Ethics and Human Interface 2
How are Ethics, Values and Laws related?
Doing ethics, involves thinking more systematically about the values and principles that are embedded in our choices than we do when we make choices on practical or political grounds alone. As we reflect on these implicit values, we ask ourselves how they are consistent with our duties and toward what ends and consequences they lead. Keeping in mind the obligations and goals of the roles we occupy, we seek to rank-order them for each particular ethical decision we confront in the course of carrying out a specific role.
The relationship between law and ethics often comes up in the discussion of specific cases. The fact is, however that law specifies the moral minimum. It is the minimum level of conduct that we as a society agree to impose on all of us through the threat of force and sanctions. Ethical considerations are often involved in deliberations about proposed legislations, but once crystallized into law, the conduct prescribed is assumed to be backed up by the coercive power of government. However, from an ethicist’s point of view, law must always stand under the judgment of ethics. Sometimes laws may be deemed unjust and therefore unethical. Those who believe so may challenge those laws in the courts as inconsistent with the human rights, or they may engage in civil disobedience, even to the point of being arrested and going to jail. Sometimes laws need to be challenged on ethical grounds. In the long tradition of civil disobedience exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., the key proviso is that one must be willing to accept the consequences of one’s actions in order to demonstrate commitment to ethical principles over what are considered unjust laws. That is, one must be willing to suffer fines and imprisonment in order to evoke a response from the larger society to bring about change in the laws in question.
Ethics, Responsibility and Role
The terms role and responsibility are peculiarly modern in connotation. Both suggest a worldview in which the power of tradition is broken and human beings are left to construct a world of their own making. Roles must be devised and responsibility defined as ways of reestablishing obligations in our modern, pluralistic, technological society. Technology is applied not only to production but also to society itself.
Responsibility is a relatively new term in the ethical vocabulary, appearing in the nineteenth century with a somewhat ambiguous meaning. The term evaluates action and attributes it to an agent; it does so in lieu of cosmic or natural structures of obligation. The historical awareness of the nineteenth century, the scientific and technological revolutions, and the collapse of metaphysical systems had undermined fixed notions of obligations. The term ‘responsibility’ was a way of filling this gap by defining the scope of accountability and obligation in context of law and common culture.
It has also been argued that when constitutional government was vastly extended, in scope of operation and in spread among nations, as a result of contacts of cultures and people, the concept of responsibility became increasingly significant as a way of defining a common set of values among people of divergent cultures and traditions.
The concept of role then becomes a convenient way to package expectations and obligations associated with the modern world. As we cease to view social functions as received intact from the past and see them instead as manipulated and created anew, we take upon ourselves bounded obligation in the form of various roles. People exercise responsibility and are held responsible in society when they accept and carry out an array of more or less well-defined roles: employee, parent, citizen, group member. The most problematic roles are those not clearly defined, usually because there is little agreement about the boundaries of responsibility associated with them. What does it mean to be a responsible parent in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Or a responsible spouse, responsible citizen, responsible politician, or a responsible civil servant?
The problem is that although civil servants are responsible for certain duties (those that constitute the professional role), they sometimes believe they are obligated to act otherwise. This occurs because civil servants, along with everyone else in modern society, maintain an array of roles related to family, community, and society, each carrying a set of obligations and vested with personal interests. The quite common result is conflict among roles as these competing forces push and pull in opposite directions. The effects of these conflicts are compounded by the range of discretion civil servants must exercise. The intent of legislation is frequently stated in broad language, leaving the specifics to civil servants. Consequently, ethical standards and sensitivity are crucial to the responsible use of this discretion.
Principles and Virtues
Why live by principles? Why not just make the 'right' rational decision as we go along? Aren't principles limiting and, in any case, old-fashioned? Disregarding the fashionability of principles, let's look at two major advantages of living by principles:
Firstly, the scope of our knowledge and cognitive abilities is always limited. We are never fully aware of all the factors influencing the outcome of any given choice, and thus make our decisions based on limited information. In addition, our reasoning ability is limited both in time and complexity in any given situation. Principles - generalized rules that have wide applicability - help us make better decisions in complex situations; the best decision 'all other things being equal'. Principles can give us useful guidance in a wide range of situations.
Secondly, generalized principles can be automatized. Consistently living by rational, non-contradictory principles will tend to make principled thought and behavior habitual: Principles give birth to positive character traits - virtues. This subconscious assimilation leads to automatic emotional responses that are in harmony with our explicit conscious values. Our virtues mobilize our emotions to encourage moral choices, judgments and actions. Furthermore, our virtue-based subconscious evaluations help us make better complex, split-second decisions.
Automatic and instantaneous guidance can be immensely beneficial if - and this is a big if - we learn and automatize the correct principles. If we, for example, automatize self-hatred, superstition or a victim-mentality, then this is surely detrimental. If, on the other hand, we acquire the virtuous habit of seeking self-knowledge, then automatic internal warning bells are likely to alert us to any attempts of evading or disowning our actual emotions or actions.
What are the different approaches to study Ethics?
Ethics may be dealt with either descriptively or normatively.
Descriptively, ethics attempts to reveal underlying assumptions and how they are connected to conduct. Normatively, ethics attempts to construct viable and defensible arguments for particular courses of conduct as being better than others in specific situations.
Ethics may also be viewed from either or both of two major orientations: deontological or teleological.
o Deontological approaches to ethics focus on one’s duty to certain ethical principles, such as justice, freedom, or veracity, without regards for the consequences of one’s actions.
o Teleological ethics, in contrast, involves a concern for the ends or consequences of one’s conduct. This is the position most notably associated with utilitarianism and its calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Most of us, however, undertake decisions using both of these perspectives most of the time. That is, we consider principles that are important to us in a concrete situation and then ask ourselves what the consequences of acting on those principles are likely to be.
How are Ethics, Values and Laws related?
Doing ethics, involves thinking more systematically about the values and principles that are embedded in our choices than we do when we make choices on practical or political grounds alone. As we reflect on these implicit values, we ask ourselves how they are consistent with our duties and toward what ends and consequences they lead. Keeping in mind the obligations and goals of the roles we occupy, we seek to rank-order them for each particular ethical decision we confront in the course of carrying out a specific role.
The relationship between law and ethics often comes up in the discussion of specific cases. The fact is, however that law specifies the moral minimum. It is the minimum level of conduct that we as a society agree to impose on all of us through the threat of force and sanctions. Ethical considerations are often involved in deliberations about proposed legislations, but once crystallized into law, the conduct prescribed is assumed to be backed up by the coercive power of government. However, from an ethicist’s point of view, law must always stand under the judgment of ethics. Sometimes laws may be deemed unjust and therefore unethical. Those who believe so may challenge those laws in the courts as inconsistent with the human rights, or they may engage in civil disobedience, even to the point of being arrested and going to jail. Sometimes laws need to be challenged on ethical grounds. In the long tradition of civil disobedience exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., the key proviso is that one must be willing to accept the consequences of one’s actions in order to demonstrate commitment to ethical principles over what are considered unjust laws. That is, one must be willing to suffer fines and imprisonment in order to evoke a response from the larger society to bring about change in the laws in question.
Ethics, Responsibility and Role
The terms role and responsibility are peculiarly modern in connotation. Both suggest a worldview in which the power of tradition is broken and human beings are left to construct a world of their own making. Roles must be devised and responsibility defined as ways of reestablishing obligations in our modern, pluralistic, technological society. Technology is applied not only to production but also to society itself.
Responsibility is a relatively new term in the ethical vocabulary, appearing in the nineteenth century with a somewhat ambiguous meaning. The term evaluates action and attributes it to an agent; it does so in lieu of cosmic or natural structures of obligation. The historical awareness of the nineteenth century, the scientific and technological revolutions, and the collapse of metaphysical systems had undermined fixed notions of obligations. The term ‘responsibility’ was a way of filling this gap by defining the scope of accountability and obligation in context of law and common culture.
It has also been argued that when constitutional government was vastly extended, in scope of operation and in spread among nations, as a result of contacts of cultures and people, the concept of responsibility became increasingly significant as a way of defining a common set of values among people of divergent cultures and traditions.
The concept of role then becomes a convenient way to package expectations and obligations associated with the modern world. As we cease to view social functions as received intact from the past and see them instead as manipulated and created anew, we take upon ourselves bounded obligation in the form of various roles. People exercise responsibility and are held responsible in society when they accept and carry out an array of more or less well-defined roles: employee, parent, citizen, group member. The most problematic roles are those not clearly defined, usually because there is little agreement about the boundaries of responsibility associated with them. What does it mean to be a responsible parent in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Or a responsible spouse, responsible citizen, responsible politician, or a responsible civil servant?
The problem is that although civil servants are responsible for certain duties (those that constitute the professional role), they sometimes believe they are obligated to act otherwise. This occurs because civil servants, along with everyone else in modern society, maintain an array of roles related to family, community, and society, each carrying a set of obligations and vested with personal interests. The quite common result is conflict among roles as these competing forces push and pull in opposite directions. The effects of these conflicts are compounded by the range of discretion civil servants must exercise. The intent of legislation is frequently stated in broad language, leaving the specifics to civil servants. Consequently, ethical standards and sensitivity are crucial to the responsible use of this discretion.
Principles and Virtues
Why live by principles? Why not just make the 'right' rational decision as we go along? Aren't principles limiting and, in any case, old-fashioned? Disregarding the fashionability of principles, let's look at two major advantages of living by principles:
Firstly, the scope of our knowledge and cognitive abilities is always limited. We are never fully aware of all the factors influencing the outcome of any given choice, and thus make our decisions based on limited information. In addition, our reasoning ability is limited both in time and complexity in any given situation. Principles - generalized rules that have wide applicability - help us make better decisions in complex situations; the best decision 'all other things being equal'. Principles can give us useful guidance in a wide range of situations.
Secondly, generalized principles can be automatized. Consistently living by rational, non-contradictory principles will tend to make principled thought and behavior habitual: Principles give birth to positive character traits - virtues. This subconscious assimilation leads to automatic emotional responses that are in harmony with our explicit conscious values. Our virtues mobilize our emotions to encourage moral choices, judgments and actions. Furthermore, our virtue-based subconscious evaluations help us make better complex, split-second decisions.
Automatic and instantaneous guidance can be immensely beneficial if - and this is a big if - we learn and automatize the correct principles. If we, for example, automatize self-hatred, superstition or a victim-mentality, then this is surely detrimental. If, on the other hand, we acquire the virtuous habit of seeking self-knowledge, then automatic internal warning bells are likely to alert us to any attempts of evading or disowning our actual emotions or actions.
What are the different approaches to study Ethics?
Ethics may be dealt with either descriptively or normatively.
Descriptively, ethics attempts to reveal underlying assumptions and how they are connected to conduct. Normatively, ethics attempts to construct viable and defensible arguments for particular courses of conduct as being better than others in specific situations.
Ethics may also be viewed from either or both of two major orientations: deontological or teleological.
o Deontological approaches to ethics focus on one’s duty to certain ethical principles, such as justice, freedom, or veracity, without regards for the consequences of one’s actions.
o Teleological ethics, in contrast, involves a concern for the ends or consequences of one’s conduct. This is the position most notably associated with utilitarianism and its calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Most of us, however, undertake decisions using both of these perspectives most of the time. That is, we consider principles that are important to us in a concrete situation and then ask ourselves what the consequences of acting on those principles are likely to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment