I've got many more topics to post, but I was hooked up in a great business course at one of the biggest technology companies in the world, so I was a little pre-occupied.
However, about meaning and ethics. Behaviour has always some future return, either bad, wrong or neutral. At the moment the behaviour is exhibited, it is possible that one does not fully realises the future return, let alone think whether that return is desired or not. To make the right decision such that the right behaviour emerges, one needs to know what returns are desired. So, it is about the end.
But what is the return? It can depend. You can look two days forward, and say that if I eat less the following days I will be hungry. You can look four months ahead, and say that if I eat less, I will lose weight. You can look years ahead, and say that if I eat less, I will die sooner.
We can already see trends in changing ethics. In previous centuries, food was scarcer, so it was more compelling to be fat that thin, and thus the general ethic was to eat more than enough, and show health and prosperity by being on the fat side. Nowadays we are stocked with food, and as we see that many diseases are related to what we eat, the general ethic is to eat not too much, even less if possible, in order to stay slim, which is now the indicator for health.
Some say life is about the journey. And yes, it can be about the journey to justify many things in the past, but in the end, it is about what matters now. Those things that matter now were due to the past, and such, past behaviour is linked to what is now, and current behaviour is linked to what will come.
Ethics is therefore about the end. If one does not fully realises what the end should be about, then ethics will come as heuristics as to ensure that one's behaviour will lead to the undesired return.
Sunday, 11 November 2007
Justifying the Existence of Ethics
I actually wanted to post this sooner, but my thesis took much of my time lately. Nevertheless, here is the second post.
Ethics is here for a reason. Some people suggest we should defy the establishment because it is old and outdated. We need to get rid of them, at least, that is what some say, and/or behave like. This probably includes the ethics that has come with that establishment.
But, like natural selection, ethics exists, thus it has (or had) a reason for existence. Ethics are in place to for the individual to serve the common good. This can be either directly or indirectly. Indirect ethics ensure that the individual behaves as such, that is will eventually lead to a positive result that affects the masses. For example, paying taxes can be considered ethical, and its effects can be seen indirectly. By paying taxes, we (at least in The Netherlands) indirectly take care of those who are in the state of poverty. This prevents them to resort to stealing for survival. It could be that by paying taxes, you prevent yourself from being stolen, or at least, an other citizen. The cause and effect relation of direct ethics are easier. For example, not fighting. By preventing a fight, you prevent yourself from being hurt.
So, before you even consider to let go of one of your ethics, for any reason you may have, think of it first how the lack of that ethic will affect your life and that of others (you care).
Ethics is here for a reason. Some people suggest we should defy the establishment because it is old and outdated. We need to get rid of them, at least, that is what some say, and/or behave like. This probably includes the ethics that has come with that establishment.
But, like natural selection, ethics exists, thus it has (or had) a reason for existence. Ethics are in place to for the individual to serve the common good. This can be either directly or indirectly. Indirect ethics ensure that the individual behaves as such, that is will eventually lead to a positive result that affects the masses. For example, paying taxes can be considered ethical, and its effects can be seen indirectly. By paying taxes, we (at least in The Netherlands) indirectly take care of those who are in the state of poverty. This prevents them to resort to stealing for survival. It could be that by paying taxes, you prevent yourself from being stolen, or at least, an other citizen. The cause and effect relation of direct ethics are easier. For example, not fighting. By preventing a fight, you prevent yourself from being hurt.
So, before you even consider to let go of one of your ethics, for any reason you may have, think of it first how the lack of that ethic will affect your life and that of others (you care).
Ethics and Morality
Let us distinct clearly the difference ethics and morality.
Ethics control one's behaviour. For example, a journalist can find critic against the government ethically justified. This ethic is likely going to have that journalist publish articles that criticize policies and regulation set by government.
Ethics are usually based on one's morals. Morals dictate what is good or wrong. It is questionable to state whether there is an universal definition of good. One might argue that through our behaviours, expressed from our morals, vary so much, that there is no universal good. Yet, others may say that most/some of us have not uncovered the universal good yet, and that we are stray from the path. Nevertheless, morals exist.
The main difference between morals and ethics, is that one's ethic is not necessary in line with any of one's morals. One can find it morally unjustified to cheat on another, but yet, an ethic can be enforced through, for example, social pressure, to cheat anyway. This misalignment brings that person in a difficult position.
No matter the debate about the universality of morals, a person has them, either individual or shared. One part of a good life means that one is actively discovering its own morals. This self-knowledge can be applied to defy one's ethics in order to ensure one's (future) happiness.
Yet, our discussion in this blog is about ethics, because these can be shared, can be enforced (through many means) and can change. Through these posts, I will share with you my current thoughts on how to reshape our ethics that will ensure our well-being now, and in the distant future.
Ethics control one's behaviour. For example, a journalist can find critic against the government ethically justified. This ethic is likely going to have that journalist publish articles that criticize policies and regulation set by government.
Ethics are usually based on one's morals. Morals dictate what is good or wrong. It is questionable to state whether there is an universal definition of good. One might argue that through our behaviours, expressed from our morals, vary so much, that there is no universal good. Yet, others may say that most/some of us have not uncovered the universal good yet, and that we are stray from the path. Nevertheless, morals exist.
The main difference between morals and ethics, is that one's ethic is not necessary in line with any of one's morals. One can find it morally unjustified to cheat on another, but yet, an ethic can be enforced through, for example, social pressure, to cheat anyway. This misalignment brings that person in a difficult position.
No matter the debate about the universality of morals, a person has them, either individual or shared. One part of a good life means that one is actively discovering its own morals. This self-knowledge can be applied to defy one's ethics in order to ensure one's (future) happiness.
Yet, our discussion in this blog is about ethics, because these can be shared, can be enforced (through many means) and can change. Through these posts, I will share with you my current thoughts on how to reshape our ethics that will ensure our well-being now, and in the distant future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)