Ethics in Theory and in Practice - Essay Example

ETHICS IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE By of the of the of the School 22 December Can we be collectively guilty of wrong-doing? Include in your answer an account of how one might attempt to differentiate collective wrongs from mere sums of individual bad actions. Wrongdoing is a term that has different definitions given the different contexts in which it can occur. Different groups and people in the society define morality and principles of right and wrong on the basis of how people behave. Ethical principles are learned or acquired from sources like family, friends, religious beliefs, cultural and social norms and even organizations. According to Miceli, Near and Dworkin, wrongdoing refers to “illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices” (2008, n.p.). From this, it is clear that wrongdoing does not only encompass practices that are illegal. Wrongdoing is ubiquitous in all societies. Scholars like Emile Durkheim address the ubiquity of wrongdoing in society. Emile Durkheim stated that “societies must create wrongdoing in order to survive” (Palmer, 2012, p. 9). He further stated that unacceptable behaviour helps the society define acceptable behaviour. Naturally, wrong-doing is an act that results in feelings of guilt. Depending on the nature of the act and measures that could have been taken to avoid it, the guilt can be individual or collective. Branscombe and Doosje define collective guilt as an experience that “stems from the distress that group members experience when they accept that their ingroup is responsible for moral actions that harmed another group” (2004, p. 3). The experience is psychological and this means that although members can feel it, they are not legally responsible for the actions of their group. Collective guilt is felt in three distinct ways; “one in terms of feelings of personal guilt, one in terms of feelings of membership guilt, and the plural subject account” (Gilbert, 2014, p. 255). In the primitive cultures and in the modern society there is a tendency among people to view themselves as being guilty only of the wrongs which they have individually committed. However, failing to take action against a wrong deed even when committed by another person makes one guilty of the act as well. In many cases, when people are accused of the wrongdoing of others, they organize themselves into groups to prevent the harm caused by this wrongdoing. By organizing themselves into groups, they are able to take action. A good example is in the case of racial violence. If it occurs in a certain neighbourhood and the people living in that neighbourhood are aware of it, there is a lot they can do to prevent the harms brought about by racial violence. This is in fact what they are supposed to do in order not to be branded as being collectively guilty. If they fail to do something, then they share collective responsibility in the wrongdoing. The moral integrity of people is seriously affected when they are tainted by evil. Even when the evil is not caused by them, when it happens close at hand, people are bound to feel tainted by it. Mellema gives an example that “the wrongful acts of one’s spouse, sibling or co-worker sometimes appear to strike at our own moral integrity in a way that goes far beyond embarrassment or damage to our reputation” (1997, p. 80). Although it is hard to explain, there is a kind of moral involvement attached to these acts. For example, in a gang, a leader may decide to kill the member of another gang. This is something that some of his gang members might view as wrong, especially when he is being murdered for no reason, but for one reason or the other, they fail to show disapproval for fear of risking their good standing. For standing and watching the act happen, the members bear responsibility for the act. According to Isaacs and Vernon, “there are a number of ways a person may be guilty, and without an exploration of what collective responsibility is and how it might hold some individuals responsible for the actions of others” (2011, p. 5). In modern society, people often have the idea that crimes are an offence against the collective even the innocent and only one person is guilty. Civilization shares a common interest and principles with the authority in that it does not believe people are innocent, but everyone is collectively guilty. The whole population is guilty as a collection and this is usually due to their introduction of a culture that gets involved in imperialism and oppression. Some societies are capable of collective action for the wrongs and rights committed by an individual or group. I assume that collective guilt is widely-shared and is sometimes a healthy response to collective wrongdoing. For there to be any kind of legal responsibility for a bad outcome, there should be proven intention to perform the action of any malicious intention. In the case of individual responsibility for the wrongs committed in contribution of the collective wrongdoing, and there should be prove of intention in respect to the criminal risk. It is important to understand how an individual action and intention can fit within the collective wrongdoing. It is difficult to attach intention to the collective when one is trying to determine collective responsibility and it is difficult to analyse the intentions of an individual in respect to the collective action. Individual actions have contributed to collective wrongs; this addresses the fact whether or not the actions of individuals play a significant role in a collective nature. The difference between collective wrongs and an individual bad action is that in the case of collective wrong, there is a group or team of people associated to the crime or offence, while an individual bad action is viewed as an individual committing a crime and being answerable for it. Collective wrongs have been voiced to be wrong because the corporation as a moral person is that it holds some people responsible for the actions of others and this portrays injustice. Many scholars have stated that if moral responsibility is truly collective, then this means that no individual person is collectively implicated. This means that there is no individual who is blamed and therefore the blame is placed on the society, instead of the individual that committed the wrong. The wrongs and harmful things of a contemporary life are the products of a collective action, which is mediated through social and institutional structures. These wrongdoings are vitally a collective product, and an individual rarely makes a difference to the happening. There is need for individuals in a society to be responsible for the effects they produce. The result of this disparity between the collective and individual wrong is the disappearing of individual accountability. If there will be no individual that will make a difference, then there will be no individual accountable for the collective harm caused. The moral complicity theory explains that an individual is morally accountable for the actions of others (Schwartz, 2010). An individual can feel guilty over what he or she has done in relation to a collective action. With reference to ethical theory, explore whether there is any moral difference between participating in risky sport and drug taking Ethical theory is defined by Williams as “a theoretical account of what ethical thought and practice are, which account either implies a general test for the correctness of basic ethical beliefs and principles or else implies that there cannot be such a test” (2011, p. 234). Each theory emphasizes on different things like the outcome and following one’s duty to others in order to reach or achieve an ethical decision. Williams adds that “they are philosophical undertakings and commit themselves to the view that philosophy can determine, either positively or negatively, how we should think in ethics” (2011, p. 82). It is reasonable to think that in some situations, courage is necessary. A person who enjoys danger would likely stand up to fear than someone who usually enjoys caution. Many people often admire those people pursuing dangerous activities like mountain climbing, sky driving and safari rallying. Despite these people getting involved in risky activities, they always emphasize on safety precautions which they always take. By taking precautions, they reduce chances of getting harmed. There is a very big difference between drugs taking and engaging in risky behaviour like participating in extreme sports. People who engage in extreme sports take voluntary risks and this usually brings some kind of gain to them such as finances. In drug taking, takers know what they are doing, but the results are negative. In fact, drug takers can be assured that all they do is harm and risk their lives more. It is also a fact that engaging in extreme sports is legal while drug taking is illegal. There is a moral difference between risky sports and drug taking. Drug taking makes one have an unfit body, mind and he or she may not be focused on daily activities, but when it comes to extreme and risky sports, one is focused, has a sound mind and is aware of the dangers involved. Drug taking is morally wrong and a dangerous activity to get involved in in the long-term. The most dangerous activities are drinking, smoking and taking other hard drugs. The use of these drugs creates significant public health problems, deaths and car accidents. Alcohol and drugs change people’s values. They greatly influence the values of a person especially when under their influence. For example, when one is under the influence of alcohol, he is disinhibited from doing the right things. One’s moral code is lowered under the influence of drugs; it becomes difficult to figure out the right things and values. In some instances and when addiction sets in, it becomes so difficult that one can’t do anything without the use of drugs or alcohol. Nevertheless, using alcohol does not mean that one lacks morals and values. The problem comes with abusing them. Once a person abuses drugs, they affect his moral reasoning and self-control. He loses the ability to determine what is right and wrong. In regard to taking part in extreme sports, the risks are not so severe especially if extreme caution is exercised. It is morally right to take risks like engaging in extreme sports. This makes it wrong to stop a person from engaging in extreme sports. Conclusion People can be collectively guilty of wrong doing. This occurs when they fail to punish or curb wrongdoing among their peers, neighbours or colleagues, and hence are branded as being collectively guilty. In regard to participating in risky sports and drug taking, the difference is great. It is morally right to participate in risky sports, but morally wrong to take drugs. This is especially because drug taking doesn’t give someone a clear mind, but risky sport is healthy given that it needs one’s full attention. References Branscombe, N. R. and Doosje, B., 2004. Collective Guilt: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, M., 2014. Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. New York: Oxford University Press. Isaacs, T. and Vernon, R., 2011. Accountability for Collective Wrongdoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mellema, G., 1997. Collective Responsibility. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Miceli, Marcia P., Near, Janet P. and Dworking, Terry M., 2008. Whistle-Blowing in Organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Palmer, D., 2012. Normal Organizational Wrongdoing: A Critical Analysis of Theories of Misconduct in and by Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, David T., 2010. Consuming Choices: Ethics in a Global Consumer Age. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Williams, B., 2011. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Oxon: Routledge Top of Form Read More