Some Ethical Terms
1. Right and Wrong
You can make a right turn and go the wrong way and still have done nothing right or wrong, in an ethical sense. In ethics, right is defined as the act that you should do, according to the rules of normative ethics. Wrong, then, is the act you should not do, the opposite of right.
2. Good and Bad
A good act is one that should be done and a bad act is one that should not be done. But how is this different from right and wrong? This is a confusing question and some philosophers argue there is no difference between these sets of terms. On the other hand, some would argue that right actions will bring about good, while wrong actions will not. The good is thus an end and right is a means to it: the right thing to do is the act that brings about the good. It is the same as what you want and how you get it.
However, sometimes acts usually considered wrong can be considered good. For example, killing is wrong, and in normal society it is severely punished. But when Canada fielded large armies in both World Wars, Canadian soldiers killed enemy troops and civilians. Some of them did it so efficiently they received high praise, medals, and were honoured by having streets and schools named after them. Clearly then, killing is wrong only some of the time, and can be deemed to be not wrong in some contexts.
Can a wrong act bring about a good result? Likewise, can a right action bring about bad results? Or do acts need to be taken in isolation, rather than in terms of their outcomes?
3. Moral, Immoral, and Amoral
These terms describe people or actions. A moral person acts according to the ethical norms of society, behaving in the way that one should behave. A moral act is one that is in accordance with these norms. For example, a person who is scrupulously honest is considered moral; the act of being honest is a moral act. Immoral means the opposite.
Amoral, on the other hand, concerns acts or people not covered by moral norms. For example, stealing candy from a baby would be considered immoral, while stealing candy from a squirrel would not be. In fact, the act of taking candy from a squirrel would not even be considered stealing in the normal sense of the term. What is the difference? Babies are within the "moral community" and people owe them moral obligations, whereas squirrels are not owed obligations. Acts towards them are considered neither moral nor immoral.
Of course, some philosophers would argue that we do have moral obligations to squirrels...
4. Duties and Obligations and the Moral Community
The 'moral community' is defined as the group to which you owe duties and obligations, which are the "shoulds" of ethical behaviour. For example, most people would agree that the moral community includes other humans, and that we have an obligation to act morally towards them, not to lie or steal from them.
But consider animals: some would argue that animals should be members of the human 'moral community' and are owed obligations. This is especially the case with pet animals. For example, do you have moral obligations to your pet dog? Would it be immoral to tell your dog a lie or to steal from her in the same way it would be immoral to do the same to your
brother? If you feel that lying to your dog is immoral, then perhaps you are including your dog in the group to whom you owe moral obligations.
On the other hand, some ethical normative systems exclude humans who do not belong to the group that follows the system, thus putting these humans outside the moral community. An example would be societies practising slavery. In this case, human slaves are regarded as being outside the moral community. Some religious ethical systems set out different moral obligations owed to believers and non-believers.
5. Egoism and Altruism
Egoism is acting to benefit one's self. It is also known as 'self-interest' or 'selfishness'. An egoist always looks out for him or herself. The opposite of this is altruism, or 'selflessness'. Altruistic behaviour takes into account the needs of others and an altruist might sacrifice him or herself to help others. An example of this is someone jumping into an ice-choked river to save a child who is drowning. Some philosophers argue that people are by nature egoistic, even if they appear to be acting altruistically. In this example, it could be argued that the rescuer was behaving egoistically, and their motive was an expectation that they would receive praise for their heroism, or, if not that, a knowledge that if they didn't attempt the rescue they would feel guilty and awful forever. On the other hand, maybe they were acting altruistically. Some philosophers argue that altruism is a defining characteristic of being human and that helping others is the right thing to do, by nature.
6. Right, Legal, and Just
Codes of law and codes of ethics both aim to provide guidance for one's behaviour. However, law is the attempt to codify and enforce moral behaviour, and often includes exceptions to the rule. The law will be concerned if you physically harm your little brother without good cause, but not if you scare the day lights out of him with that story about the monster under his bed. Morally, both acts are wrong. Lying is a central concern of Ethics, but usually not of law.
In addition, law is a tool for social policy. As such, laws change over time in response to changing social norms. For example, in Canada, women were not considered legal 'persons' in the full sense until 1929. In Ontario, slavery was legal until 1833 with the passing of the 1833 British Imperial Act. In 1968 the federal government of Canada decriminalized homosexual behaviour between adults. Thus it can be seen that laws change, but when a law changes does it mean that something once immoral is now moral?
Just laws are those that are fair to everyone. Unjust laws by comparison are those that are not fair or right, in the ethical sense. If slavery is legal, does that make it right? The Holocaust was legal, but did that make it right? Many would argue that we have the right—even the obligation—of fighting unjust laws.
One of America's best known 19th century writers, Henry David Thoreau, argued there were times when people needed to resist the law and choose a course of civil disobedience. Thus it was morally right to disobey the government under certain circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment