Why is it that the only time we get
handed jelly beans, or told to fill in interesting forms, are the times when
I’m not at the lecture?
That is the real question for the
ages.
Anyway, in last weeks lecture (which I
missed as I went to the CBA Student Media Conference, which was amazing, and I
may post about it later) we were told about ethics. Specifically:
How do we know what’s right and wrong?
How do we know what’s good and bad?
When figuring out these questions,
there are three paradigms we employ.
Every ethical value or paradigm on the
planet can be put under one of these categories, says the man who created those
categories (Although I think Ayn Rand would have something to say about that).
1.
Deontology
- All ethical codes are deontological
- Focuses on
·
Rules
·
Principles
·
Duties
- This is more about living by a code of rules given to (or imposed upon) us
- Basically, you do the right thing by following the rules
·
These rules include laws, social norms,
religious and historical guidelines (eg, 10 commandments, epic of Gilgamesh, analects
of Confucius)
- Ethics is really the choice between the absolute right and the absolute wrong
- Ethical choices are invariably a choice between the lesser of two evils
On an unrelated note I’m embarrassed
by how little you guys know about historical stuff. You guys didn’t know what
the Constitution contained, or the
Hippocratic Oath? Jeez.
2. Teleology (Consequentialism)
- It’s getting a ‘good’ or ‘right’ outcome that matters, it doesn’t matter what you do to get it
- Catchy phrases for teleology include
·
the end justifies the means
·
the greatest good for the greatest number
o
This is described as the ‘tyranny of
majoritarianism’: what is ‘right’ is what most people think is ‘right’.
Obviously this has lead to things like it being legal to own slaves, or your
wife, which is why it’s not really ethicali)
- In journalistic terms, it’s all about the story: it doesn’t matter how you get it, as long as you do. Basically, News of the World thinking
- People think this is what democracy is about, but it’s not. This is about majorities, not democracy (democracies try to be ethical, which my slave example shows teleology to not [always] be)
 |
| Saxton Hale should be everyone's moral guide |
- Virtue ethics is about intrinsic values
- Virtue ethics believes that an ethical person is a person who has good character: ‘goodness’ (aka happiness) comes from good habits or dispositions of character
- These habits are ‘virtues’ such as courage, justice, temperance or prudence
- These habits of character are the ‘golden mean’ of behaviour
- Virtue ethics comes from the Greek philosopher Aristotle, and was repeated by people such as Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther (the reformist, not King), and then more recently in the 1900’s when it was revived by ‘neo-Aristotelians’ (HIPPIES)
Ethics (especially virtue ethics) is
about finding the Mean
- Courage is the mean between Cowardice and Rashness
- Justice is the mean between the In-justice of overzealous and excessive law and the Injustice of lawlessness
Every ‘code of conduct’ or ‘code of
ethics’ is deontological ethics, because that’s the way things are done in
journalism practice and professional communication (they’re all governed by
codes, rather than relying on the good character of the journalists).
Which ethical paradigm do you think is
most successful/the best?
Personally, while I would like to rely
solely on virtue ethics, I think deontology is the best chance we have for an
ethical society, but I’m more than happy to discuss this.
No comments:
Post a Comment