'Is our behavior is ethical Essay\r'

'As gener bothy enjoyn in that location ar great difficulties concerning this top dog. The problem re wholey lies in delimitate the term morals. Once this has been defined (assuming it is possible) dissolveing the question above is rather simple. One only has to shoot whether a behavior is in accordance with that exposition or non. Hence in this essay I focus on defining ethics, as farther as possible.\r\nSocrates was the unrivaled, who commencement introduced the concept of ethical philosophical system by claiming that his slave boy, whom he had discovered very was able to destine on his own, should since he was gentle existence be treated in a hu earthist way. Many philosophers have since the ancient Greek elegance given their indispensable views on the question of what ethics is. To get a better grip on this question I think adept should first look at the totals. One philosopher in this mob is Nietzsche. He claimed that ethics atomic number 18 laws create d by the worn to protect the weak and that these laws are hindering the sacrosanct and creative from reaching his/her full potential.\r\nThis might legal cruel; nevertheless I think he does have a point. In nature all the weak genes are extinguished due to indwelling selection, while the moral laws, which man created, provide fulfill these defective genes and eventually make us weaker, mayhap resulting in our extinction. Ethics is in any case a study problem when it comes to scientific progress. It is not allowed to do experiments, which is in any way painful, to homosexual beings. This indeed has not been devout seen from a scientific point of view. curiously in the field of psychology, where humans are the subjects examined, does the ethical rules make it difficult to carry out big experiments. Nietzsche meant that discarding nigh moral laws and acting more instinctively would be good for mankind in the star that this would give more space for irrational thinking.\ r\nOn the different extreme we have those who claim that there are ethical principles, which one should discover no matter the circumstances. Christianity is one such â€Å"philosophy”. The watchword was meant to be a complete ethical paper with laws or principals applicable to any note 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.\r\nUtilitarianism is a third extreme view proposing that the ethical correctness in a behavior should be measured in its consequences, i.e. an sue is good if it increases the sum of delight in the world. thither are problem with this perspective, however. Applying this claim as our prefatorial rule of thumb the next question would be; how do we know what amount of happiness is ca implementd by a accepted behavior, and how can we measure it? Since we do not even have a good definition of happiness (it is a very sub jective term) this come outingly simple rule turns out to be rather complicated and evasive.\r\nThese three perspectives all seem reasonable when first explained, though serious flaws constitute in each perspective. What would the world look want if leaders, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, would act in accordance with their animal instincts?\r\nChristian rules also do care imperfect when put into an extreme situation. Imagine yourself rest in a street corner; dead a terrified person runs by, two seconds after another out of your mind looking man with a knife raised over his level comes and asks you if you saw in which direction the first man went. Should you tell him the truth? If you are a dependable Christian you should, since lying is wrong according to the Ten Commandments.\r\nThe utilitarian perspective seems good since happiness will increase. However, wouldn’t this ethically otherwise horrible execution such as World War 2? It has after all had many positive effectuate such as the creation of the United Nations i.e. the want tern effect has increased happiness on the earth. A world ruled according to this principle would also mean an end to all item-by-item pays. If cleanup spot someone would make people happy so it would be justified to execute that individual.\r\nAnders Rasmussen, D1099019\r\nMy conclusion so far is that it is wrong to make ethical laws or principals; there will everlastingly 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 most likely lead to misinterpretations and a more merciless society. Ethics is after all one of the thrill things that makes us human. This though is not to say that we should endure in total anarchy, people that obviously do harm to mankind should be punished. I intend in rules as long as they go in’t take away the individual responsibility.\r\naccept that ethics is something each individual has to take into term in each situation the next contract would be what prickings are we in possession of when deciding the ethical correctness in a certain behavior, and more importantly, what tools should we use?\r\nJohn Stuart Mill, a famed utilitarian, claimed that it is through reason, and reason only, that one should decide what to do. victimisation logical reasoning one should derive as many consequences as possible and measure the happiness they bring and upon these grounds we should decide what to do. Reason I think is very important when it comes to decisions. It is much more objective than the intuition, which is our second tool. To say that we should only use reason, however is to underestimate our original moral sense. normally when making a decision we have an intragroup 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 decently (looking at visible the consequences).\r\nFreud’s nature theory illustrates 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 latter our intuition. The Id is the animal-like, innate, egoistic instincts seeking gratification 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 assortment of these two quite opposing forces I would as John Stuart Mill not trust it, scarce I think that most people are able to separate these two forces from each other and tell, which will is coming from the Id and, which is coming from the superego. It could be seen as a struggle within between the two and the angel, where we are the ones who have to decide who we should listen to.\r\nAs long as we do not let the Id (our innate needs) get the upper hand, but instead listens to our superego, the intui tion is a very useful tool when fetching hard decisions. There are some problems though about the superego. If our values are inflicted upon us by the enculturation in which we have braggy 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 overhaul 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 go down argument, that we should use our more objective tool… the reasoning.\r\n finding:\r\nFirst of all we should not create a strict ethical constitution telling us the exact answer to the question â€Å"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 a vailable tools and act the way he or she finds most appropriate in the particular situation i.e. â€Å"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 thence ask ourselves this question as often as possible. This is not a â€Å"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. Truly believing that you are acting ethically is as ethical one can ever get, as a human being.\r\nReferences:\r\nRichard.D.Gross (1996): Psychology †The science of mind and behavior, third var., Hodder & angstrom; Stoughton\r\nBryan Magee (1998): Story of philosophy, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London\r\nMastering philosophy, second edition (2001), Anthony Harrison-Barbet\r\n'