Is Ethics Natural or Learned Behavior - Essay Example

? Ethics Is Ethics Natural or Learned Behavior? The uncertainty as to whether ethics is something natural or learned tends to lingerin the minds of the majority of people with a number of scholars exploring this question in an attempt of coming up with answers. However, each scholar has come up with distinctive conclusions in regards to this subject, with some of them concurring that ethics is natural while others assuming that it gets learned (Arnhart, 1998). Ethics happens to be not only a natural instinct, but also a learned course of behavioral beliefs, as well as practices. Ethics refers to the moral principles and set of laws of conduct that are universally acceptable to the majority of people (Arnhart, 1998). Apparently, human beings get accredited for having an innate ethical sense, which urges them into making predictable choices (MacKinnon, 2010). Whereas the majority of people consider their actions as getting guidance from logic and the reason, it appears that, in most cases, reason acts only as a device for justifying these options. Language gives people the opportunity for constructing sophisticated rationales that tend to support decisions that happen to be genetically driven (MacKinnon, 2010). Therefore, ethics education entails the recognition of the real power of a person’s innate ethical sense, along with the manner in which it affects his or her behavior. In this manner, a person is capable of freely reasoning and becoming an element that truly guide his or her actions hence devoid of the wisdom resulting from comprehending a person’s innate ethical self, reason continues to be a powerful propaganda piling for unchallenged essential human, ethical obligations (MacKinnon, 2010). The ethical actions tend to be valuable despite the consequences of those actions. Apparently, there is a possibility that the practice of ethics came to pass by natural consequences, as well as the actions, eventually this resulted in people making a decision of fitting the actions to the box by establishing a word for defining it that is ethics (Arnhart, 1998). When a person works industriously and is effectual, as well as professional in his or her duties, this means that he or she is engaging in vigorous work ethics. In most cases, this leads to the person getting a promotion and earning respect from fellow workmates who are incapable of attaining these standards (Arnhart, 1998). In this case, the reaction, together with the outcomes of decent work ethics or even upstanding, moral principles, along with the personal rules of conduct have resulted in this person excelling above the others. Consequently, when other people see the results of this person’s actions, they desire to emulate him, thereby beginning to behave in similar positive work ethic behaviors (Arnhart, 1998). On the other hand, other people with substandard ethical behaviors attempt to get similar results through cheating, lying, as well as falsifying information; this results in them being not as successful as the ethical person since their actions eventually return to bite them at a later stage. Consequently, people observe the outcomes leading to the majority of people choosing to be ethical since the ethical behaviors tend to be extremely successful, while, at the same time produces enhanced results at the end(Arnhart, 1998). This happens to be an ideal example of ethics as a learned behavior. Human beings have the freedom of determining what they perceive as being ethical behaviour considering that these decisions tend to have an effect on the human responsibility (MacKinnon, 2010). Apparently, the issue of ethics goes way back in time with highly ethical behaviors succeeding the unethical behaviors. As a matter of fact, in most cases, the truth always prevailed then as it does now, considering that ethical behavior gets rooted on the truth while unethical behaviors are not (Nelson, 2011). The majority of theorists contend on the notion of moral and evil; a person believing in the existence of inherent moral or evil within actions despite the intentions, then this person believes in ethics, which is the ability of distinguishing between moral and evil inbuilt in all humanity (Nelson, 2011). However, the difficulty lies in the fact that moral and evil is not at clear as the shades of black and white. Depending on the intention, a lie is not naturally evil, yet it is not naturally moral either since it facades all glorious truth. There are some people who perceive that there is a possibility of ethics evolving over time while other believe that it is impossible (Nelson, 2011); nonetheless, even altered ethics still makes a person feel innately guilty concerning an act he or she might now accept. Looking at this argument logically, a person hypothesizes that one or the other happens to be true first. If, at birth, a person has his or her ethics then, and similarly to the people mentioned earlier, it is possible to hold these beliefs up to a person’s deaths without any alteration; on the other hand, merely behavioral ones that people adapt so as to fit in results in various problems (Nelson, 2011). Considering that ethics happens to be a result of inbuilt realization of right and wrong, one has to wonder why people end up not knowing what is right from wrong. Human beings are capable of differentiating right from wrong (Sideris, 2003); however, most of the people who have the perception that they are always right tend to undermine the people not coinciding to their ethical standpoint (Arnhart, 1998). This leads to the speculation that people get born with these ethics, yet they suppress them in exchange of momentary pleasures, along with selfish needs and still feel guilty regarding them, something that results in numerous problems. Bearing in mind that murderers do the same, yet it is highly unethical stabbing someone because a person feels like it, does this mean that they are suppressing an inbuilt ethical guilt over their acts? Lies happen to be a small but helpful thing within the human psyche of examining guilt; for instance, the guilt felt by people when not joined with religion is normally to do with the other person's view (Arnhart, 1998). On the other hand, when children fabricate stories, they tend to lie about the world, yet adults do not consider this as inherently unethical; instead, they are being creative. However, when they lie to conceal a fault, immediately the lie turns to be unethical owing to the intention linked to it (Arnhart, 1998). Therefore, if we get born with the capability of intending unethical behavior even prior to knowing what we want, then babies would feel a lot more guilt concerning asking for their mother's breasts for milk or mere comfort. Apparently, there can be no intent for malice linked to an action prior to someone knowing it is malicious, something we learn when we realize what people do not like (Arnhart, 1998). Although every individual is not only capable of having a decent life, but also achieving it, apparently the majority of people are ignorant, which makes them incapable of identifying a virtuous life and living it thereby end up having an ethically miserable life (Sideris, 2003). Research shows that human babies are extremely skilled at identifying a smiling face or even a frowning one just a few weeks after birth (Marjorie, Kara & Anne, 2011). Conversely, we naturally react to these visual stimuli since we are social animals who have evolved thereby having the capability of interpreting signals such as expression. This is reveals ample evidence that we tend to learn our ethics by means of contacting with material to forming viewpoints in our life. For instance, in early stages of life, we depend on parents through watching their reaction while learning what is wrong from right (Marjorie, Kara & Anne, 2011). At that level, the response to 'bad, hot, do not touch’ is the same as 'bad’. This is due to the fact that negative experiences get learned quickly in helping survival. However, later in life there are some people who get exposed to wider stimuli, and instead of relying on their parents’ ethics, they develop opinions. Apparently, people who happen to be extremely considerate tend to have kinder perceptions, as well as ethics, which are not as much taxing to others. These people go by the name open minded people since they do not like getting challenge within their beliefs; conversely, these same persons, ignore the thoughts of others who happen to be close minded; this leads to a reinforcement among peers for either (Marjorie, Kara & Anne, 2011). Nonetheless, people end up choosing their ethics, considering that ethics does not get set in stone, they make decisions concerning which side they feel comfortable following. It appears that there is obviously public fondness for open minded people; however, there is extreme pressure on conformity considering that, that is the manner in which a stable society gets run. When coming into contact with a stranger, open minded yet not dangerously so tends to be the default liking of people; although this might seem as suggesting that people hope, as well as think, that they are capable of changing others' opinions thereby leaving behind the 'born with ethics' view in the dust although they believe it (Marjorie, Kara & Anne, 2011). Achieving ethical behaviour happens to be an extremely demanding task that requires a person to be principled, as well as ethical (Arnhart, 1998). Coming from the earliest origins of the human species, cooperation happens to be the most preferred way of achieving individual success (MacKinnon, 2010). Even so, evidence clearly proposes a genetic cementing onto cooperative behavior, which was, for the largest part, culturally learned, while, at the same time getting reinforced as the civilization lesson. However, this is probably not as deeply entrenched within us, compared to our extremely biological self-regarding urges (MacKinnon, 2010). This is remarkably true considering that a sense of fairness, as well as honesty, happens to be critical within a complicated social setting, which extends further than kinship; although this turns out to be a relatively latest addition when it comes to the human species’ evolution, it has not perfectly balanced the inclination of pursuing pure self or even narrow group interest (MacKinnon, 2010). Nonetheless, it is also not conflicting with the extremely intuitive mutual behavior of primates, along with other social animals. Although many scholars have distinctively tried to analyze the question as to whether ethics is something natural or learned, it seems like the answer is wholly dependent on an individual. Significantly, ethical behavior, which denotes simply finding a balance amid self-interest and group responsibility, is greatly, but not wholly, learned behavior rising in opposition to an instinct (Sideris, 2003). Apparently, acting ethically is extremely difficult; it is comparable to fighting an addiction considering that the addict is never totally free of the struggle. In this regard, the history of ethical thinking happens to be a record of attempts of promoting, or dictating, communal behavior so as to make sure stability, as well as harmony, gets achieved in the social group (Sideris, 2003). Fortunately, for the majority of the recorded history, there has been a success in group ethical standard. Bottom line is that ethics turns out to be a behavioral practice shooting from natural instinct, as well as natural consequences since they are a behavioral practice, which is most likely rooted on a consciencious choice yet after a while, it turns out to be instinctual with maturity, as well as repetition of positive results (Sideris, 2003). References: Arnhart, L. (1998). Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature. Illinois : SUNY Press. MacKinnon, B. (2010). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: Cengage Learning. Marjorie K., Kara G., Anne S. (2011). Guiding Children's Social Development and Learning. Lincoln: Cengage Learning. Nelson, D. L. (2011). ORGB. New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Sideris, L. H. (2003). Environmental Ethics, Ecological Theology, and Natural Selection. New York: Columbia University Press. Read More