Concepts in Ethics (Essay Sample)

Ethics: Fundamental Concepts and Principles
Institutional Affiliation
Student’s Name
Ethics: Fundamental Concepts and Principles
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is primarily concerned with the values humans espouse in their conduct. Different societies have a unique set of value system though there are those values that run across all societies. While nonprofessionals are preoccupied with judging others based on shared ethical values, philosophers are preoccupied with three main things as Cabrera (2010) extrapolates. The first is the characteristics of the judgment made, second is developing a method of establishing what is right or wrong, and the third is to provide rationale or justification for adjudging the judgment as correct or otherwise. Hence, philosophers can be moralists because in this case, their interest is to tell us what is right or wrong, or who is either bad or good. However, Mizzonia (2010) argues while philosophers do not have to be necessarily moralists, they must a theoretical framework that extrapolates the basic nature of good or bad. In this pursuit, philosophers have identified a set of ethical principles and concepts as will be discussed in this paper.
Fundamentally, there are four major ethical principles (Spinoza & Elwes, 2008). The Principle of Respect for autonomy takes cognizance of the fact that human beings deserve a certain irreducible minimum of dignity. In essence, adult human deserve space to make decisions. The Principle of Beneficence stipulates that it is a duty of all to be good, and to exude such in all their actions. We should therefore intend no harm in our actions and interactions with others. The Principle of Nonmaleficence strengthens the Principle of Beneficence but also assert that if it is entirely unavoidable to inflict harm to others, we should act in such a manner as to derogate the impact of the harm. The Principle of Justice demands fairness to all. We should not take from others what is theirs without their consent. All human beings have a duty to object to injustice.
Ethical theories are concerned with the actor and his or her actions. If people (or things) engage in negative or positive actions, they are either “bad” or “good”. Either the actions emanating from people (or things) can be negative or positive in which case it will be distinguished as “right” or “wrong”. Ipso facto, a good person is he/she that does right things. The converse is also true. The origin of an action, either good or bad, is termed as an agent. The outcome of such actions whether it is positive or negative is consequence. Ethical theories therefore set to do several things. If a theory describes what people do, in which case it will be guided by society’s value system, then falls within the category of descriptive ethical theories. If a theory adjudges a judgment based on the value system, as they ought to be (not what they are) then it is normative ethical theory (Spinoza & Elwes, 2008).
Philosophers categorize ethical theories into two: consequentialism and deontological (Spinoza & Elwes, 2008). Consequentialism is concerned with the consequences or outcomes that accrue out of an action. If the outcomes are good, then the means are goods. In other words, the end justifies a means. Deontology on the other hand posits that the outcomes must be as pure as the means used. In other words, if the means are wrong, the outcomes are irredeemably wrong irrespective of whether they will gratifier the actor or not. The distinction between the two theories is understood using an example of a thief. Virtually alls societies condemn stealing. Deontologist condemnation is out of the fact that stealing is morally wrong as stipulated by holy books and human law. A consequentialist will take a different perspective. He/she will condemn not the actual act of stealing but the harm that inflicted in the process. Deontological ethical theory has several grave misgivings, but it remains the more plausible and easily applicable of the two (Spinoza & Elwes, 2008). Several examples presented below elaborate the theory and its applicability.
The bible and other holy books expressly condemn lying. One shall not tell a lie no matter the circumstance. A deontologist would judge morality based on this biblical precept. Is it practicable to tell the truth in all situations? The bible is replete with people who suffered great repercussions for lying, but there is a large number of people who lied to avoid death or other punishment. The Ten Commandments forbid lying, a position taken by Jesus in the New Testament. However, the most conspicuous story is that of Abraham who instructed his wife to lie that she is his sister to escape death. If Abraham were a deontologist, his life would have perished. It should not be lost that Abraham is one of the most decorated characters in the bible. This does not justify lying but of course it lends credence to the argument that a little lie that can save life is better than a truth that can bring about death.
To bring this argument to real life, picture the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime during the holocaust. Six million Jews were killed and many more injured in concentration camps. Imagine a Jewish family escaping from Nazi apparatchiks and it seeks cover in your house. The Nazi solders come to your house and ask whether the family has taken cover in your house. You have a choice of saying yes and risk death to the family or say no and save lives. If you say yes, you will facilitate a far more heinous crime than lying. Such moral imperative cannot be justified by a deontologist. If you decide to follow the words of the bible, many lives will be lost on your account. Such is a scenario where one has to say that the end justifies the means. You must first weigh the consequences that will emanate from your action if you decide to be truthful.
Another argument for consequentialism stems from the truism that there is no point on time that there will be maximum happiness in the world. One’s duty is therefore to reduce misery as much as possible. Following the value system as stipulated by others is enslaving to a certain level. For instance, abortion is forbidden in many societies. Conforming to such ethics becomes impossible and impracticable in some cases. If an underage is impregnated through incest, will it still be justifiable to keep the pregnancy because abortion is not allowed? Will it still be in the good interest of the mother if the pregnancy came about because of rape? Deontologists would argue that abortion is immoral and hence not permissible, even when reality stipulates that it be in the best interest to perform an abortion. Rather, it is more important to weigh the outcomes of bringing forth an undesired child into the world.
Consequentialism has been employed in court cases over the years. Before judges give out their verdict, they have to investigate the circumstances surrounding an action. This is the reason while a crime like murder can be minimized to manslaughter, or lower crime. Imagine a situation where robbers have broken into a woman’s house. They kill the husband in cold blood and proceed to rape the wife and daughter. In the course of raping the wife, one robber lets loose the gun; the daughter grabs it, and shoots dead all the robbers. Are we to judge the daughter immoral for committing a cardinal sin of killing under such circumstances? This is a simple case of a means justifying the end. The robbers had ill intention as manifested by killing the father and raping the mother. There is evidence that they would have raped the daug...