[PHI 2010]My Ethical System

Discerning what the ethical thing to do is based on our intuitions, consequences, and sometimes our emotions. As Hume states, choosing what is moral is purely due to emotions because reason does not motivate us into wanting the more rational choice. However, Kant advocates this by stating that our ethics is purely driven by reason alone and that it is universal, that it applies to everyone. I believe that our ethics should be based on what outweighs the other for the welfare of humanity, choosing reason over emotion. In defining what good choices are, these are the things that do not bring harm, these are beneficial, and these must be seen as neutral and favorable towards all other options available. These beneficial choices are the ones that can be good examples to society which can lead to self-growth. Forgiveness must be seen as the most favorable choice due to the imperfectness of humankind. This may mean repeated offenses may take place though it doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for such actions. These consequences must lead towards self-maturity that will lead someone to avoid that choice in the future. Justice through death is never a valid reason of choice, because it does not lead to self-maturity, rather it leads to condemnation. Consequences must never be mere conditioning. If we depend on conditioning to correct people, we are just giving an aversive stimulus to make someone illicit a response we want. This is not self-maturity where the person can choose for himself what is right or wrong, rather than just performing rehearsed responses which involve no cognition. This eliminates punishments through electric shocks or torture. If change does not occur and the person does not learn at all, the last resort would be life imprisonment where parole is present, if real change is seen. We must be able to discern real change by giving scenarios to the person where he is led to choose for himself what is right and wrong. If we are faced with two bad decisions, making this choice, which I shall define as a “sacrifice”; must be treated as a last resort, in the time of desperation but it must also be not for the wrong intentions. These choices must be made due to the problem of scarcity of our resources. A sacrifice’s benefit must also be exponential that it outweighs its disadvantages. Harm can only be justifiable if learning from the mistake is present and that it does not condemn the person from knowing his or her faults. A bad choice must always lead to a greater good, not for individual purposes but for the greater benefit of the masses. Reducing the United States’ defense budget might mean lesser jobs in the military but this choice decreases the lives harmed in war. Although this is somewhat sacrificial, reducing the budget will mean that generations to come will be saved though it gives the disadvantage of having a less defended nation. However, this nation will then be incompatible for the world that has this ethical system. War is not an ethical choice; it brings harm though it benefits the people starting the war, it is not favored by the bulk of humanity. This ethical system centered in self-preservation but in a more monumental scale, due to the fact that it is preserving a greater audience, teaching them what is acceptable, not just for individual gain. The fact that the goodness for majority’s sake is supreme in this ethical system does not mean that whatever the majority chooses is right and must be done. This means that one’s choices must be the most beneficial for humankind though it is not seen indirectly. One example of this is purchasing an eco-friendly coolant alternative for refrigerators, rather than buying Freon, which is commonly used by the masses; that will contribute to global warming. This does not show the will of the people because this and common good are two different things. People tend to have fleeting passions based on their emotions that drive them to choose wrong, harmful things. Although emotions will interfere with how we want to handle the situation, I believe that this must not be the main source for our choices. Choosing emotions over reason will mean that we are not creating a justifiable path in executing an action that may most likely not lead me to the truth.

We must also acknowledge that this does not give us freedom to do whatever we want as long as we want just like stealing for the benefit of creating a fund for scientists that can find the cures of cancer. Though it is beneficial for society, it does not fit the definition of a sacrifice. It may bring harm to others for a better good; however, creating this fund by stealing is not favored more than asking for donations. My going to college to earn a degree rather than giving my money to charity is an ethical decision because I believe that with a degree, I can create a drug that will be able to save millions of lives. This is ethical because it is for a greater good and it doesn’t bring harm. If the company cannot get donations, it must not resolve to a negative approach, rather a neutral one that does not harm. This might mean finding insight in creating new methods in research, brainstorming for new cost-free ways that will be able to contribute for this study. If presented the worse case, it must be based upon prioritization, which is where a sacrifice takes place. Someone might give up his or her life savings to support this fund, or any other neutral choice that is always available which may also involve, withholding the project for the future where resources may be able to support this new research fund. Stealing is an unnecessary choice because the project can be delayed or stopped. Dropping or delaying the research must be done because it is more beneficial that it teaches integrity and respect for others’ property, which serves as a model which is the goal of this moral system. This is different from my going to college due to the fact that my choice for college is a neutral choice and it will surely create an exponential benefit than my donation for charity will that fits the characteristics of a sacrifice. Now, supposedly a child murders his rapist father because of the abuse he has given him and states that he is morally justified because he murders him for the greater good of mankind. This is wrong because this sacrifice was done for the incorrect reason which is for individual gain and also, it is not favored by towards all the options available to him. He could have just stayed with a family friend or contacted the police to report the abuse; these are ethically right choices because they do not bring harm. If all other choices are not available, that he cannot contact the police or anyone else, he must do a sacrifice, in which he inflicts harm, such as stepping on his father’s foot. Though gives him pain, it gives the benefit of the exponential gain of escaping to report this to the police. Even if the child has siblings, and the child murders his father for his siblings’ sake as well as his, putting the father to death is not a valid choice because this does not lead to the father realizing his mistake of abusing his children; it rather condemns him from learning. A minor injury does not harm at all; condemn the father due to the fact that his judgment is unaffected. Killing the father is clearly not an option because the child must have even just a mere advantage to be able to kill his father and with that advantage, he should be at least capable of injuring him. If he cannot fight back, he has no choice to be neutral about the situation because he cannot do anything else, killing or injuring wouldn’t be an option. Let us now suppose that the government kills a rapist on death row. This is not done for personal gain and it is favorable to society. This is still not an ethical choice because though the rapist has done several offenses to numerous people, forgiveness in his case is still an open choice. This consequence may mean imprisonment but it must involve rehabilitation and therapy about his actions. This will then lead him to understand how his choices are wrong, because he brings harm to people for individual gain. In a more concrete example, if someone murders my father, several people will say that I am morally justified for wishing death upon that murderer. Though it is hard to accept the fact that the person that killed my father has a lesser consequence, I or any human being is in no position to put this person to death because it does not lead to his self-learning and justice must only be done by God alone, who is superior than any other human being in all aspects of life.

In another situation, I am being hunted down by a serial killer and I accidentally kill him. Through death from self defense, I am still not morally justified by my actions. It was done by mere coincidence but by bringing harm to an individual, I still must face the consequences of murder and I must face this with no regrets which will lead to my self-maturity in taking responsibility. Divorce is not morally justified in my ethical system because this is means sacrifice, should be reserved for the time of desperation. Usually people divorce due to disagreements between issues or preferences but they are not morally justified to separate due to the fact that there are other alternatives for it. The couple could compromise, go to therapy or even cooperate to make the marriage work. These are neutral choices that do not cause harm to the couple and all other people involved in the marriage such as children and in-laws.

In conclusion, my ethical system shows that we must strive for the greater good, which leads us to make choices that can serve as a model of self-maturation for the world, although it means discipline of not wanting the wrong, harmful things. Forgiveness is the most favorable choice we can use but consequences for wrong actions must still be present. We must give consequences that lead to individual maturity and never condemnation. When we are faced with two wrong decisions, we must choose the one that will give abundant benefit that will make us better and more dignified individuals. Even though it may mean that indulgence due to desire is usually not present, it benefits everyone more than it benefits ourselves.