Is our behavior is ethical Essay

As gener solelyy existn there ar enceinte difficulties concerning this enquiry. The problem re each(prenominal)y lies in defining the term exampleity. Once this has been defined (assuming it is possible) resolving powering the question above is rather simple. One only has to take up whether a sort is in accordance with that definition or non. thence in this essay I focus on defining ethics, as far as possible.Socrates was the iodin, who first introduced the concept of ethical philosophy by calling that his slave boy, whom he had discovered actually was able to think on his own, should since he was hu gentlemans gentleman be treated in a humanistic centering. M whatever philosophers lay down since the ancient Greek civilization attached their indwelling views on the question of what ethics is. To get a better ground do on this question I think one should first pay heed at the extremums. One philosopher in this category is Nietzsche. He claimed that ethics atom ic number 18 laws created by the weak to protect the weak and that these laws are hindering the wet and creative from reaching his/her full potential.This might sound cruel except I think he does have a channelise. In genius all the weak genes are extinguished due to natural selection, maculation the moral laws, which man created, result save these defective genes and eventually go for us weaker, perhaps resulting in our extinction. Ethics is to a fault a study problem when it comes to scientific progress. It is not allowed to do experiments, which is in any way painful, to human beings. This indeed has not been bang-up seen from a scientific point of view. Especially in the field of psychology, where humans are the subjects examined, does the ethical rules make it difficult to carry out important experiments. Nietzsche recallt that discarding some moral laws and playacting more instinctively would be good for man in the champion that this would give more space for irr ational thinking.On the other extreme we have those who claim that there are ethical principles, which one should look out no matter the circumstances. Christianity is one such philosophy. The Bible was meant to be a complete ethical temperament with laws or principals applicable to any particular one might come across. These laws and principals are summed up in the Ten Commandments, which are according to the Christians rules everyone must follow in all situations.Utilitarianism is a third extreme view proposing that the ethical correctness in a behavior should be measured in its consequences, i.e. an action is good if it increases the sum of happiness in the world. There are problem with this perspective, however. Applying this claim as our basic rule of thumb the next question would be how do we know what amount of happiness is ca purposed by a genuine behavior, and how can we measure it? Since we do not even have a good definition of happiness (it is a very subjective term) this apparently simple rule turns out to be rather complicated and evasive.These one-third perspectives all seem reasonable when first explained, though serious flaws hold up in each perspective. What would the world look like if leaders, in monomania of weapons of mass destruction, would act in accordance with their animal instincts?Christian rules also appear imperfect when put into an extreme situation. Imagine yourself standing in a street corner suddenly a terrified person runs by, devil seconds later another out of your mind looking man with a knife raised over his head comes and asks you if you saw in which direction the first man went. Should you tell him the truth? If you are a true Christian you should, since lying is wrong according to the Ten Commandments.The exerciseful perspective seems good since happiness exit increase. However, wouldnt this ethically other horrible action such as World War 2? It has after all had legion(predicate) positive effects such as the creation of the United Nations i.e. the presbyopic tern effect has increased happiness on the earth. A world ruled according to this principle would also mean an end to all individual rights. If killing someone would make populate happy then it would be justified to execute that individual.Anders Rasmussen, D1099019My conclusion so far is that it is wrong to make ethical laws or principals there willing always be situations such as the ones exemplified above where it is not appropriate. I think that ethics is subjective and should remain so, since creating laws will or so potential lead to misinterpretations and a more inhuman society. Ethics is after all one of the prime things that makes us human. This though is not to say that we should perish in total anarchy, people that obviously do harm to mankind should be punished. I believe in rules as long as they dont take external the individual responsibility.Accepting that ethics is something each individual has to take int o consideration in each situation the next issue would be what shafts are we in possession of when decision making the ethical correctness in a certain behavior, and more importantly, what tools should we use?John Stuart Mill, a famous utilitarian, claimed that it is through reason, and reason only, that one should conciliate what to do. Using logical reasoning one should derive as many consequences as possible and measure the happiness they bring and upon these grounds we should regulate what to do. Reason I think is very important when it comes to decisions. It is much more objective than the lore, which is our second tool. To say that we should only use reason, however is to devaluate our intuitive moral sense. Usually when making a decision we have an inner voice that tells us what is good and what is bad. Totally discarding this intuitive feeling, as Mill proposes, is to deny that it is often right (looking at visible the consequences).Freuds constitution theory illustra tes our intuition very well. He said that our personality is made up by the ego, the superego and the Id, the ego representing the reasoning and the two last mentioned our intuition. The Id is the animal-like, innate, egoistic instincts seeking satisfaction by uttering sex and aggression energies. The superego is our moral values, which has been inflicted upon us by our surroundings. If the intuition was just a mixture of these two quite opposing forces I would as John Stuart Mill not trust it, but I think that most people are able to separate these two forces from each other and tell, which will is sexual climax from the Id and, which is coming from the superego. It could be seen as a struggle within surrounded by the devil and the angel, where we are the ones who have to decide who we should listen to.As long as we do not let the Id (our innate needs) get the stop number hand, but instead listens to our superego, the intuition is a very useful tool when taking hard decisions. There are some problems though astir(predicate) the superego. If our values are inflicted upon us by the culture in which we have grown up (a Christian would probably say that they are given to us from God) and thus differs from one culture to another (we can by looking at the world tell that this is the case) clashes might proceed when different societies meet. Since different subjective meanings about what is right and what is wrong will be shared by one society. It is in such situations, when the intuition fails to settle argument, that we should use our more objective tool the reasoning.Conclusion first of all we should not create a strict ethical constitution telling us the exact answer to the question How do we know if at all that our behavior is ethical? We should not let the moral philosopher become an engineer. Instead it is the individual that should, in each unique situation, use all available tools and act the way he or she finds most appropriate in the particular situ ation i.e. how do we know, if at all, that our behavior is ethical is a question which will have different answer in different situation and we must therefore ask ourselves this question as often as possible. This is not a perfect system, and it will always create conflicts among us. Still I think taking away all moral responsibility is to take away what makes us human. sincerely yours believing that you are acting ethically is as ethical one can ever get, as a human being.ReferencesRichard.D.Gross (1996) Psychology The acquirement of mind and behavior, third edition, Hodder & StoughtonBryan Magee (1998) Story of philosophy, Dorling Kindersley Limited, LondonMastering philosophy, second edition (2001), Anthony Harrison-Barbet