June 15, 2008

• Ethical Considerations

  Warning:
  I don’t know what this post is about.  It might be more about semantics and philosophy than it is about ethics.  I don’t think it is about morality, but it is hard to discuss ethics without straying over into morals. 

  After learning that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals don’t think it is ethical for us to hitch our huskies to sleds and race them, but consider themselves ethical when they kill dogs and cats in the shelters they run, and that although they think it is ethical to kill animals, they don’t think it’s ethical to eat them, personally having come from a culture that considers it unethical to kill something unless one intends to eat it, and living in a state where it is illegal to kill a game animal and waste its meat, I felt a need to learn more about ethics. 

  In the Google search box, I entered “define:ethics”.  Google gave me a lot to choose from. 

  This one from a history professor more or less works for me, in a general sense:

  Ethics: the branch of philosophy concerned with evaluating human
  action.  Some distinguish ethics, what is right or wrong based on
  reason, from morals, what is considered right or wrong behavior based
  on social custom.

  David Koeller, thenagain.info

  The next one is pitched toward translators and interpreters, and also works, generally:

  The study of human values and moral conduct. See also Normative Ethics and Metaethics.
  Normative Ethics: a study into ultimate values and how people should live their lives.
  Metaethics: A study of ethical systems to determine whether they are based on objective foundations.

  translationdirectory.com

  The most extensive and exhaustive definition came from a fertility clinic in Australia, and in the context of a dictionary of medical terminology, it takes on a defensive tone:

  A set of principles and values that
  govern behavior to accord with a notion of morality. See especially
  deontological ethics, teleological ethics and utilitarian ethics, and
  also see autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and suffering.  [If you need definitions for those last 5 terms, you may look them up yourself.  I copied only those directly related to ethics.]
  deontological
  ethics  A set of ethical beliefs, in which
  principles and values are seen by adherents to be self-evident and not in
  need of more basic proof.  The ethical principles are duty-binding, innately
  known, and by nature resistant to change.
  teleological ethics A set of ethical beliefs based on the
  goodness or badness of consequences, whether actual, intended or predicted.
  For purposes here, restricted to consequences to individuals, in contrast
  to utilitarian ethics. Open to change according to empirical
  observation of outcomes (hence “evidence based ethics”).
  utilitarian ethics A set of ethical beliefs based on maximizing
  good for the greatest number of people. For modern purposes, similar to teleological
  ethics (i.e. consequential considerations) but with a community-wide reference
  instead of a context of individual priority. Nowadays concerned with the equitable
  and consistent distribution of restricted public resources. Open to change
  according to the systematic assessment of outcomes (and hence “evidence
  based”).

  jansen.com.au

  Okay.  Are you confused yet?  Just wait.

  With regard to professions, a code of professional standards,
  containing aspects of fairness and duty to the profession and the
  general public.

  titleguarantynm.com

  Professional ethics are viewed as separate from personal ethics, and note how “the profession” comes before “the general public.”  I was naive about this until about twenty years ago, when I was listed in the National New Age Yellow Pages.  That directory was placed in numerous public and institutional libraries, and in metaphysical bookstores all over the country.  As a result, I was invited to join a professional organization of psychics.

  I felt honored by the invitation.  I was ready to submit my application and pay my dues, until I read the Code of Ethics.  It prohibited criticizing other members or their work.  That conflicted with my personal ethics, and the personal ethics won.

  Many of my colleagues follow the Wiccan Rede:

  “And it harm none [sic], do what you will,” is the
  central ethical code of contemporary Paganism. Related to this is the
  Law of Return, the concept that whatever you do comes back to you.
  Pagans seek to live in harmony not only with other humans but with
  Nature as a whole.

  Selena Fox,  circlesanctuary.org

  I wouldn’t have quoted Selena if that hadn’t been there in the Google definitions.  She screwed up that rendering of the Rede any way you look at it.  “An it harm none, do what thou wilt,” is how I have always heard it.  “An” is an obsolete way of saying “if” or “in so far as,” and, disregarding the spelling issue, if she wanted to use the obsolete term at the start, it would have been correct to give the latter clause an obsolete rendering as well.  *sigh* 

  Life is not easy for a Wiccan.  In addition to being mistaken for Satanists by religionists who believe in Satan, and taken for head-in-the-sand reactionaries by those who think all religion is stupid, their Rede doesn’t help them when they face a decision where either way they go, somebody will get hurt.

  According to the Church of Scientology, “Ethics may be defined as the
  actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival
  across the dynamics. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical, it is
  something he does himself by his own choice.”

  wikipedia

  Regardless of what I think of Scientology itself, I can’t disagree with that definition of ethics.  Society and social institutions may penalize one for violating their rules, and a professional establishment may censure someone who doesn’t conform to the ethics of the majority, but from day to day, in the decision making process, it is one’s own code, one’s “moral compass” if you will, that determines behavior.

  The next definition of “ethics” comes from an anti-abortion group:

  the consideration of the rightness or wrongness of human actions in reference to an objectively good end or goal.

  all.org

  The person who formulated that definition apparently lives in a reality bubble where everyone else shares her opinions and perspectives.  “Good” is a subjective concept, always dependent on the observer’s interests.  I challenge anyone to come up with an “objectively good” idea that will not seem like a bad idea to someone.

  Rightness versus wrongness, ends versus means… obviously, I’m not done with this subject yet.

  Hasta luego, mis amigos.

  

  • 8:47 pm
  • 5 Comments