Before I began the class, I was both excited and nervous about the contents we would explore. I was excited because I had heard great reviews of the class and looked forward to deciding what to do in the train dilemma. I was also a bit hesitant, because, though I feel like I am an ethical person, I hoped I did not find out I was incorrect in my assumptions. The first thing I learned was that I possessed an incorrect view of ethics. I believed that ethics involved doing the right thing and that everyone should live by a resembling ethical code. But as LaFollette (2007) stated, ethics is not the same for every individual and it would be foolish to believe that everyone should live by the same moral and ethical code. Just as people differ, the ethics they should live by also differs. Though I learned many different ideas over the last nine weeks, I will discuss three key lessons that I will take away from the course.
The first key concept came very early in the class in our review of consequentialism and deontology. As I mentioned, I was incorrect in my idea of ethics and was unaware that two ethical points of view existed. LaFollette (2007) stated that deontologists live by a specific set of ethical rules and do not deviate based on the circumstance. Consequentialists base their ethical actions on the consequences created by their actions. As I learned more about the two views of ethics, I realized that I tended to waffle in my ethical view. I began to think that I resemble a person at the buffet going back and forth between the two views based on my need. I once held the deontologist’s belief that it was unethical to lie no matter the circumstance. But, if my mom asks me if I like the shirt she bought me for Christmas then the answer is 'absolutely'! It does not matter how I really feel about the shirt. At that point, the consequentialist in me wins because I would never intentionally want to hurt her feelings. It would be unethical for me to deliberately hurt her feelings.
The second key concept I learned in this class was that I had a jaded view of egoism. I believed egoism was a bad thing and should be avoided. According to Dictionary.com (n.d.) egoism is “the habit of valuing everything in reference to one’s personal interest; selfishness” (n.p.). Nobody likes a person who only thinks about themselves. I pictured the guy at a dinner party only talking about himself or how great his kids were. Everything had to revolve around him. But, LaFollette (2007) changed my view of egoism. LaFollette (2007) argued that everything we do is based around self-interests. My first reaction to reading his thoughts was that he was wrong. There are many things I do not particularly want to do. As a non-drinker, did I really want to always be the designated driver with the tasks of making sure everyone got home safe when I was younger? The answer is a resounding no! But, there was a bit of egoism to my actions. I would not have been able to live with the consequences of someone making a fatal mistake. I realize that all of my actions do center on egoism and must make sure I remain moral and ethical throughout my egotistical behavior.
The final key concept I learned in this class was relativism. Probably the most eye-opening idea in the course was normative ethical relativism. According to Pecorino (2000), normative ethical relativism states “Each culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality” (para. 6). Over the last couple of years, I have begun to see myself as a pretty open-minded person. I believe in equal rights and treatment for all individuals, but I still had actions that I thought were immoral and unethical no matter the circumstance. One of the ideas I did not believe in was murder unless it was to save a life. I am sure the majority of the United States would share my opinion. Our culture labels murder as an unethical and illegal action. According to Pecorino (2000), not all cultures share our belief. Countries such as Somalia and Sudan believe in honor killings in which a woman who has been raped is killed and China believes in killing female children (Pecorino, 2000). At first, these two scenarios were appalling to me. How can anyone believe that murder is ethically okay? But then I thought about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes and realized that cultural ethical differences do exist and should be accepted. My supervisor is from the Lebanon and believes it is unethical to eat beef, but it is perfectly okay in America. What is considered ethical in one culture or by one individual is may not be considered ethical by another individual and that is okay.
The biggest lesson I have taken from this class is that ethics can change from situation to situation. A person that is acting morally should try to do what is best for others and society in each given scenario. It may be demanding, but we should attempt to continue to look out for one another.
References
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Pecorino, P.A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment