Paste your essay in here…My Personal Ethics
Ashley McKuhen
University of North Florida
My Personal Ethics
When talking about ethics, everyone takes a different stance on what they believe is right and wrong. I don’t believe that anyone morals are based on one theory; it's mainly a mix of what fits us all best. Everyone has a different view on what they believe morals and ethics are. Some people believe that ethics is a type of science that seeks to discover moral truths but others believe its subjective.
Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.” (dictionary.com, 2012) many philosophers have made a big impact on the community with their input, while also bringing about the big issues and how they handle them.
Kant’s theory
To start, I agree with Kant that religion and morality are a terrible paring and, if anything, the two should be kept apart; instead, we should use reason. Many people use religion as an excuse to explain bad moral decisions; when we use reason we must truly think over everything inside and out before committing to a decision. I also agree with Kant when he says we don't need religion to determine what “Law” is because what’s right and wrong is totally knowable just by using intellect. Our brains work in incredible was and if we use them we should know that difference. I also agree with Kant in his Formulation of Humanity that states: act in a way that treats humanity as an end, not just means. We can use objects as mean but not humans. This is because we are what Kant calls, Ends-in-ourselves; basically saying, we are not objects that exist to be used by others and we have the ability to set and achieve our own goals.
Kant also says that everything is absolute and its all about sticking to the “moral rule book" with no exceptions or excuses. I disagree with this because in certain situation an exception should be made; for example, in class we discussed a person steal bread or starving. Stealing bread would be breaking the moral code but it would be to save one's life. Everyone should be held to the same moral code and treated the same but I believe that if it is for an honest reason then it should be vindicated.
Utilitarianism
The right action is the one that makes the most value and this is supported but Utilitarianism. I agree with Stuart Mill when he says “Actions should be measured in terms of happiness, or pleasure, that they produce”(Mill,1985) Like Kant, utilitarians agree that a moral theory should be applied equally to everyone, and the way to do that was to ground it in something that’s extremely basic and that's the primal desire to seek please and avoid pain. Utilitarianism is also other-regarding, we should try and pleasure not only ourselves but as many people as possible, this is known as the principle of utility. To be more specific, I believe in Rule Utilitarianism, which means we ought to live by the rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number and thinking more long term. I try closing the action that would give the most overall happiness for others (especially my family), even if that means it may cause me a little less happy. Everyone, of course, has a self-bias and, to an extent, its important to take care of yourself and do as you please; but I think its important to remember too that my problems are no bigger than anyone else. We live in a world full of hate and we should all do what we can to make any situation better, even if that means we must go out of our way and do extra.
I disagree with Utilitarianism, in that it only focus on consequences and disregards intent. I personally look at intent for anything, for example, say a significant other borrows your car to get it cleaned as a surprise and they get in a car accident, would you be mad? The consequence of them borrowing the car was a car accident but the intent was the surprise of a clean car.
Virtue theory
Virtue theory emphasizes an individuals character; this theory does not tell you what do it, it focuses more on just being a good person and the right actions will just happen. I agree with Aristotle in his idea that you can have too much of a good thing. For example, you can possess the characteristic of courage, but if you have too little, your cowardice, or on the other end, too much would mean you're reckless. Ever since elementary we were forced to leave about the different characters we should poses but we never had the chance to take on our own; I think it's important for everyone one to want to be a good person and choice it for themselves, instead of being told what to do. This theory also emphasizes that the right action is always a midpoint for extremes; meaning that there is no “all or nothing” in this theory. Virtue is a skill and that can only be learned through the experience of life, not in books or classes.
Contractarianism
The theory that I identify with the most is Contractarianism; We never discussed this in class but when looking deeper in the theories we talked about I couldn't find one that I felt I fit in with. Thomas Hobbs (the person who came up with this theory) asked “What if we lived in a world with no laws or rules?” this time is also called “the state of nature”. Basically, it is a time period when they're in total freedom but no security; is gross and dangerous. Contractarianism is the idea that people have to give up some rights to freedom in order to receive or preserve social order. I agree with Hobbs when he says when you put free, rational and self-interested people together, that there is more beneficial in cooperating than in not cooperating, morality will just happen. Unlike Kant theories and Utilitarianism there are no morals until we make it. Its something that's must all be agreed upon and once it is agreed they become real and binding (its followed by everyone) It’s one of the only theories that are permissive that means that morals can change (this can be seen in things like Laws and social taboos). Right acts are those that do not violate the free, rational agreement that has been made; these are to make our lives better and in return, we trade in some freedom for the benefits we will get. For example, citizens of the United States follow the laws so that they receive the benefits of the state (safety, health care, clean water) and if they break the contract of the law they suffer the consequences. Hobbs also says “rights imply obligations, so when you take from the common pot, by enjoying the goods that the system provides, you’re also expected to pay in.” this means that in order to get the benefits you must also follow the rules. Contractarianism also rules out things like slavery because you must be a free individual in order to make a contact, and both parties must be better off in the contract than they would be on their own. I also strongly agree with this theory because if you take on an obligation you have a responsibility to keep it, given that we choose what responsible that we want to take on. To me personally, I take my word very seriously in the sense that if I say I'll do something ill keep my word and I think that's an important characteristic for anyone.
Overall, I try and hold myself to a high standard in how I treat myself and others. It’s important to be flexible in you're thinking and always trust yourself. A lot of the ethical systems we adopt are from the way we are raised and you can always change your outlook. Also, we should remember that different situations call for a different type of ethics (business, school, home life, etc.) how you handle situations can vary. How someone may act at home can be completely different when dealing with the business related thing or social lives; and in some cases, some people can be doing things that make them question their morals but can still be good people.
References
Ethic. (2012, August 12). Retrieved November 02, 2018, from https:// www.dictionary.com/browse/ethic
Mill, J. S. (1985). Utilitarianism. Chicago, IL: The Great Books Foundation.