists would argue that regardless of the fact that whether or not this action does any harm at road and saves the life of the person or not, breaking an action is unethical and would remain unethical under all conditions. Between this debate of consequences and actions, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle, has a solution to this debate, which is in form of Virtue ethics (Darwall, pp. 184-185). Aristotle and his disciples believe that it neither is in the action nor in their consequences is it what makes an action ethical or unethical, it is the person who determines it is ethical or moral worth (Sofroniou, pp. 36-39). Therefore, virtue ethics focuses on character building and moral development because ethical persons are more likely to take ethical and moral decisions. Virtue ethics focuses on achieving the state of eudemonia (complete happiness) by searching for “nine intellectual virtues, which are Wisdom, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Courage, Liberality, Magnificence, Magnanimity, and Temperance” (Pojman & Tramel, pp. 125-126). Important here to note is the distinction which Aristotle makes between “virtues” and “vices”. The great Greek philosopher believes that every trait can be a virtue (good) and a vice (evil) at the same time. Virtue always represents the middle way whereas the vice is always going be the extreme either the deficient extreme or the excess extreme. For example, courage is a virtue whose deficiency is cowardice, which is a vice since it is an extreme and also wildness is also a vice since it is an excessive extreme. Aristotle believed that it is taking the middle way, keeping a balance and taking a moderate approach is a virtue and the ethical move (Darwall, pp. 184-185). Therefore, my obligation to myself is to keep a balance between everything and take the approach of moderation. I cannot eat in an unchecked manner since that would lead to obesity and would be an excessive extreme, at the same time, I cannot eat nothing in the name of dieting and starve my self to death. I cannot give all my money in charity in the name of caring and loving the poor since that would leave me with nothing and would be an excessive extreme and therefore a vice. Furthermore, if I give nothing to charity then that would be stinginess and that would be a deficient extreme. Therefore, I will have to take a moderate approach of being “generous” but not too generous and too little generous (Rosen, pp. 63-64). Despite the fact that my code of ethics have seemed to reject both teleological and deontological ethics; however, when it comes to the formulation of my ethical principles for myself and also others, Kant’s categorical imperative appears to be serving as the guiding light for me regardless of the fact that it is basically a deontological theory. In order to create an ethical principle or check that whether or not an action is ethical principle, Kant has given its categorical imperative, which has three formulations (Pojman & Tramel, pp. 125-126). The first formulation asks the person to act in such a way that his or her actions could be universal and applied to all people under similar circumstances at all times. The second formulation asks the person to treat other human beings “not as means to an end but as ends in themselves” (Pojman, & Fieser, pp. 52-54). The third formulation asks the person to apply the principle of reversibility, which means that person deciding on some ethical criteria or principle should consider that whether or not he or she would prefer to be subject to same principles or situations if they were in the place of the subject (Copp, pp. 41-47). Kant’s categorical imperative helps me in every stage of my life to construct and assess my ethical principles. I can never be mean to the people that are below to me in the social or organizational hierarchy or who are in need of why help because that would be not be in line with treating humans as ends in themselves. Moreover, this also forces me not to employ any house cleaner or driver for my personal work, which I am too lazy to do. When I was in high school, I wanted to take revenge from my so-called friends who have embarrassed me in front of the entire class by showing me guilty of cheating in the exam, which I had not done. I decided that I would also expose some of their secrets in front of the class. However, I refrained from the same because of these Kantian principles. I thought that if everyone starts taking revenge in the world then the world would not remain a place to live. Furthermore, if I had done something like that to my friend, then I would want to have a chance to explain myself or at least want forgiveness in return for an apology. In addition, Kant’s categorical imperative made me realize that rather than supporting capital punishment I should oppose it. This is because of the fact that first, capital punishment is not applicable in all circumstances. Second, if I were at the place of the person guilty of taking some one else’s life, that would not take away my right to life and my right to being a human. In that case, I should be given another chance to improve myself and set an example for other people (Darwall, pp. 220-221). On top of that, this would be treating a human as end in itself. Furthermore, in light of Kant’s principle of treating humans as ends and not as means to any ends, I am pro life and against abortion since that little baby is also a human being and living thing and must be allowed to live until and unless it is restricting the liberty of the mother to live. In other words, cases in which, abortion becomes imperative to save the life of the mother (Kagan, pp. 89-91). Works Cited Copp, David. The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press, 2007. Darwall, Stephen L. Philosophical ethics. Westview Press, 1998 Darwall, Stephen L. Virtue ethics. Wiley-Blackwell, 2003 Kagan, Shelly. Normative ethics. Westview Press, 1998 Pojman, Louis P., & Fieser, James. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning, 2008. Pojman, Louis P., & Tramel, Peter. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Hackett Pub. Co., 2009. Rosen, Bernard. The centrality of normative ethical theory. P. Lang, 1999 Sofroniou, Andreas. Moral Philosophy: The Ethical Approach through the Ages. Lulu.com, 2003. Read More