I took an Ethics class in college and we had to wite a one page paper that defined what ethics were. I defined ethics in my opening sentence as “the regulation of inclinations through the interpretation of morality.” The professor wrote “EXCELLENT” next to my definition. I’ve been thinking though, what does that definition really mean? Is that a neutral definition? Does it really take an ethical stand? I went on to write in the paper that to be ethical, one has to make a reasonable assessment of their inclinations and their moral environment and act accordingly. He gave me a good grade on the paper, but I’m not really sure what I was trying to say with it.
That is the second most confusing definition of ethics i’ve ever read. First prize goes to Kierkegaard who states in Either/Or that ethics is “when the being in and for itself posits the being in and for itself”.
I usually think of morality as having to do with ends, and ethics with means – though i probably didn’t get that idea from a very discerning source. At any rate, if morality comes first, as an end, then ethics might be thoughts on morality, not the heart, but the mind. And this touches on the inclinations of behaviour (we hope). Does this help you understand yourself any better, FSD?
I like what confucius said: “What you do not wish upon yourself, should not be extended to others” Golden Rule.
Some people can wish some awful things upon themselves, though.
elaborate, my real name.
Ethics to me means making choices while taking into account the effects of your actions on others. Ethics only attains meaning through others. It has frequently been said here that a man on a desert island would not have any need of ethics.
I agree that Ethics studies how best to behave/think in relation to others, but I include one’s many selves in the group of others. How can one contradict, be proud of, be self-destructive of, argue with or change one’s self, if one’s self is not also an other (or others) in a way?
FoulSmellingDebris,
Your definition is really excellent when you say, “I defined ethics in my opening sentence as “the regulation of inclinations through the interpretation of morality.””
However, interpretations of morality can vary because of which one might view my action as moral, ethical and just whereas another could perceive the same action as immoral, unethical and unjust.
For example: Let’s say this rich guy has enough paper money to flush down the toilet and on the other hand there is this poor guy starving on the roadside. Sure, it’s his responsibility to look after himself and not mine, but if I steal money from this rich guy and feed this poor then in my eyes it would not be a wrong thing to do although I have to admit that I can’t say that it’s the right thing to do either. But my choice would be that I would steal from the rich to give to this poor because he is helpless and needs immediate attention. Now legally this is totally illegal no doubt, but ethically some can say it’s justified and some can say it’s not.
Therefore, Marshall McDaniel is right above when he says that, “Ethics to me means making choices…”
In any situation, I would decide what would be the responsible thing to do. I would not go by some norm that, ‘you should not steal,’ or ‘this is not right,’ or ‘that is wrong.’ No! I would take the side of the helpless I guess but only to a certain extent and no more. If someone says that was unethical of me, I wouldn’t care! I would not care because for the example I considered, my decision in it would be THE ETHICAL thing to do in my eyes, even though it would not be legally right. For doing the legally right thing I would not sacrifice some life when I could save it with no real harm to another, otherwise what the hell would legality mean and for who would it be there and why?