FREE ESSAY ON ETHICS

ETHICS

Ethics can be defined broadly as a set of moral principles or values. Each of us has such
a set of values, although we may or may not have clearly expressed them. It is common for
people to differ in their moral principles and values and the relative importance they
attach to them. These differences reflect life experiences, successes and failures, as
well as the influences of parents, teachers, and friends. 
Ethical behavior is necessary for a society to function in a orderly manner. It can be
argued that ethics is the glue that holds a society together. Philosophers, religious
organizations, and other groups have defined in various ways ideal sets of moral
principles and values. The following are different approaches, from ancient and modern
traditions and philosophers, depicting their meaning and understanding of ethics and how
it can be applied in ethical decision-making. 
Utilitarianism was founded by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham toward the end of
the 18th century. He believed that all human actions are motivated by a desire to obtain
pleasure and avoid pain. The principle of utility expresses that actions were right if
they tended to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. When
faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies right and wrong and also considers
the consequences that may result. This can be regarded as an appropriate action, but
offers no realistic way to gather necessary information to make the required decision.
Confronting certain situations in life, there is no time to weigh all possible outcomes
and decide the one that provides the greatest benefit to all; majority of predicaments
allow just enough time for a person to act on impulse alone. To calculate the welfare of
the people involved in or effected by any given situation, utilitarianism requires that
all individuals be considered equally. Quantitative utilitarians would contemplate the
pleasure and pain that would be caused and evaluate how both sides would be affected.
Through this calculation of pleasures and pains, one could tell what was right or wrong.

John Stuart Mill, also a British philosopher, modified and expanded on Bentham's
principles. Mill's approach insists on qualitative utilitarianism, which requires that
one consider not only the amount of pain or pleasure, but also the quality of such pain
and pleasure. An utilitarian must consider both the consequences of an action and the
good and evil that accompanies it. 
There are advantages and disadvantages in applying this approach to my own life. I know
when I am faced with decisions I do find myself weighing all outcomes, what is right and
wrong, and what consequences might result. For example, I encountered a dilemma at my
summer job two years ago. I was an usher at a concert venue and I was faced with turning
my friend's nephew in for having marijuana on him. It was wrong for him to have the drugs
with him but at the same time he would of gotten into a lot of trouble. Could I do that
to my friend? Could I not do anything at all? As I contemplated this problem, I did take
the utilitarianism approach in trying to decide what would be the best thing to do to
handle this. In the end I did turn him in to my boss, as not only was that my job, but if
anything happen as a result of using the drugs I would feel responsible for not notifying
someone. The disadvantage to this is that there is not enough necessary information
available and there is no scale on which to weigh the various considerations. Granted he
was only sentenced to community service, how did I know that he consequences could not
have been worse, like being sent to jail. I could of decided to handle it myself instead
of turning him into my boss. This approach helps in deciding between right and wrong but
when it comes to what the consequences actually are and how everyone in the situation
will be affected, there really is no way of knowing. 
The moral law, along with natural law, approach to ethical decision-making, views ethics
as a set of rules that must be obeyed without any consideration of the consequences that
will follow from doing so or not. It claims that it is impossible to measure right from
wrong and prohibits the reliance on consequential calculations and use of any action that
aims directly against good intentions. The works of philosophers Aquinas, Hobbes, and
Kant coincide with these concepts. 
Thomas Aquinas, an Italian philosopher and Roman Catholic theologian, believed happiness
to be found in the love of God. His conception on right and wrong came from the blending
of Aristotle's teachings and Christianity. His theory on the difference between right and
wrong can be regarded by the use of reason and reflection on experience. 
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, suggests that we are motivated by selfish self
interests and because of that, we are better off living in a world of moral rules. Hobbes
believes that these self interests are a way of saying that all of our actions are a
product of our own beliefs, that people consider themselves to be better than anyone else
other than God. 
Immanuel Kant's, an German philosopher, ethical system is based on the belief that
everything happens for a reason. Our actions, of any sort, are directed by reason.
Whether we need to reach a specific outcome or resolution, we choose the action that will
accomplish that task or whether that action is the only means necessary and then that
particular action must be followed.
I do not totally agree with this approach of moral and natural law. Having to always
conform to certain set of rules without even thinking possible consequences and
alternative approaches does not really appeal to me. I also believe that it is possible
to measure what is right and wrong. It is based on our own beliefs and values that are
instilled in each one of us that can answer this question. I always feel like I have the
devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. You always think of both circumstances,
good and evil, and you as a person will decide what is morally and ethically appropriate
for you. I don't think relying on a specific set of rules and principles is the best way
to handle dilemmas. I think it is a good framework and guidance to base your decision on,
but to have to adhere to it on every decision I don't agree on. For example, I am
Catholic and ever since I went away to college certain aspects of my faith are I am
starting to become against. My parents always follow the way of our Church and the values
and principles that Catholics are suppose to obey. I tend to differ with them. We had
this argument recently about topics that Catholics are for and against and my mother
could not believe that I would go against them. Birth control and abortion was the main
difference. She is totally against it in all situations. I disagree when it comes to rape
or incest, I don't feel a woman should have to go through the pregnancy in this specific
situation. So this approach, having to rely on principles all the time and follow them
accordingly to every situation does not agree with me. 
It is helpful to read about these different theories but I do not think it is necessary
in decision-making. Reading about these approaches does make you think about how you as
person handles certain situations and whether you can improve your process. However, this
only happens when you are required to read and study about these theories. If I never
took this class, I would never have known the difference between utilitarianism and moral
law and which one applies to me and my decision making process. Therefore, it is not
required to read and learn about different approaches in order to handle situations.