ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
Agu, Ikenna E.
BSU/SS/COM/PHD/16/7340
COM 902: Media Rights and Responsibility
Department of Mass Communication
Benue State University, Makurdi
ikennasports yahoo.com
Abstract
This paper focused on the ethical foundations and perspectives. It reviewed the concept of ethics in a broader perspective. The conceptual framework dealt in details the key items of the topic. This paper widened our understanding of ethics in the literature review by discussing how ethics can provide a moral map, core values analysis and decision Process and steps to better ethical decision making. Theory of ethical relativism was the theories used to underline this paper. In the discussion, it was argued that ethical issues are moral battles a practitioner must fight on a daily basis in his line of duty. Conclusively, people need some sort of a moral guide through life adding what is needed in a moral code is something that will enable humans to live with one another in an order rather than in chaos of self-interested action.
Key Words: Ethics, Ethical Foundation, Perspective
Introduction
Ethics is a system of moral principles and a branch of philosophy which defines what is good for individuals and society. Ethics is a requirement for human life. It is our means of deciding a course of action. Without it, our actions would be random and aimless. To the degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values.
BBC (2010) defined ethics as the branch of study dealing with what is the proper course of action for man. It answers the question, "What do I do?" It is the study of right and wrong in human endeavors. At a more fundamental level, it is the method by which we categorize our values and pursue them. Do we pursue our own happiness, or do we sacrifice ourselves to a greater cause? Is that foundation of ethics based on the Bible, or on the very nature of man himself, or neither?
At its simplest, Orend (2000) said that ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. Ethics covers the following dilemmas: how to live a good life, our rights and responsibilities, the language of right and wrong; and moral decisions - what is good and bad?
This paper in a bid to tackle ethical foundation and perspective will seek to discuss how ethics can provide a moral road map, Core Values Analysis and Decision Process and Steps to Better Ethical Decision Making.
Conceptual Clarification
Ethical Foundation
Ethics according to Doris (2010) is a requirement for human life. It is our means of deciding a course of action. Without it, our actions would be random and aimless. There would be no way to work towards a goal because there would be no way to pick between a limitless number of goals. Even with an ethical standard, we may be unable to pursue our goals with the possibility of success. To the degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values. Any flaw in our ethics will reduce our ability to be successful in our endeavors.
A proper foundation of ethics requires a standard of value to which all goals and actions can be compared to. BBC (2010) stated that this standard is our own lives, and the happiness which makes them livable. This is our ultimate standard of value, the goal in which an ethical man must always aim. It is arrived at by an examination of man's nature, and recognizing his peculiar needs. A system of ethics must further consist of not only emergency situations, but the day to day choices we make constantly. It must include our relations to others, and recognize their importance not only to our physical survival, but to our well-being and happiness. It must recognize that our lives are an end in themselves, and that sacrifice is not only not necessary, but destructive.
Ethical Perspectives
In ethics, Norden, (2011) proffers that one can make a distinction between two different approaches. The first is descriptive. The ethicist tries to understand how ethical decisions and moral behaviour figure in daily life, and questions true and false, fair and unfair explanations from this kind of understanding.
The second is prescriptive. Here one maintains the idea that the qualities and characteristics of moral behaviour can be accurately defined, because they rely on basic principles presented in ethical theories. There is no clear cut division between these two perspectives. In giving a description of what seems to be ethical in daily life, one is often forced to use concepts or categories, and these concepts and categories will inevitably delineate what ethics is about. Since no one can communicate without conceptual premises, there will always some preconceived input in what we perceive. Concerning the second approach: our theoretical conceptions of the principles on which the moral character of our behaviour relies seem to be derived from experience. Ethicists who trust the authority of ethical theories will state that the revealed moral principles are accurate expressions of what constitutes morality in daily life.
Starting from the two different approaches, therefore, ethicists seem to meet each other on the same middle ground. The difference in approach seems to be a difference in confidence.
Starting from the two different approaches, therefore, ethicists seem to meet each other on the same middle ground. The difference in approach seems to be a difference in confidence.
The sceptic is pleased to learn from the judgment common people would be willing to accept, while the expert is confident he or she can judge how people should think. The sceptic tries to identify him/herself with the position of a particular person in a specific cultural game to make him or her realize what it means to be a good player in this situation. The ethical theorist seems to be convinced that morality has nothing to do with playing particular cultural games, but with answering fundamental ethical principles.
In his contribution to the present edition of Ethical Perspectives, Edward Hall tries to save political moralism from a notorious sceptic. It is well known that Bernard Williams was quite hostile towards ethical theory. In the field of politics, he argued that politicians are guided by ideals before they enter the morality system or the applied ethics arena. For politicians, it would seem odd to believe that there is a moral space apart from the political struggle in which they defend what they consider as unconditionally relevant. Hall defends the moral philosophers blamed by arguing that political moralism does not correspond with applied moral philosophy. If this is true, a realist perspective would be compatible with political ethics as defended by Sangiovanni or the later Rawls. The distinction between Williams’ skeptical realism and the more theoretical approach can indeed be relativized, but still there is a difference in confidence in the expertise of the moral philosopher.
Theoretical Framework
Theory of Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.
Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, in some societies, killing one's parents after they reached a certain age was common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.
Also, it is argued, it may be the case that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.
Other philosophers criticize ethical relativism because of its implications for individual moral beliefs. These philosophers assert that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racial or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right. But such a view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in a society. Furthermore, members of the same society may hold different views on practices. In the United States, for example, a variety of moral opinions exists on matters ranging from animal experimentation to abortion. What constitutes right action when social consensus is lacking?
Perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.
For these philosophers, ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.
But even if the theory of ethical relativism is rejected, it must be acknowledged that the concept raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.
Literature Review
Core Values Analysis and Decision Process
Michael Josephson, a noted American ethicist, believes that a current set of core valueshas been identified and that the values can be meaningfully applied to a variety of personal and corporate decisions. To simplify, let’s say that there are ethical and nonethical qualities among people in the United States. When you ask people what kinds of qualities they admire in others or in themselves, they may say wealth, power, fitness, sense of humor, good looks, intelligence, musical ability, or some other quality. They may also value honesty, caring, fairness, courage, perseverance, diligence, trustworthiness, or integrity. The qualities on the second list have something in common—they are distinctively ethical characteristics. That is, they are commonly seen as moral or ethical qualities, unlike the qualities on the first list. You can be, like the Athenian Alcibiades, brilliant but unprincipled, or, like some political leaders today, powerful but dishonest, or wealthy but uncaring. You can, in short, have a number of admirable qualities (brilliance, power, wealth) that are not per se virtuous. Just because Harold is rich or good-looking or has a good sense of humor does not mean that he is ethical. But if Harold is honest and caring (whether he is rich or poor, humorous or humorless), people are likely to see him as ethical.
Among the virtues, are any especially important? Studies from the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Marina del Rey, California, have identified six core values in our society, values that almost everyone agrees are important to them. When asked what values people hold dear, what values they wish to be known by, and what values they wish others would exhibit in their actions, six values consistently turn up: (1) trustworthiness, (2) respect, (3) responsibility, (4) fairness, (5) caring, and (6) citizenship.
Note that these values are distinctly ethical. While many of us may value wealth, good looks, and intelligence, having wealth, good looks, and intelligence does not automatically make us virtuous in our character and habits. But being more trustworthy (by being honest and by keeping promises) does make us more virtuous, as does staying true to the other five core values.
Notice also that these six core values share something in common with other ethical values that are less universally agreed upon. Many values taught in the family or in places of worship are not generally agreed on, practiced, or admired by all. Some families and individuals believe strongly in the virtue of saving money or in abstaining from alcohol or sex prior to marriage. Others clearly do not, or at least don’t act on their beliefs. Moreover, it is possible to have and practice core ethical values even if you take on heavy debt, knock down several drinks a night, or have frequent premarital sex. Some would dispute this, saying that you can’t really lead a virtuous life if you get into debt, drink heavily, or engage in premarital sex. But the point here is that since people do disagree in these areas, the ethical traits of thrift, temperance, and sexual abstinence do not have the unanimity of approval that the six core values do.
The importance of an individual’s having these consistent qualities of character is well known. Often we remember the last bad thing a person did far more than any or all previous good acts. For example, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton are more readily remembered by people for their last, worst acts than for any good they accomplished as public servants. As for a company, its good reputation also has an incalculable value that when lost takes a great deal of time and work to recover. Shell, Nike, and other companies have discovered that there is a market for morality, however difficult to measure, and that not paying attention to business ethics often comes at a serious price. In the past fifteen years, the career of ethics and compliance officer has emerged, partly as a result of criminal proceedings against companies but also because major companies have found that reputations cannot be recovered retroactively but must be pursued proactively. For individuals, Aristotle emphasized the practice of virtue to the point where virtue becomes a habit. Companies are gradually learning the same lesson.
Ethics can provide a moral map
Singer (2000) revealed that most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters. Because these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with the flow. But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in - they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems. So ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our way through difficult issues. Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they broadly agree on everything else.
That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to resolve their problem. But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with the sort of help that they really want.
Lyon (1999) ethics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems. Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer - just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear choices.
Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to their own conclusions.
Hoy, D. (2005) said that many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they can't work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right answer. But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least worst answers - and the individual must choose between them. For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.
Five Steps to Better Ethical Decision Making
The first step in making an ethical decision according to Hare (1989) is to gather the facts. Try to be as neutral as possible in describing those facts, bearing in mind how inclined we all are to distorting information to benefit ourselves, so you have a tendency to overlook, distort, or stretch the facts to suit ourselves. But if the facts are wrong to begin with, our moral judgment is going to be clouded and lead us down the wrong path. It is impossible to know all the facts about a situation. Consider how difficult it is to know the subject to which you are closest—yourself. It is amazing how others are able to point out things that you never see about yourself. So, imagine how much more difficult it is to really know another person or an event about which you don’t have direct knowledge. Yet, you have to fill in the blanks as best you can when confronted with an ethical problem. You have to rely upon reasonable assumptions. For example, you may not know all the details about conditions in a factory, but you can make an educated guess based upon what we know about factories in general and what you know about the area in which the plant is located.
Facts by themselves mean little; they need interpretation. You want to understand what such facts mean in light of your own values, but you also want to understand what the facts mean to the other people involved. Consider the following situation. Joseph is married to Sabrina, but he is sleeping with Elizabeth. An important value for you may be sexual fidelity, but if Joseph lives in a polygamous society, you need to understand what his sleeping with Elizabeth means to Sabrina. It may mean something quite different from what you first supposed.
Step two is to make a prediction, a guess about the future. A prediction is based on facts that are relevant to the situation at hand: If you do this, you increase your chances of reaching the desired results. You can never know the future for certain, but some things are more probable than others. For example, if you hit someone, you are more likely to get hit back than if you smiled at that person, everything else being equal. Of course, there is always an element of uncertainty. The person you smiled at may be paranoid, for example. Yet, you have to take a guess and select the action that you think is most likely to cause good or most likely to avoid harm.
Step three is to identify your feelings. Some people call it intuition; some call it conscience. When our feelings have been cultivated by compassion, they sometimes highlight what our rational and conscious minds have overlooked. Feelings are one way to check to see whether you are rationalizing.
In step four ask whether you could live with yourself if you made that particular choice. Would you be willing to let other people know what you did? Would you feel worse or better about yourself? Would you feel guilty or ashamed? Or would you feel proud and wish that others would do the same under similar circumstances? Would you want everyone to act the way you did?
Finally, in step five you should be able to explain your reasons to other people and be willing to engage with others in a moral conversation about your choice. This is similar to the method scientists use as a way of advancing knowledge. They develop a hypothesis, then test it, reach a conclusion, and finally submit it to others in their field for scrutiny. You should be willing to do no less with your ethical judgments. Unlike science, however, the field of morality isn't confined to higher study. Like it or not, you are engaged in many moral situations in business. While scientists advance knowledge about the world by using the scientific method, you advance your moral knowledge by employing a sound process in making ethical judgments.
Discussion
As a professional, the issue of ethics is a bit complex taking into consideration that it is a moral battle a practitioner has to fight daily in his line of duty. This gives rise to the question, to whom is this moral duty owed? Every professional owes this duty to himself, society, professional colleagues, clients/subscriber/ supporters, and our organizations or firms. Meanwhile, in every stage of ethical decision making, some actors are expected to come into play especially in the area of influence. In most cases, family background, religious affiliation, educational qualification, corporate or business interest etc are considered. History has recorded a lot of cases where people resigned their jobs or even got sacked due to ethical issue. So, ethics is an issue that must be adhered to both conventionally and unconventionally.
Conclusion
People need some sort of a moral guide through life. Many may think that they can get by without one but chances are that they are egoists and do have a principle which is guiding them. If it makes me feel good, if it makes me happy, if I like it and can live with it then it is all right for me to do it. That may seem like an attractive principle by which we can make decisions until one starts to think about it. As a guide for all people that principle would lead and does lead to many conflicts. What is needed in a moral code is something that will enable humans to live with one another in an order rather than in chaos of self-interested action.
References
British Broadcasting Corporation (2010) retrieved August 2010. From www.bbc.co.uk/ethics
Doris S. "Evolutionary Ethics". Archived from the original on October 7, 2013. Retrieved January 5, 2010.
Ellis, C (2007). "Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others". Qualitative Inquiry. 13: 3–29. doi:10.1177/1077800406294947.
Hare, R.M (1989), Essays in Ethical Theory. London: Sage Publications
Hoy, D. (2005). Critical Resistance from Post structuralism to Post critique. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Milton D. (1986). Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books
Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Solomon, R.C. (1984) Morality and the Good Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Comments
Post a Comment