For the young woman who has been raped, or is a victim of incest, or has health reasons not to bear a child, abortion does seem very much a solution.
[b]To return, however to the theme of this thread, which proposes a new slant rather than the old conventional way of looking at ethics.
From the point of view of the new slant for ethics, ethical conduct entails the objective to add some value to the situations in which one finds himself or herself. To live smoothly within the various groups (with which we find ourselves involved) we behave civilly and show courtesy and manners. This is one of the ways we add value to soial interactions. Even better is to create more value.
Some writers here have argued that that is all there is to ethics – that all ethics is Social Ethics. To their mind, moral philosophy is onnly a group matter. They insist that how we express respect in the groups to which we belong –- the degree of closeness we have to our families and our other social circles –- is the only proper study for ethics. This defines the field of Social Ethics. It emphasizes the human capacity to put oneself ‘in another individual’s shoes’; to practice some version of the “Golden Rule.”
Yet there is another legitimate branch to this field of study. An individual’s decision whether to take recreational drugs, or to mutilate himself with a permanent tatoo, or to be a grumpy cynic, or to be a cheater and conniver; or – in contrast – whether to eat so as to stay healthy - are ethical concerns as well. This is the field of Individual Ethics.
It involves questions we may ask ourselves, such as: Shall I make self-improvement a goal? Shall I aim for (moral) goodness? Do I want to take on responsibility? Do I care if others endure needless suffering? And if so , can I, or will I, intervene in some way to help relieve that suffering? In other words:" Do I aspire to add value? !" {Also, the Golden Rule can be framed as: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Unfortunate ly these days so many folks do not love themselves. They are suicidal.}
This area of ethics – Individual Ethics – logically takes priority over Social Ethics because if one is a sadist, a psychopath with some violent tendencies, or if a person takes glee in cruelty, this will definitely affect how a person will behave in a group.
In the layman’s mind, ethics has to do with conduct in one’s profession or associations, and – many believe mistakenly – ethical standards are restrictive of a person’s natural tendencies. They claim it is human nature to cheat, steal, cut corners, bait-and-switch in one’s business dealings, and get away with as little output for as much return as he can. Some believe it is human nature to be manipulative, because they see it all around them every day.
[That, however, is a narrow perspective: rural villagers in Africa, say, or in China, are communal-minded and live in a kind of loving, sharing harmony. Once they migrate to a city they often acquire greed and insecurity.] Ethical standards are not restrictive; they are liberating.
And human nature is not necessarily manipulative. I propose that adding value be the one norm, or operating principle that we need to have to incentivize us to be innovative, and to motivate us in the ethical direction.{It already is an imperative in business among the enlightened.]
When applied to a subset of Ethics kno wn as Business Ethics this concept implies that an owner, a proprietor, a CEO, would give equal attention to profits, to cus-tomers, to employees and staff, to the community where it does business, and to the environment. Consideration to “the bottom line”, to profits, enables the firm to stay in business; consideration to the other factors enables it to be fully ethical.
And yes, I know there are differences between business and the moral life of individuals: I am not conflating the two.}[/b]
