Week 2: WHAT IS ETHICS? AND IF IT'S LEGAL ITS ETHICAL RIGHT?

Hey Folks

For week 2 class we were asked to read two articles the first one is asking What is Ethics? from this source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

and the second article is asking If it's legal, Its ethical right? from this source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-10-15/if-its-legal-its-ethical-right-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

and then answer the following questions

What is ethics? 

What use is ethics?

Are ethical statements objectively true? 

Where does ethics come from?

Are there universal moral rules?

What is the difference between ethics and law?


So lets start with the first question what is ethics? from the source above ethics in its simplest form is a system of moral principles that have been created that will affected how people make decisions and lead their lives.

ethics is a term that has that derived from the Greek word of ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition, ethics main concern is with what is good for individuals and society which can also be described as moral philosophy.

Our ethics have been developed and continue to do through religion, philosophies and cultures and have continue debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct. 
normal responses for ethics has to do with what feelings tell me what right or wrong, ethics has to do with my religious beliefs, being ethical is doing what the law requires, ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts. and finally i don't know what that word means are all common responses when discussing ethics
But philosophers of our time have divided ethical theories into three camps

meta-ethics: deals with the nature of moral judgement, it looks at the origins and meanings of ethical judgement

Normative ethics: concerns itself with the content of moral judgments and the criteria for what is right and wrong

Applied ethics: looks at controversial situations and topics like war, animal rights and capital punishment  

looking more into what is ethics another quote from this site backs up the feeling that ethical questions are part of everyday life 
http://www.ethics.org.au/about/what-is-ethics

"We ask ethical questions whenever we think about how we should act. Being ethical is a part of what defines us as human beings".

ethics isn't just a tool for philosophers or intellectuals to debate and have a say. Ethics at its core is part of everyday life, ethical questions explore what Aristotle called  'a life well lived'.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

in the article above puts ethics into two things. First ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do. Ethics for example should impose reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander and fraud. but Ethics also recognize virtues of honesty, compassion and loyalty, and set standards that relate to rights such as the right to life, the right to privacy and so on.
Second ethics refers to the study and continuous development of one's ethical standards as feelings, laws and social norm can deviate from what is ethical meaning its necessary to constantly examine and the continuous effort of studying.

So what use is ethics in our society and what we do as people?
in the article as part of our reading it states that  philosophers think theories are useful in practice and affect the way humans behave, they believe that humans will realize it would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it.
But humans as a species are very irrationally and often follow gut instincts as its called to justify a course of action they take.
so the question is why be ethical lots of people judge things by gut and instinct and don't use ethics to justify it like to play devil advocate in a sense. Being ethical can also come at a personal cost so what use can ethics be if it means we can't exploit other people, tell lies or steal, why these things are in our best interests or what if you are in a situation where you have no choice?.

So are ethical statements objectively true? the problem that is highlighted in the article is that many people follow different ethical codes and moral beliefs there might be something one country that is ethically wrong but the other side of the world they few it differently. So the question is that if they are ethical truths then we as humans don't seem very good at discovering them or even agreeing to them.
it states then ethical properties should exist independently from human beings and that the statements give knowledge about the objective world and whatever people think or feel they exist regardless of what people believe.
but in the article i discovered here below
http://enlightenedworldview.com/blog/?title=can-ethics-be-objective&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
it challenges the term can ethics be objective?
it establishes clear terminology that even thou people often speak of "objective" as referring to things that are true regardless of anyone's point of view, in fact it means a treatment of things that attempt to be from a neutral point of view.
and how can we as humans be objective when most of our decisions are made with several different ways one being subjectivity, is more about the person's on feelings and attitudes on the subject without using factual truths while emotive is the view morals are just expressions of approval and disapproval, it sounds similar to subjectivity but the difference is doesn't just provide information about their feelings on the subject they express those feelings and acts like an instruction on how others should act towards it and finally prescriptive is the believe that ethical statements are in fact instructions or recommendations like saying something is good gives validation you can do it and saying something is bad is telling someone you can't do that.

but with these statements being made with these emotions states how can you say they are ethical right who is deciding if there statements are in fact true and should be followed is it just an universally accepted decision or in time do these statements are allowed to change and develop as attitudes change and new understanding and knowledge changes?

So where does ethics come from? there are several answers to this question to be told some will give god and religion as the reasons, others will give human conscience and intuition, while its political power is the driving force behind it and the list goes on. cause almost every individual claims to have a code or ethics they follow whether being religous leaders to political leaders to gangsters and even serial killers has set of ethics and code they follow.
in the article Ethics by Peter Singer http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1985----.htm he describes ethics beginnings as something that came into existence the moment humans started to reflect on the best way to live, with every human society has some sort of myth explaining the origin of morality examples like in the Louvre in Paristhere is a black babylonian column witha relief showing the sun god shamash presenting the code of laws to hammurabi. the old testament account of god giving the ten commandments to moses on Mt.  Sinai, even in plato's Protagoras there is a mythical account of how zeus took pity on humans as the weakest and no matcxh to other beasts and to make up for this zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity of law and justice. But these are all religious account of our sense of ethics and morality, but what about outside of religion how did our ethics develop. another way to look at possible human development is that we as humans are social animals living in groups an characteristic shared with many other animal species including apes our closest relative looking at non human behaviors requires constraints. no group can stay together if they constantly attack each other they either refrain from it or if the attack takes place its does not result in a fight to the death also they show togetherness and and behave in ways that benefit the group example like wolves bring back meat from a kill to members of the pack that where not there.
but the article states that that this altruistic behavior is odd and goes against the natural selection process but research in evolutionary theory applied to social behavior however shows that it needs not be so ruthless after all

like when parents make sacrifices for their offspring. if wolves help their cubs survive its more likely that genetic characteristic of helping their own cubs will spread through further generations of wolves. and you could say that is how humans have developed there own morality and ethics through changing and adapting through generations but still holding that core ethics form previous generations.

So are there universal moral rules? do unchanging moral rules apply to all cultures at all times at they are two stand points Moral Absolutism where people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone and argues that there are some moral rules that are always true and apply to everyone no matter what reason, unlike Moral relativism says that if you look at different cultures or different periods of time that you will have different moral rules and that it makes sense that good refers to things that a particular group of people approve of. so why disagree with either of these points first absolutism does not fit with respect for diversity and tradition while relativism people feel that moral rules have more to them than a general agreement with a group of people and that many improvements have come from people disagreeing with particular rules being set by a group of people.
But Havard psycologist Marc Hauser and other scientists have claimed that contrary to appearances there is a universal moral code but this article by Guy Kahane http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/06/a-universal-moral-code/ reviews the evidence as a range of moral dilemmas about killing others, their pattern of response is very similar regardless of nationality, religion, age or gender.
hauser does not mean either that humans follow the same set of moral norms, he believes that they are born with the disposition to respond to certain moral situations. So a universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions that are then influenced as time and understanding grows.

so the last question is what is the difference between ethics and law the article we were asked to read has highlighted some interesting points. it highlights a film crew when filming about alcoholism allowed a woman who was over the limit to drive they offered assistance but did not stop her from getting into the car. the response to this by a member of the team is that "the producers are treated like witnesses, they bear no responsibility to intervene"

this raised some interesting points like responsibility limited to what the law requires. if it is legally allowed does that mean we ought to. they are all answered with a no in the article

But this bring the whole ethics vs law question could you say you lived the best you can if you never broke any laws, but what if ethically that to do the right thing means going beyond the laws that are set in place the question the article ask is what should i do, and should not be what i should get away legally.

the differences between ethics and law is that laws change all the time and very from country to country and mostly its political and economic interests that get laws passed, while ethical standards change and mold through time and place regardless of politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html here is a list of some the most ridicules laws to date that still exists in our country that if you went by follow the laws then you have to adhere to like for example, It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down
what if you did that accidentally or did not realize cause you where in the rush if you followed the law to the letter you could get arrested for that 

So the standard should be what we ought to do ethical not legal our history of law making has been bad with the examples of woman not getting the vote the way african-americans were treated in the america shows that the law can get it wrong. laws are needed to keep order and or we as people will go into anarchy but they can not be binding, its through ethically question something is right or wrong that we can ask ourselves as the case of the woman drive being too drunk to drive ethical we should have stop that as in car that woman is a danger to herself and those around her even by law we did not need to.