 |
“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.”― Aristotle
Welcome to my BLOG!
This blog is all about how would you apply VALUES & ETHICS in your daily life not just your daily life but also with your surroundings.
This is a personal blog: The views and opinions expressed
here represent my own and not those of the people, institutions, or organizations that I may or may not be
affiliated with.
Check Point!
What is ethics?
What is law?
What is morality?
True Morality - Rational Principles for Optimal Living
Ethics, or morality, is a system of principles that helps us
tell right from wrong, good from bad.
s
This definition, by itself, tells us nothing about the
standard by which we establish or measure right and wrong. The centuries have
seen many different approaches to ethics; none seem to be satisfactory. The
terms 'ethics', and even more so, 'morality' carry heavy emotional baggage.
Traditional approaches to morality are confused and contradictory. While
supposedly telling us what is 'right' or 'good' for us, they variously imply
sacrificing our lives to some Greater Good, restrict beneficial sexual conduct,
oppose our legitimate desire for personal happiness or offer supposedly ideal,
but impractical solutions.
I consider these views to be distortions of what ethics
really has to offer - given a rational approach. Ethics should and can give
real and practical guidance to our lives - our best rational interests -
without sacrificing others. The system that I'm proposing is a workable
personal guide to acquiring virtues that promote optimal living, both for the
individual and, by extension, for society. It is designed for self-motivated
individuals who seek a rational system of principles that will help them both
define and achieve ever improving character and living. A system that we can
enthusiastically pursue, not from duty or primarily to please others, but for
personal benefit and from personal conviction.
Why do we need Ethics?
Morality is often used by various leaders and organizations
to control society - sometimes benevolently, but usually bringing about
self-sacrifice and human suffering. There are, however, far more fundamental
and legitimate reasons for ethics: To provide purpose and meaning to our lives
by helping to define goals in our lives - and then to help guide us to achieve
them. http://www.optimal.org/peter/rational_ethics.htm
Choices
The most basic need for ethics lies in the fact that we do
not automatically know what will benefit our lives, and what will be
detrimental. We constantly face choices that effect the length and quality of
our lives. We must choose our values: where to live, how to spend our time,
whom to associate with, whom to believe. We must choose what to think about,
and how to go about achieving our goals. Which character traits to acquire, and
which to eliminate. Which of our emotional responses are beneficial, and which
detrimental. By what criteria to judge others, and on what basis to interact with
them. We must pro-actively think about these issues and deliberately direct our
lives. To the extent that we default on this, to that extent we are at the
mercy of social and emotional factors that may be far from optimal - a drifting
boat, at the mercy of the currents and winds.
Ethics is about the choices that we make - or fail to make.
We are aware of our conscious thoughts and of our ability to make informed,
intelligent choices - that is what we call free will (1). We are aware that the
choices that we make have consequences, both for ourselves and for others. We
are aware of the responsibility that we have for our actions. But, we do not
have reliable inherent knowledge or instincts that will automatically promote
our survival and flourishing. We may have an inherent emotional desire to
survive and avoid pain, but we do not have innate knowledge about how to
achieve those objectives. A rational, non-contradictory ethic can help us make
better choices regarding our lives and well-being. Issues not subject to our
choice - unknown to us or outside of our control - are not moral issues.
Most moral systems concern themselves primarily with social
interactions - what effect do my actions have on others. This puts the cart
before the horse. How can we hope to judge what is good for others, good for
society, before we have determined what is good for the individual? What is
good for me? The answers to these questions - personal morality - can, and
must, form the foundation to social morality, political and legal systems.
Judging the morality of social norms, public policy and laws can only be done
with reference to what is good for the individual. After all, social morality
is supposed to benefit the individuals who make up a given society.
Furthermore, each individual really only controls his own morality - others can
be influenced to think and act morally, but they cannot ultimately be forced to
do so.
Why Principles? Why Virtues?
Why
even 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 is law? • Law reflects a minimum standard of ethics, but it is not ethics • “Rules made by human beings to guide society & regulate human interactions” that are enforceable to promote peaceful & productive interactions (Aiken, p. 98)
Morality Today
Morality is an endangered species: Global communications and
travel, cultural upheaval, plus massive changes in life-styles and technology
are increasingly exposing contradictions and practical limitations in
traditional systems. Unable or unwilling to live by hopelessly flawed dogma, we
have all but abandoned systems of morality. Some resort to explicit amorality,
others to a 'pragmatic' approach of 'what one can get away with', many simply
do what feels right - more or less. Hypocritical behavior by spiritual and
political leaders, rampant dishonesty in others, and the anonymity of urban
life further encourage this rejection of traditional ethics.
However, all of these factors cannot hide our desperate need
for guiding principles. Modern life offers additional freedoms that impose
increasingly numerous, difficult and far-reaching choices on our lives. Choices
about relationships, children, education, careers, politics, wealth, health and
even death. We can alter genes, synthesize life and will soon create artificial
intelligence. Our decisions have more profound consequences than ever before -
ultimately effecting mankind's very survival. This trend continues to escalate,
yet 'progress' will not wait for us to sort out our values.
In summary, a rational, personal morality is both a
conscious as well as subconscious aid to defining and achieving our goals and
happiness. A guide to our own flourishing - a guide to how to live optimally.
What could be more important?
How do we determine right and wrong?
Traditional Sources of Ethics
Most popular systems of morality comprise a mix of four
separate, but interrelated sources:
Social rules or customs that are either agreed on by the
majority or enforced by some kind of law.
Some authority, usually claimed to be 'divinely inspired',
that establishes an absolute dogma.
Intuitive, emotional 'knowledge' of what is right and wrong
- a personal moral compass.
Rational or common sense rules and principles aimed at
achieving a given objective.
Let's explore each of these sources in some detail:
Social rules and customs are, in themselves, a mix of
religious or philosophical dogma, 'what feels right', and common sense. They
evolve by various random forces impinging on them: an influential philosopher,
a charismatic spiritual leader, economic factors, disease, wars, immigration,
art. The resulting morality is usually recognized as being relativist - its
subjectivity being rather obvious. For example, one society believes that
having more than one child is immoral, while another sees contraception as
depraved. Unfortunately, this relativism does not usually prevent people from
trying to force their views on others, even killing and dying for it in its name.
Religious, spiritual or cultish ethic claims to possess
absolute knowledge - divinely inspired - and therefore not subjective. From an
outsiders point of view its relativism is apparent. Who has the direct line to
God or to some platonic Eternal Wisdom? How would we know? Conflicting claims
of authenticity cannot be resolved rationally. Opponents are 'persuaded' either
emotionally or physically. 'Divine' morality is frequently used by religious
and cult leaders - alone or cahoots with kings and governments - to control
people. Claiming a preferential relationship with Divinity, they can trade
'salvation', 'absolution' and 'godly knowledge' for their followers' obedience
and sacrifice. Many wars and vast amounts of human suffering have their roots
in this kind of 'morality'; though, granted, many systems are not consciously
malevolent.
We all judge morality intuitively to some extent - we have
deep emotional convictions about the immorality of, say, murdering an innocent
victim, about abortion, or regarding child abuse. Some philosophers believe
that intuition is the only valid source to knowing right from wrong. For the
reasons mentioned under 'morality as an endangered species' many people today
reject religious and social morality and rely primarily on their own personal
moral compass. In one sense, this is exactly what we have to - automatized
principles are essential for coping with the myriad of complex decisions we
face. However, without explicit, conscious selection of the principles that we
internalize, our emotions are unguided missiles. Slavery, racism or treating
women as second class citizens may feel very right - as it has, and still does,
to many people. Intuition is no guarantee of morality. Our moral compass needs
to be calibrated and checked to ensure that our intuition guides us to desired
destinations.
What we need is an explicit system of ethics to serve as a
reference to the programming of our subconscious values. Without this
reference, intuitive morality remains a hodgepodge of various religious, social
and rational ideas picked up during a lifetime: a persuasive idea gathered
here, a powerful emotional lesson retained there, added to the comfortable
social and religious norms of our childhood. The overwhelming preponderance of
adults retaining their own parents' social and religious values is proof of
these influences. However, the fact that many of us do break away from our
childhood influences attests to the possibility of reprogramming ourselves. We
do have free will - we can choose to review and change deeply held beliefs.
Everyone uses reason, the fourth source of moral knowledge,
to some extent. Even the most narrow-minded, emotional or dogmatic person
occasionally uses reason to try to resolve moral conflicts - and the
traditional approaches certainly provide plenty of contradictions and conflict:
Communists reason about the practical contradictions in communal ownership and
personal motivation. Catholics decide to use birth-control as they realize the
folly of that restriction. Entrenched racists often go color-blind with people
they personally know well. Reality eventually impinges upon irrational beliefs.
But we can go much further in utilizing rationality to establish principles for
living - we can pro-actively seek to systematically eliminate contradictions,
detrimental beliefs and inappropriate emotional responses. But is there really
such a thing as objective knowledge - and especially with regard to moral
issues?
Good and Bad
Two crucial questions represent the key to understanding the
moral meaning of good and bad. Yet, moral philosophers have frequently ignored
these questions, or have grossly underestimated their importance. Some
prominent philosophers don't even seem to be aware of them: Good for whom? Good
to what end?
For some reason, we have come to accept that there exists
some independent Platonic 'Good' - some absolute meaning of good not related to
any other standard. We will say 'it is good to speak the truth', meaning,
somehow, good in itself - not because of some beneficial consequence. Were we to
ask 'why?' we would get a paternal 'because... because you should'. Ethics is
rife with this meaningless categorical imperative 'should'. 'Should' only has
meaning in the context of 'should in order to...'. An ethics is only as
rational as its standard of value is - its standard of good and bad.
Good to what end? The purpose of ethics is to help us make
decisions, to help us define and achieve our goals. If we have multiple goals,
then ethics must also help us reconcile and prioritize these. Some claimed
objectives of ethics are: 'getting to heaven', 'doing our duty', 'clearing our
karma', 'filling our evolutionary purpose', 'pleasing others', 'achieving
wealth', 'maximizing our own pleasure' or 'living a full and healthy life'.
Having concluded that a rational approach to ethics is the only meaningful and
practical one, we can eliminate all the irrational options - goals that are not
reality based. On the other hand, money or pleasure, by themselves, are not
sufficiently comprehensive long-term goals. Anyone who seeks life-long guidance
- and moral principles and virtues are by their very nature not quick fixes -
needs to cast his moral net wider.
In the most general form, our goal comes down to defining
and achieving a good life: Physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health - a
fulfilled life. There are objective measures of health: Physical - living a
full life-span (within the limits of current medical knowledge) as free as
possible from physical impairments; Emotionally - generally free from depression
and emotional conflicts, high self-esteem and the ability to experience joy;
Mentally - cognitive competence including intelligence, memory and creativity;
Spiritually - the ability to enjoy literature, art, friendships and love. This
list is not exhaustive and is open to debate, but few people would argue about
the importance of these basic qualities of human life. The particular
manifestations of a good life - the specific level and choices of health,
relationship, productive work, artistic enjoyment - will vary from person to
person and from time to time. This general description of the good life I call
'Optimal Living' and take as the standard of good and bad, right and wrong.
More about this later.
Good for whom? Living optimally requires holding certain
moral values, setting and pursuing personal goals, and acquiring rational
virtues. None of these can be done for someone else. We cannot make others
think rationally, make them have a pro-active or optimistic outlook, or give
them self-esteem. We may encourage others to think and act morally, but we can
really only make those choices for ourselves. We can take most responsibility
for our own lives because we have most control over it. We also have maximum
motivation for expending the effort to live a principled, moral life when we
are the primary beneficiary. In short, we cannot live someone else's life for
them.
This does not mean that what is good for us is necessarily
detrimental to others - life is not a zero-sum game. Fortunately, many rational
moral principles benefit both ourselves and others. Examples of these virtues
are rationality, productiveness, integrity. Later I will show why these are
indeed selfish virtues.
On the other hand, attempting to base morality on what is
good for others, a selfless ethic, is doomed to failure. Apart from the reasons
given above, altruism invariably entails that we force others to do what we
think is good for them - indeed it is our duty to do so. People can be expected
to make all sorts of sacrifices claimed to be to the 'public good'. This
destructive belief also reduces the individual's moral motivation,
responsibility and authority by making them shared issues. A morality based on
society's well-being is inherently detrimental to many individuals in the group
because it imposes the subjective values of some of the group on the rest. http://www.optimal.org/peter/rational_ethics.htm
Morality & Values
The rules or principles that govern right conduct. Ethics,
also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves
systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct,
often addressing disputes of moral diversity. The term comes from the Greek
word ethos, which means "character". Ethics is a complement to
Aesthetics in the philosophy field of Axiology. In philosophy, ethics studies
the moral behavior in humans and how one should act. Ethics may be divided into
four major areas of study.
Type of Ethics
Meta-ethics- about the theoretical meaning and reference of
moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
Normative ethics- about the practical means of determining a
moral course of action.
Applied ethics- about how moral outcomes can be achieved in
specific situations.
Descriptive ethics- also known as comparative ethics, is the
study of people's beliefs about morality.
Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human
morality—concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice,
justice and crime.
Values 
Important and lasting beliefs or ideals shared by the
members of a culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable.
Values have major influence on a person's behavior and attitude and serve as
broad guidelines in all situations.
But before I introduce you the main Objectives of this Blog let me recall
our previous lesson about VALUES & ETHICS.
According to our Instructor of Values & Ethics for IT Professional.
Ethics has two classification which is a moral code and morality.
According to her Moral Code is set of rule and how people should behave.
One thing that I like it much is that the sentence which stated
"Different rules often have contradiction". What do you think about it?
For me there is a contradiction about it because not all the time you
have to follow the rules, it is depend upon the situation. In my own
words!! How about you?
I have to gather more situations about the sentence.
According to http://tau-cross.blogspot.com/2011/01/value-of-contradictions_21.html --Jesus is prophesized to be 'a sign that is contradicted' by
the world [Luke 2:34]. A contradiction can be viewed as an opposing statement.
When we speak of someone becoming 'a sign that is contradicted' we mean an
individual who contests the accepted thinking and pays a price for his or her
stand. Wherever the Church insists on justice and human dignity over degrading
circumstances it too becomes 'a sign of contradiction', and it is 'spoken
against' (i.e. resisted), even violently, by those who seek to marginalize its
voice and minimize its demand.
It means that even a past century there's a contradiction between people and God.
Our instructor also mentioned that Ethics or morality varies in different aspects in life like:
AGE, CULTURAL GROUP, ETHNIC BACKGROUND, RELIGION, LIFE EXPERIENCES, EDUCATION & GENDER.
now, I will elaborate to you how ethics affects in different aspects in life.
Age
According to http://www.gallup.com/poll/9259/generational-gulf-moral-views-vary-age.aspx Every year, Gallup's Moral Views and Values survey asks
Americans whether certain issues are morally acceptable or morally wrong.
Aggregated data from the past three years* show that generational differences
of opinion are sharp on some issues and virtually absent on others.
Americans of various age groups are all in relative
agreement on the moral acceptability of issues such as: buying and wearing
clothing made of animal fur, suicide, and men and women having an extramarital
affair.
According also to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_devel To
understand adult morality, Piaget believed that it was necessary to
study both how morality manifests in the child’s world as well as the
factors that contribute to the emergence of central moral concepts such
as welfare, justice, and rights. Interviewing children using the
Clinical Interview Method, Piaget (1965) found that young children were
focused on authority mandates, and that with age children become
autonomous, evaluating actions from a set of independent principles of
morality. Kohlberg (1963) expanded upon Piagetian notions of moral
development.
Cultural
According to Jesse Prinz He argues that the source of our
moral inclinations is merely cultural.
Suppose you have a moral disagreement with someone, for
example, a disagreement about whether it is okay to live in a society where the
amount of money you are born with is the primary determinant of how wealthy you
will end up. In pursuing this debate, you assume that you are correct about the
issue and that your conversation partner is mistaken. You conversation partner
assumes that you are making the blunder. In other words, you both assume that
only one of you can be correct. Relativists reject this assumption. They
believe that conflicting moral beliefs can both be true. The stanch socialist
and righteous royalist are equally right; they just occupy different moral
worldviews.
Relativism has been widely criticized. It is attacked as
being sophomoric, pernicious, and even incoherent. Moral philosophers,
theologians, and social scientists try to identify objective values so as to
forestall the relativist menace. I think these efforts have failed. Moral
relativism is a plausible doctrine, and it has important implications for how
we conduct our lives, organize our societies, and deal with
To understand adult morality, Piaget believed that it was
necessary to study both how morality manifests in the child’s world as well as
the factors that contribute to the emergence of central moral concepts such as
welfare, justice, and rights. Interviewing children using the Clinical
Interview Method, Piaget (1965) found that young children were focused on
authority mandates, and that with age children become autonomous, evaluating actions
from a set of independent principles of morality. Kohlberg (1963) expanded upon
Piagetian notions of moral development.
Cannibals and Child Brides - Morals vary dramatically across
time and place. One group’s good can be another group’s evil. Consider
cannibalism, which has been practiced by groups in every part of the world.
Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found evidence for cannibalism in 34% of
cultures in one cross-historical sample. Or consider blood sports, such as
those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans
watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat. Killing for pleasure has also
been documented among headhunting cultures, in which decapitation was sometimes
pursued as a recreational activity. Many societies have also practiced extreme
forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the
18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body
modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a
practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and
excruciating crippling of young girls. Variation in attitudes towards violence
is paralleled by variation in attitudes towards sex and marriage. When studying
culturally independent societies, anthropologists have found that over 80%
permit polygamy. Arranged marriage is also common, and some cultures marry off
girls while they are still pubescent or even younger. In parts of Ethiopia,
half the girls are married before their 15th birthday.
Of course, there are also cross-cultural similarities in
morals. No group would last very long if it promoted gratuitous attacks on
neighbors or discouraged childrearing. But within these broad constraints,
almost anything is possible. Some groups prohibit attacks on the hut next door,
but encourage attacks on the village next door. Some groups encourage parents
to commit selective infanticide, to use corporal punishment on children, or
force them into physical labor or sexual slavery.
Such variation cries out for explanation. If morality were
objective, shouldn’t we see greater consensus? Objectivists reply in two
different ways:
Deny variation. Some objectivists say moral variation is
greatly exaggerated – people really agree about values but have different
factual beliefs or life circumstances that lead them to behave differently. For
example, slave owners may have believed that their slaves were intellectually
inferior, and Inuits who practiced infanticide may have been forced to do so
because of resource scarcity in the tundra. But it is spectacularly implausible
that all moral differences can be explained this way. For one thing, the
alleged differences in factual beliefs and life circumstances rarely justify
the behaviors in question. Would the inferiority of one group really justify
enslaving them? If so, why don’t we think it’s acceptable to enslave people
with low IQs? Would life in the tundra justify infanticide? If so, why don’t we
just kill off destitute children around the globe instead of giving donations
to Oxfam? Differences in circumstances do not show that people share values;
rather they help to explain why values end up being so different.
Deny that variation matters. Objectivists who concede that
moral variation exists argue that variation does not entail relativism; after
all, scientific theories differ too, and we don’t assume that every theory is
true. This analogy fails. Scientific theory variation can be explained by
inadequate observations or poor instruments; improvements in each lead towards
convergence. When scientific errors are identified, corrections are made. By
contrast, morals do not track differences in observation, and there also is no
evidence for rational convergence as a result of moral conflicts. Western
slavery didn’t end because of new scientific observations; rather it ended with
the industrial revolution, which ushered in a wage-based economy. Indeed,
slavery became more prevalent after the Enlightenment, when science improved.
Even with our modern understanding of racial equality, Benjamin Skinner has
shown that there are more people living in de facto slavery worldwide today
than during the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. When societies
converge morally, it’s usually because one has dominated the other (as with the
missionary campaigns to end cannibalism). With morals, unlike science, there is
no well-recognized standard that can be used to test, confirm, or correct when
disagreements arise.
Objectivists might reply that progress has clearly been
made. Aren’t our values better than those of the ‘primitive’ societies that
practice slavery, cannibalism, and polygamy? Here we are in danger of smugly
supposing superiority. Each culture assumes it is in possession of the moral
truth. From an outside perspective, our progress might be seen as a regress.
Consider factory farming, environmental devastation, weapons of mass
destruction, capitalistic exploitation, coercive globalization, urban
ghettoization, and the practice of sending elderly relatives to nursing homes.
Our way of life might look grotesque to many who have come before and many who
will come after.
Ethnic Background
According to Aquiline Tarimo, S.J. The tendency of manipulating ethnic identities for private
interest can thoroughly be understood if we take seriously the following
questions. How is ethnic identity related to the conflict of loyalties and
interests? How has the dynamics of ethnic identities fashioned the existing
understanding of the common good and political life? Have Christian churches
managed to stand above ethnocentrism and the tension it generates? Given the
importance of these questions the root cause of ethno-political competition,
discrimination, and violence deserves a critical examination. The focus and
structure of this essay follow the framework of the aforementioned questions.
Ethno-Political Competition, Discrimination, and Violence
Kenya is a multi-ethnic society, and many communities have
lived in harmony for many years. In recent years, however, the dominant ethnic
groups have been on the forefront in fighting for political power. This
situation has resulted into fighting to control the state. The relatively less
dominant communities have been playing the card of opportunism. Many ethnic
groups supported the armed struggle for independence in hope that they could
regain their stolen lands. This expectation did not become reality. The
situation has fomented anger, resentment, lust for revenge, and aggressive
competitiveness that has overlooked the common good of the entire country.
Frustration among the poor, both in urban and rural areas, has created a
growing tendency to use violence as a viable means to correct the situation.
When violent reactions emerge, under the influence of ethno-political
ideologies, tend to take the form of ethnocentrism, the ideology that animates
the competition between ethnic groups.
Religion
According to Ali Sina in http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ethicsmorality.htm
Religious people believe that morality comes from religion
and when religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a
product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral?
I had a conversation with a young Muslim who insisted if it
were not for religion people would commit incest and nothing would stop them to
sleep even with their own mothers. I asked him whether he personally lusted
after his mother and whether Islam was the only deterrent that stopped him from
fornicating with her? He seemed insulted, but before he responded, I added if
you are nauseated even by me mentioning such a thing, then realize that many
others are just like you and feel and think the same way.
A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct.
Incest for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not.
There are of course individuals with abnormal mental development who are
exceptions to the norm. In fact, except for Bonobo chimps of Zair that rub
their genitals together for social binding, no ape commits or procreates by
incest. Usually the male individual visits other clans to find his mate. The
young lions are forced to leave the pride to find mates in other prides while
the lionesses stay.
Interestingly, marriages between children that grew-up
together in one foster home are rare or non-existent, even though these kids
are not related to each other by blood.
But some moral issues are not as clear as the above example.
What is moral and immoral depends on time and culture. It may even vary from
person to person. What was moral; say, a thousand years ago may be immoral
today and vice versa. Also what is moral in one part of the world may not be so
in others.
Take the example of promiscuity. Many cultures consider
promiscuity to be immoral. Yet there are some cultures that accept it as the
norm. To us, “western minded people”, having multiple sex partners
simultaneously is considered promiscuity and immoral. Yet for a Muslim who
practices polygyny, it is a “mercy of Allah”. In some parts of the world, women
practice polyandry. Among the Inuit, a man would offer his wife to his guest to
spend the night with, hoping that he may impregnate her. Which practice is
immoral? And who is to determine it?
Is showing parts of your body immoral? In the heart of
Amazon Jungle some tribes are completely nude. Is that immoral? That is to them
the way of life. In some Islamic countries women are required to cover every
part of their body (like children playing ghost). Is that good morality? If
that is the definition of morality are all those Muslim women who cover
everything except their faces immoral? What about those who dress adequately
yet do not use Hijab? Are they immoral? Now what about bikini wearing beach
going women? Are they immoral? And finally, what about those who like to show
it all in a nudist camp? Are THEY immoral? Your answer to this question depends
on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.
Life and Experiences
According to Secular Humanism in
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/secular_humanism/morals-more.html
Moral values derive their source from human experience.
To say that moral values come from human experience is to
say that, as our experiences change, moral values change. As we grow and learn
we may find that what we thought was wrong last week, is not wrong after all.
To say the moral values come from human experience is to say
that, because human experience is different in different cultures, moral values
are also different in different cultures. While in one culture it may be
morally right to give to the poor, in another culture it might be morally right
to steal from the poor--after all they are weak and contribute nothing to
society.
To say that moral values come from human experience is to
say that, because individual people have different experiences, moral values
vary from one person to another.
All of this says:
There are no absolute moral values, what is wrong for you
may not be wrong for me.
In other words, everyone does what seems to be right in
their own eyes.
How can we then condemn Hitler for judging the value of a
Jewish life to be worthless?
Because there is no absolute value system, we can never know
what is right and wrong. If moral values are based on human experience, there
are no moral values. Our moral values become whatever television, or a powerful
speaker (such as Hitler), convinces us are the correct moral values of the day.
God, on the other hand, tells us there is absolute good and
abosulte evil, that is patterned on the character of God himself. God is the
absolute standard against which everything else is judged. There is no
uncertainty about what is morally right or wrong. And just as God never
changes, what is morally right or wrong never changes.
It is always right to give to the poor and help those who
are less fortunate than you.
It is always morally wrong to murder another person.
God's moral values never change and they and not dependent
on human experience.
According to Secular Humanism in
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/secular_humanism/morals-more.html
Moral values derive their source from human experience.
To say that moral values come from human experience is to
say that, as our experiences change, moral values change. As we grow and learn
we may find that what we thought was wrong last week, is not wrong after all.
To say the moral values come from human experience is to say
that, because human experience is different in different cultures, moral values
are also different in different cultures. While in one culture it may be
morally right to give to the poor, in another culture it might be morally right
to steal from the poor--after all they are weak and contribute nothing to
society.
To say that moral values come from human experience is to
say that, because individual people have different experiences, moral values
vary from one person to another.
All of this says:
There are no absolute moral values, what is wrong for you
may not be wrong for me.
In other words, everyone does what seems to be right in
their own eyes.
How can we then condemn Hitler for judging the value of a
Jewish life to be worthless?
Because there is no absolute value system, we can never know
what is right and wrong. If moral values are based on human experience, there
are no moral values. Our moral values become whatever television, or a powerful
speaker (such as Hitler), convinces us are the correct moral values of the day.
God, on the other hand, tells us there is absolute good and
abosulte evil, that is patterned on the character of God himself. God is the
absolute standard against which everything else is judged. There is no
uncertainty about what is morally right or wrong. And just as God never
changes, what is morally right or wrong never changes.
It is always right to give to the poor and help those who
are less fortunate than you.
It is always morally wrong to murder another person.
God's moral values never change and they and not dependent
on human experience.
Gender 
According to "Feminist Psychology" (2006, p. 140), Aarti Dua" in a voice that appears to primarily address female readers,
states that "It is not moral orientation, moral reasoning, or moral self
that differentiates men and women, but socialization to attend to some aspects
of sitatuions as more salient. In sum, it is undoubtedly true that some people
are more relational than others. But to the extent that we are interested in
empirical data rather than provocative metaphors, we must refuse to go along
with the gender-difference feminists. It seems to me that the enormous
popularity of Carol Gilligan’s work comes in part from its resonance with
persistent, albeit subtle, sexism, reminiscent of the “good mother” theories of
the past…The celebration of what we have historically associated with women but
devalued is affirming to women and accounts in part for the positive response
her theory has received among women. However, I want to suggest here that the
relational focus that Gilligan describes as “feminine” and the view of self her
theory reflects resonate with us because they address our discomfort with our
contemporary cultural ethos, at least as it is experienced by white
middle-class liberal America."
Whether the focus of the moral identity issue is on
internalization or symbolization, it seems to me that an important fulcrum upon
which the discussion might waiver is the question of whether actions, roles,
and identity are the result of social or biological/evolutionary conditioning,
or if you like, gender vs. sex. Given the non-dichotomous approach many
researchers seem to take these days, it is not likely that there will be any
black and white pat answer. Indeed, even the biological distinction b/w
male/female in terms of genetics and hormones is not a clearcut one to make. To
some extent, some may find it scientifically responsible to deconstruct their
own moral preconceptions and generalizations before attempting to describe the
moral picture that others have of their own moral identity.
Education
According to (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0108_Moral_education.html)
and http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.dworin/morality_and_education morality transmission has been present in education.
Furthermore, many people believe that there is a connection between learning
academically and the development of mental power, and the learning of moral
values and the development of strength of character. The development of the
intellect and of moral character are intimately related. Just as there is an
order in nature (the laws of science), in reason (the laws of logic), and in
the realm of numbers, so too is there a moral order. One thing we need to do is
recover the belief that there is a transcendent, unchanging moral order, and
restore it once more to a central place in the educational process. (Nash) This
is one main reason many people believe that morality education belongs in
schools. Additionally, schools are responsible for guiding children in the step
by step developmental process, and moral development or learning ethical values
is a step in the process of greater development. (Maddock, 1972) Therefore, it
can be seen partly as schools’ responsibility to educate children in morality.
Another reason why character education should have a place in school curriculum
is the role that teachers play in students’ lives. Children inherently know to
respect and listen to people in positions of authority. Teachers represent an
important adult authority figure in students’ lives and are therefore capable
of making a huge impression upon students. Additionally, teachers spend a large
portion of the day with the students, often more than even the children’s
parents do with their kids. Therefore the teacher has ample opportunity to
educate children not only in important academic subjects, but in character and
values as well. (Schafersman, 1991) Further explanations for why many insist
values education is needed in schools today are found in the increased
incidence of emotional problems for adolescents, teen suicide and murder, and
unwanted pregnancy among teens. (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0108_Moral_education.html)
“In comparison with other generations, today’s children and youth are seemingly
more lacking in decency, integrity, concern for others and morality” (Moral
agendas for children’s welfare, 2004) It is hoped that incorporating more character
education into schools will help lower many of the alarming statistics related
to drug abuse, crime and emotional disorders among adolescents. The Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, a national organization concerned
with curriculum development and the improvement of teaching procedures compiled
a report outlining ways to help better the current situation. They recommended
more moral education in public school curricula, the development of clear
guidelines for teachers so they can understand how to be character educators
the creation of a societal and cultural atmosphere that supports moral behavior
by having parents, schools, religious organization, the media and all members
of society working together to establish a positive environment. Additionally,
they advocated the incorporation of critical thinking and decision making
skills in morality education, and the use of regular assessments of the moral
ambiance of schools.
CONCLUSION
Establishing moral principles means determining the core
values which should guide the organization. O'Brien suggests four for
consideration: localness, merit, openness, and leanness. By localness, he means
adopting a philosophy of pushing power down to the lowest level possible, and
encouraging initiative and autonomy. By merit, he means directing actions
toward the overall goals of the organization, and what is best for all. By
openness, he means being forthright and honest in all dealings. And by
leanness, he means efficient use of resources and economies when possible.
ULTIMATELY, THE QUEST FOR ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION MUST
BEGIN WITH A PERSONAL COMMITMENT WITHIN EACH INDIVIDUAL TO PURSUE MORAL
EXCELLENCE.
O'BRIEN
Encouraging leaders to pursue their own moral development is
critical at higher levels because strategic leaders set the moral climate for
the organization. O'Brien believes that moral development is even more
important than professional development. "Creating a culture based on
moral excellence requires a commitment among managers to embody and develop two
qualities in their leadership: virtue and wisdom." However, creating an
organization characterized by moral excellence is a lengthy process.
|
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Values and Ethics for IT Prof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment