“Waste no more time arguing about
what a good man should be. Be one."
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
What determines what is good? Bad? What determines morality? Is it
the same as ethics? Some think
we get these things from a creator being. Some think it is innate. Some say it is
society. Some say all are correct and others are unsure. What do you think?
Firstly ethics
and morality are commonly viewed to be the same thing. The truth is different
enough to be discussed.
Ethics is hard to pin down even with a
dictionary. The Oxford dictionary says it is:
1. Moral
principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity.
Moral correctness of specified conduct.
2. The
branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
Morality in
the Oxford dictionary is defined as:
1. Principles
concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. A
particular system of values and principles of conduct. The extent to which an
action is right or wrong.
So morality
is a set of principles, a system of values, the extent to which a thing is
right or wrong. Ethics are moral principles, govern a person’s behavior,
govern conduct of an activity, is the moral correctness of specified conduct, a
branch of knowledge dealing with moral principles. Sounds like we cannot have
ethics without morality.
Or can we?
Which principles? Which values? What is right and wrong? Who decides? Perhaps empathy can be
our guide. Is it empathy for other beings that let you know when to stop doing
a harmful act? Is it a lack of empathy, and associated dehumanization, that
leads to wrongful activity? Is empathy innate in most human beings going
through a normal life? Can a need that
overcomes their empathy cause people to commit wrongful acts? Sounds like empathy for others can help determine what
is right and wrong in normal circumstances.
But can we
say empathy is ethical, moral, or both ethical and moral? First let’s go
back to the definitions but ask a few questions. Is empathy (substituting it
for morality in the given definition) a set of principles, a system of values,
the extent to which a thing is right or wrong? It does not fit for the
statements except for the last one; it does help a person determine the extent
to which a thing is right or wrong. Is empathy (substituting it for ethics in
the given definition) moral principles, govern a person’s behavior, governs
conduct of an activity, moral correctness of specified conduct, or a branch of
knowledge dealing with moral principles. Many of the points do fit right in.
Empathy should govern a person’s behavior. Empathy should govern conduct of an
activity. Empathy should determine the correctness of specified conduct. As
Confucius said, “What you would not have done to oneself, do not do to others”.
It seems that empathy is more closely linked to ethics than it does for morality.
Let’s talk
about morality for a bit. So what sets principles, a system of values, and
determines the extent to which a thing is right or wrong? The laws of nations
do. So do rules in religions. Organizations and movements also set do’s and don’t.
Does that mean laws, religions, organizations and movements claim to be moral? Yes. Are they always empathetic?
No, but they do say what is right and what is wrong, use those rules to
determine what is moral to them, and determine how people under them should conduct
themselves.
So what
about ethics? I think it is a more civic term rather than the same as morality and by
civic I mean an ideal goal for a society. You want the citizens around you to
follow their empathy…their desire to care for others as they themselves would
want to be cared for. You do not want a set of laws and rules determined by any group
that disregards the raw desire to do what is good and right in order to do what is not
good or right for others. Therefore, I propose, in order for everyone to get along you have to
strip away all of the tenets, beliefs and obligations that dictate morals and
morality. That is because they are specific to the religion, organization, and
movement that utilize and promote them. This will get to the core of what a democracy needs
to be: treatment of human beings as equal and not to promote harm or hindrance against them unless they themselves disregard these rights in other beings. Sure someone could have an
anti-democratic un-ethical viewpoint in this society but they cannot force that
morality/belief to change a law or governing principle. They cannot harm or hinder another based on that morality/belief. People should have the
freedom to act like jerks but not change government to be an anti-democratic jerk,
one who is neither empathetic nor ethical.
On a side note, a nation’s
laws are one of the things that can overlap morality and ethics. It can have roots in a moral past with
historical and/or religious traditions but those principles should pass the ethical or empathetic
test for it to be valid in a democratic society. Not all laws are like that. They are the first things to be changed or made by zealous religions,
organizations and movements that think they are moral but are actually unethical and
lack regard for their fellow human beings. That is something we must be on the
lookout for us to retain our common wisdom.
One does not have to join a zealous group or following to be an
ethical person. Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But for
good people to do bad things, that takes zealotry.
Inspiration
Reddit Thread: Atheists have What I Call True Morality
No comments:
Post a Comment