Ethics and Morality Essay

Im questioning Saved Recents Uploads My Answers Account Products Home Essays Drive Answers Texty About corporation Legal Site Map Contact Us Advertise 2016 honorables and Morality morality, Morality, Philosophy Mar 7, 2008 3604Words 791Views PAGE 1 OF 9 gazump The paper delves into the topic of interpreters and righteousity. It would try to get word the apprehension of righteous philosophy and morality and the difference between the two concepts. In the paper I would analyse what motivates human deportment and choices and why those choices unlesst joint never everlastingly be moral and estimable.I exit analyse some honorable and moral theories that provide guidelines for h atomic number 53st human behaviour and critic tout ensembley task them with the aid of real feeling examples, to determine whether it is possible to agree universally applicable rules that help macrocosm to finalise if a finality requires respectable/moral considerations or non. The p aper would aim to prove that it is the evolve ons of man which whitethorn be at times materialistic and at separate times spiritual, that govern their course of action.As no two humans bugger off exchangeable withdraws and similar means to fulfil their needs, to straightjacket finiss into moral/ good and sharp-witted is virtually impossible. Introduction The temptation to facility aside ethical standards is al meanss present, because the gains argon so large for the single(a) who decides to work out of doors the rules. From The High Price of Low moral philosophy How putrescence Imperils Ameri suffer Entrepreneurship and Democracy Carl J. Schramm, PhD, JD President and CEO, The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation There is no interrogative that to succeed in aliveness today, one has to be shrewd, aggressive and practical.We beguile all around us that the struggle for existence forces humans to hobby issues of reformly and wrong and makes them focus only on achievin g the ends with little or no consideration to the means employed. Does this mean that humans have start out inherently immoral and unethical? No. Humans basis non be contrivance to morality and ethics. According to Aristotle, humans argon well-disposed animals. For them to be perfectly happy, they have to be a part of a decree that is also happy (Yrjonsuuri 2004). This means that humans, who be biologically selfish, need to consider the interests of the club and be awargon of the morality of their choices.But do we understand what ethics and morals argon? Ethics are non the said(prenominal) as feelingings as some the great unwashed feel near even when they do something criminal (Markkula summation for applied ethics n. d. ). Ethics are not religion, as m both(prenominal) citizenry are not religious, but ethics apply to all (Markkula rivet for applied ethics n. d. ). Ethics are also not law as law piece of tail take ethically corrupt as some totalitarian regimes have make it (Markkula Center for applied ethics n. d. ). Ethics are not roughly following culturally accepted norms as cultures can sometimes incur corrupt, and neither is ethics science (Marrakula Center for applied ethics n.d. ). consequently what exactly are ethics and morals? How do we know that we are be faced with an ethical and moral choice rather than an middling one? Telling the truth is considered morally right, but if our truth hurts soulfulness should we tell the truth? Can humans be ethical and moral at all times? How many of us know pack who would have been influenced by their morals to hide Jews from the Nazis at the expense of their lives? Would the people who preferred to save their own lives be considered immoral?Such questions that fright the right behaviour for humans have been a subject of contend for centuries because it is believed that thither is no right resolving for much(prenominal) questions. What whitethorn feel right to one mortal or funda mental law may be considered immoral in another rules of order. This paper would try to analyse the concept of morality and ethics, and their importance in the life of human beings, with an objective to understand whether it is possible to develop universal rules in closing qualification that can make it easier for humans to take finishs that are pleasing to the society and their conscious. news The word Ethics comes from the classic word ethos which means moral font or usance. The word Morality comes from the Latin word moralis which means custom or manner (Perle n. d. ). ?Both the lecture deal with the customs or the manner in which people do things. Their modern meanings relate to the way people act either cracking or bad, or right or wrong (Perle n. d. ). So, if people oftentimes use the two words as if they have the same meaning, it should be no surprise. ?While we may often use the two terms interchangeably, morals are more often than not understood to be the princ iples of right and wrong,whereas ethics involve an entire outline of moral issues and focuses on right and wrong behaviour (Eastwood et al. 2006). Morality is an individuals perception of right and wrong which may be in disagreement with another individuals perception. Nevertheless, every individuals morality influences the set of the society. Ethics is the product of those collective moral apprizes of all the individuals in the society (The oracle education foundation n. d). ?The trait between ethics and morality can be demonstrated by using the analogy of a parley.If one imagines that ethics is a conversation that has arisen to answer the question, What should a person do? , then moralities are the voices in that conversation (St. James Ethics centre n. d. ). Morality and ethics slop about right and wrong behaviour. But what should be the standard of deciding what is right and what is wrong? Kant proposed a test for personal duty and ripe willing which eliminates self inte rest and helps decide whether an action is ethically correct (Eastwood et al. 2006).The test requires an individual to ask himself whether he would be willing to have everyone in the world under similar circumstances behave in exactly the same manner (Eastwood et al. 2006). This is the Categorical Imperative, which states that an act can be judged right or wrong only if everyone in the world will act in the same way or come to the same ratiocination under similar circumstances (Eastwood et al. 2006). But decision do is rarely an easy help. In our lives, we face situations where we have to take decisions to strike some desired objective(s) with minimum negative consequences.Decision making leads even more complicated when our needs are in conflict with each(prenominal) other. Humans have broadly two categories of needs which guide their decisions, that is to say deficiency needs associated with physiological needs, which are determined by life processes, like survival, reprod uction, nourishment etc, and growth needs associated with psychological needs which are outside the life processes and differentiate humans from other creatures, like creativity, spontaneity, self actualization etc.(Maslow, 1943). Schlozberg in his essay analysed that according to Arendt, our needs of life and the life process are fulfilled through ordinary decision making which is noetic in nature. As the number of the ordinary decisions that need to be do in our daily lives are so large, our see often takes them in a routine and habitual manner, through the help of customs and habits (cited in Schlozberg n. d. ).The way individuals will greet each other, their behaviour towards their seniors etc are examples of some of the decisions which are taken without a thought to any determine that we may cherish. But, ordinary decision making while being useful in daily life, is ill fitted for moral and ethical decision making (cited in Schlozberg n. d. ). Our other set of needs that s tem from outside the life processes, require us to often take heed of moral and ethical issues and negate the presence of intellectuality. let us take the example of Siebel Edmonds, who worked as a FBI translator.?Edmonds was fired from her position as a style specialist at the FBIs working capital Field Office in show, 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illegitimate activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of news program which, she contended, presented a danger to the United States security (Wikipedia 2005). If we try to analyze her act, it can be said that her decision to report the misconduct to higher government activity at the expense of her job was not rational rather a decision governed by her moral values.If Edmonds had placed her survival before all other needs, she would have do an ordinary rational decision, rather than an impressive moral decision which she lastly made. However, if we analyse Edmonds moral decision from the point of view of deontology, we may argue that her decision may have been rational From a deontological point of view, something is moral/ethical not because of its consequences, but is moral/ethical because the motive or intent is good with no ulterior motive attached (Russo n. d. ).So, to actually bracket Siebel Edmonds decision as a moral decision and not a rational decision, it is primal to know whether her intention was to exemplify herself as a model employee and be promoted, or was she actually concerned about US security? professedly moral/ethical choices cannot be rational choices. It is only an individual who can decide whether his/her need falls under the realm of life process or arises out of extra- inborn conditions. Understanding of this aspect will help him/her take an ordinary decision bordering on rationality or a value laden decision based on morality and ethics.Human beings and organizations are forever bei ng presented with opportunities in life where they have to take such decisions. We all know that the primary objective of a argumentation organization is to increase the market value of the company. The board of directors and then are often know to resort to any means to achieve the objective which is rational for the organizations growth. Economics and morality/ethics do not mix, and we end up seeing instances of insider trading, industrial espionage etc. in the business world. But on the other hand, the organizations also have a need to be respected in the society so that people bank them.When an organization takes a decision keeping their social responsibilities in mind, they may take decisions which are ethical and moral in the true sense. Let us take the example of the cosmetic company, The tree trunk keep going. ? form Shop was regarded as amongst the first firms in the world to publish a proper report on its social responsibility initiatives. In improver to social acti vism, internal audit programs were conducted at frame Shop for environmental protection, health and safety at work, and the monitoring of Against Animal Testing form _or_ system of government ? (ICFAI Center for Management Research 2006).All this indicates that the objective of Body Shop was to develop an organization in sync with certain moral and ethical values. However recently, Body Shop was acquired by LOreal and faced grueling criticism for the same. Some analysts believed that ? LOreal did not share the principles of Body Shop, and that this skill had removed the biggest supporter of ethically sourced beauty care products from the market (ICFAI Center for Management Research 2006). Analyst also believed that Ms Roddick, the owner of Body Shop, ? sold out to the very organization she fought against (ICFAI Center for Management Research 2006).Why did Body Shop allow itself to be acquired by LOreal? It may be argued that the decision of selling Body Shop to LOreal was probab ly a rational business decision, taken presumably because Body Shop was operating at a loss and the money that Ms. Roddick was offered by LOreal was too tempting to resist. Clearly, whatever may be the apprehension behind the decision, morality/ethics does not seem to be one of them Thus it can be said that humans or at a macro level organizations, take decisions governed by their needs and the desired outcomes.As the example of Body Shop illustrates, sometimes decisions are rational and sometimes ethical/moral. Thus, to expect that all decisions made by an individual or an organization will at all times be moral and ethical is unrealistic. So what kinds of decisions should everlastingly be ethical? And when should we decide to take decisions based on our morality? morals come into nobble when an individual decides to make a personal choice, whereas ethics come into round when an individual decides to make a choice as a vocalisation of a social group (organization, doctors, la wyers etc. ).Nevertheless, both ethics and morals help individuals to decide between the right and wrong, and thus have similar benchmarks for deciding the kind of decisions that should be moral/ethical. According to the Utilitarian theory, any decision that has the potential of harming the maximum number of people while benefiting sound a few, should be decided ethically so that maximum good and least harm is done (Andre et al. 1996). Other philosophers who follow the Rights Approach arouse that if our actions tend to violate the rights of humans, then the decision should be made on ethical grounds so that rights of humans are protected (Andre et al.1996). The Greek Philosophers believed in a common good approach, which suggested that certain conditions in the society are shared amongst all humans, so all are decisions that are important for the welfare of everyone should be based on ethical think (Andre et al. 1996). A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions oug ht to be consistent with certain ideal equitys that provide for the full development of our humanity. The impartiality ethics asks of any action, What kind of person will I become if I do this? or Is this action consistent with my acting at my best? (Markkula Center for use Ethics n. d). In essence virtue approach suggests that all the decisions that we take in our life are mandatory to be based on ethics and morality. These different approaches give us a broad outline of the type of decisions that should be considered ethical or moral. However in the real world there will always be an uncertainty on whether a decision should be made on ethical/moral grounds or not. If a decision benefits maximum people and harms only the organization, will the company take the ethical decision?Not necessarily. It did not stop Nestle from sourcing its cocoa from the osseous tissue Coast where bonded labours and children were used in the plantations (Harkins et al. 2005). If we follow the rights approach, then we may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics n. d). And then there is the question of who decides what constitutes common good? Also not all the approaches answer the question, what is ethical/moral? in the same way (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics n. d).Nevertheless, the above theories do give us an idea of the kind of decisions that should ideally be made on ethical and moral grounds. If we believe that a decision could be damaging to the community, violates the rights of others, or makes us feel guilty, it is a decision that ideally requires ethical/moral considerations. But eventually, in the real world it is the needs of the humans and organizations that would determine their choice. Conclusion ?There are no rude(a) morals or ethics (Saxena 2003). Humans are animals who have natural survival instincts and are programmed for the sole aim of survival and proliferation (Saxena 2003).But as Aristotle said, hu mans are not like other animals, they are social animals, who belong to a social setup where the principles of survival of the fittest do not always operate (Saxena 2003). Humans need to curb their survival instincts to avow the society and the social structures (Saxena 2003). These restrictions take the form of moral and ethics (Saxena 2003). Morals and ethics are thus the social survival instincts visible in human beings, which guide him/her to live a righteous socially acceptable life (Saxena 2003).Unfortunately, the survival instincts of humans often conflict with their ethics and morality, making it difficult for them to always follow the righteous path. Humans are thus forever performing a balancing act to survive with a clear conscience. For instance, most of the tobacco companies while promoting smoking are known to make huge donations to various philanthropic causes, presumably to appease their moral and ethical values while simultaneously pursuing their business interests (Campaign for tobacco-free kids 2006).As long as individuals have worldly needs and desires, they cannot be realistically expected to be moral and ethical at all times. Although there are various moral and ethical theories which suggest the right path, it is eventually an individuals needs and desired outcomes that guide the path that he chooses. No two situations are similar in this world, and only the people who have to take the decision understand their environment, their needs and the approach (ethical/moral, or rational) that will best suit them.So although the philosophers of the world can guide moral and ethical behaviour, it is an individual himself who can realistically set them and decide what kinds of decisions should always be ethical/moral for him. Fortunately not all decisions require humans to be moral and ethical. Most of our decisions are based on customs and habits that are accepted in our society and thus do not require us to consider moral and ethical repercuss ions. What to eat? How to dress? How to behave with elders, are some examples of such decisions which we take mechanically on a regular basis. Alas, only one decision, What is the right thing to do? leaves us humans struggling for an answer References Andre, C. , DeCosse, D. , Hanson, O. K. , McLean, M. R. , Meyer, M. J. , Moberg, D. , Shanks, T. , Velasquez, M. 1988, ? A Framework for thinking ethically, Product of dialogue and palisade at the Markkula center for applied ethics at Santa Clara University, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, California, viewed 28 March 2007, http//www. scu. edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework. hypertext mark-up language Andre, C. , Meyer, M. J. , Shanks, T. , Velasquez, M. 1996, Thinking ethically A Framework for moral decision making, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, California, viewed 28 March 2007, http//www.scu. edu/ethics/ state-supportedations/iie/v7n1/thinking. html Behind the smokescreen. 2006, Behind the Smokescreen, Campaign for T obacco-free kids, Washington D. C, viewed 7 April 2007, http//tobaccofreekids. org/reports/smokescreen/philanthropy. shtml Damon, T. 2000, Defining Ethics and Morality, American Sign style Interpreting Resources, USA, viewed 10 March 2007, http//asl_interpreting. tripod. com/ethics/dt1. htm Eastwood, K. , Lamsa, A. ,M. & Sakkinen, A. 2006, About Ethics and values in Business Education-A cross cultural perspective, Business and Organization Ethics Network, viewed 14 March 2007, http//ejbo.jyu. fi/index. cgi? page=articles/0301_2 Garee, M. , L. & Schori, T. , R. n. d. , Ethics and Morality in Business, The public reader, viewed 4 April 2007,http//www. fortunecity. com/marina/anchor/1976/id91. htm Harkins, T. & Engel, E. L. 2005, Taking Child slavery out of Valentines day, International Center on Child Labor and Education, Washington DC, viewed 7 April 2007, http//www. iccle. org/newsletter_children/0502/i Jones, J. n. d. , On the distinction between Ethics and Morality, Raritan Valle y corporation College, New Jersey, viewed 10 March 2007, http//rvcc2. raritanval. edu/scieng/eandm. html Josephson, M.2002, Making Ethical Decisions, Josephson land of Ethics, California, viewed 7 April 2007, http//www. josephsoninstitute. org/MED/MED-intro+toc. htm Lichtman, J. 2004, What do you stand for? , Scribblers Ink, Canada Maslows pecking order of Needs. 2007, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, Wikipedia, USA, viewed 4 April 2007, http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs OConnor, T. 2007, Theories of Moral and Ethical Behaviour, Megalinks in Criminal Justice, viewed 7 April 2007,http//www. apsu. edu/oconnort/3300/3300lect01a. htm Perle, S. n. d. , Morality and Ethics An introduction, Chiroweb.com, USA, viewed 10 March 2007, http//www. chiroweb. com/archives/22/06/16. html Russo,M. S. n. d. , Deontology and its discontents A brief overview of Kants ethics, Molloy College, New York, viewed 7 April 2007, http//www. molloy. edu/sophia/kant/deontology. htm Saxena, R . , K. 2003, Biology, Morals and Dharma, Geeta-Kavita. com, viewed 7 April 2007, http//www. geeta-kavita. com/article. asp? article=biology_morals_dharma Shlozberg, R. n. d. , The trouble with moral decision making when rational choice judgement meets Hannah Arendt, Canadian Political Science Association, Canada, viewed 26 March 2007,www.cpsa-acsp. ca/papers-2006/Shlozberg. pdf Siebel Edmonds. 2005, Siebel Edmonds, Wikipedia, USA, viewed 7 April, http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds Swinton, L. n. d. , Ethical Decision Making How to make ethical decisions in 5 steps, viewed 28 March 2007, http//www. mftrou. com/ethical-decision-making. html The Body Shop- affable Responsibility or free burning greenwashing. 2006, The Body Shop-Social Responsibility or sustained greenwashing, ICFAI Center for Management Research, India, viewed 12 March 2007, http//www. icmr. icfai. org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20Ethics/BECG067.htm The seer Education Foundation, California, viewed 10 M arch 2007, http//library. thinkquest. org/12160/defin. htm What is ethics?. n. d. , What is Ethics? , St. James Ethics centre, Australia, viewed 28 March 2007, http//www. ethics. org. au/about-ethics/what-is-ethics/ethical-decision-making. html Value based decision making. 2003, Value based decision making, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Missouri USA, viewed 7 April 2007, http//www. kauffman. org/signatureseries/VBDM. cfm Yrjonsuuri, M. 2004, Morality and Selfishness, viewed 7 April 2007,